Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[OohPooPahDoo]

This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.

Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?

Depends on if they are open to the public for marriages or not. If only members are allowed to marry - then they are fine. If they make the church available to the public for weddings, for profit or not for profit, they should not be allowed to discriminate.

Its just like anything else. If you have a private bar that you aren't holding out as open to the public - no unlocked door that says "open" for instance - you can discriminate all you want. As soon as you open your doors to the business of the general public, you are required to serve the general public.

 

[dblack]

No church or anyone else should be allowed to discriminate against anyone over the color of their skin.

That's outside the scope of the law. As PA laws don't have a thing to do with churches, exempting them explicitly and specifically.

No church is required to admit anyone. Debunking the very topic of the thread. Like 6 months ago.

How do you "debunk" a question? The topic of the thread is whether or not churches should be exempt. I see no reason they should be exempt from any laws. I think doing do is actually a perversion of the First Amendment.

Do we really need to do the libertarian 2 step again? Or can we just cut through all the pretenses and get right to the part where you think that the government shouldn't try to prevent any kind of discrimination and all PA laws should be eliminated?

I've been very clear about that. No "cutting through" required. But that's not the topic of the thread. The issue is whether churches should be exempt from the law.

You've very clear about it....20 posts in. I prefer to get the dithering out of the way early. Just give us your libertarian schpiel about PA laws and be done with it. We don't need the pretense about how churches 'shoudn't be exempted'. As you don't think the law should exist.

That's the bullshit I'm cutting through.

Well, alrighty then.

Regarding the topic, I don't think the First should be taken as a special privilege for followers of state approved religions. It should serve as the opposite: a protection that prohibits the state from targeting religions for special treatment, positive or negative.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.

Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?

Depends on if they are open to the public for marriages or not. If only members are allowed to marry - then they are fine. If they make the church available to the public for weddings, for profit or not for profit, they should not be allowed to discriminate.

Its just like anything else. If you have a private bar that you aren't holding out as open to the public - no unlocked door that says "open" for instance - you can discriminate all you want. As soon as you open your doors to the business of the general public, you are required to serve the general public.

Noted, but that's not how it works.

 

[Skylar]

That's outside the scope of the law. As PA laws don't have a thing to do with churches, exempting them explicitly and specifically.

No church is required to admit anyone. Debunking the very topic of the thread. Like 6 months ago.

How do you "debunk" a question? The topic of the thread is whether or not churches should be exempt. I see no reason they should be exempt from any laws. I think doing do is actually a perversion of the First Amendment.

Do we really need to do the libertarian 2 step again? Or can we just cut through all the pretenses and get right to the part where you think that the government shouldn't try to prevent any kind of discrimination and all PA laws should be eliminated?

I've been very clear about that. No "cutting through" required. But that's not the topic of the thread. The issue is whether churches should be exempt from the law.

You've very clear about it....20 posts in. I prefer to get the dithering out of the way early. Just give us your libertarian schpiel about PA laws and be done with it. We don't need the pretense about how churches 'shoudn't be exempted'. As you don't think the law should exist.

That's the bullshit I'm cutting through.

Well, alrighty then.

Regarding the topic, I don't think the First should be taken as special privilege for followers of state approved religions. It should serve as the opposite: a protection that prohibits the state from targeting religions for special treatment, positive our negative.

And PA laws....do you think they should exist? We're already counting down those 20 posts.

 

[dblack]

How do you "debunk" a question? The topic of the thread is whether or not churches should be exempt. I see no reason they should be exempt from any laws. I think doing do is actually a perversion of the First Amendment.

Do we really need to do the libertarian 2 step again? Or can we just cut through all the pretenses and get right to the part where you think that the government shouldn't try to prevent any kind of discrimination and all PA laws should be eliminated?

I've been very clear about that. No "cutting through" required. But that's not the topic of the thread. The issue is whether churches should be exempt from the law.

You've very clear about it....20 posts in. I prefer to get the dithering out of the way early. Just give us your libertarian schpiel about PA laws and be done with it. We don't need the pretense about how churches 'shoudn't be exempted'. As you don't think the law should exist.

That's the bullshit I'm cutting through.

Well, alrighty then.

Regarding the topic, I don't think the First should be taken as special privilege for followers of state approved religions. It should serve as the opposite: a protection that prohibits the state from targeting religions for special treatment, positive our negative.

And PA laws....do you think they should exist? We're already counting down those 20 posts.

As I've said previously, no. But again, that's not the topic of the thread. I don't think churches should be exempted from any laws. Whether I agree with the law is irrelevant.

 

[Skylar]

Do we really need to do the libertarian 2 step again? Or can we just cut through all the pretenses and get right to the part where you think that the government shouldn't try to prevent any kind of discrimination and all PA laws should be eliminated?

I've been very clear about that. No "cutting through" required. But that's not the topic of the thread. The issue is whether churches should be exempt from the law.

You've very clear about it....20 posts in. I prefer to get the dithering out of the way early. Just give us your libertarian schpiel about PA laws and be done with it. We don't need the pretense about how churches 'shoudn't be exempted'. As you don't think the law should exist.

That's the bullshit I'm cutting through.

Well, alrighty then.

Regarding the topic, I don't think the First should be taken as special privilege for followers of state approved religions. It should serve as the opposite: a protection that prohibits the state from targeting religions for special treatment, positive our negative.

And PA laws....do you think they should exist? We're already counting down those 20 posts.

As I've said previously, no. But again, that's not the topic of the thread. I don't think churches should be exempted from any laws. Whether I agree with the law is irrelevant.

So you believe that churches should be subject to laws that you don't think should exist?

 

[dblack]

I've been very clear about that. No "cutting through" required. But that's not the topic of the thread. The issue is whether churches should be exempt from the law.

You've very clear about it....20 posts in. I prefer to get the dithering out of the way early. Just give us your libertarian schpiel about PA laws and be done with it. We don't need the pretense about how churches 'shoudn't be exempted'. As you don't think the law should exist.

That's the bullshit I'm cutting through.

Well, alrighty then.

Regarding the topic, I don't think the First should be taken as special privilege for followers of state approved religions. It should serve as the opposite: a protection that prohibits the state from targeting religions for special treatment, positive our negative.

And PA laws....do you think they should exist? We're already counting down those 20 posts.

As I've said previously, no. But again, that's not the topic of the thread. I don't think churches should be exempted from any laws. Whether I agree with the law is irrelevant.

So you believe that churches should be subject to laws that you don't think should exist?

Exactly. Yes. Equal protection of the law is fundamental to just government, and far more important than any solitary law.

 

[Skylar]

You've very clear about it....20 posts in. I prefer to get the dithering out of the way early. Just give us your libertarian schpiel about PA laws and be done with it. We don't need the pretense about how churches 'shoudn't be exempted'. As you don't think the law should exist.

That's the bullshit I'm cutting through.

Well, alrighty then.

Regarding the topic, I don't think the First should be taken as special privilege for followers of state approved religions. It should serve as the opposite: a protection that prohibits the state from targeting religions for special treatment, positive our negative.

And PA laws....do you think they should exist? We're already counting down those 20 posts.

As I've said previously, no. But again, that's not the topic of the thread. I don't think churches should be exempted from any laws. Whether I agree with the law is irrelevant.

So you believe that churches should be subject to laws that you don't think should exist?

Exactly. Yes. Equal protection of the law is fundamental to just government, and far more important than any solitary law.

PA laws apply to public business. Churches aren't public business. Nixing any 'equal protection' issues.

 

[dblack]

Well, alrighty then.

Regarding the topic, I don't think the First should be taken as special privilege for followers of state approved religions. It should serve as the opposite: a protection that prohibits the state from targeting religions for special treatment, positive our negative.

And PA laws....do you think they should exist? We're already counting down those 20 posts.

As I've said previously, no. But again, that's not the topic of the thread. I don't think churches should be exempted from any laws. Whether I agree with the law is irrelevant.

So you believe that churches should be subject to laws that you don't think should exist?

Exactly. Yes. Equal protection of the law is fundamental to just government, and far more important than any solitary law.

PA laws apply to public business. Churches aren't public business. Nixing any 'equal protection' issues.

Other than what I consider a misapplication of the First Amendment, I don't see how they aren't treated the same as other businesses. They provide public accommodations in a similar manner and make money by providing a service.

 

[Skylar]

And PA laws....do you think they should exist? We're already counting down those 20 posts.

As I've said previously, no. But again, that's not the topic of the thread. I don't think churches should be exempted from any laws. Whether I agree with the law is irrelevant.

So you believe that churches should be subject to laws that you don't think should exist?

Exactly. Yes. Equal protection of the law is fundamental to just government, and far more important than any solitary law.

PA laws apply to public business. Churches aren't public business. Nixing any 'equal protection' issues.

Other than what I consider a misapplication of the First Amendment, I don't see how they aren't treated the same as other businesses. They provide public accommodations in a similar manner and make money by providing a service.

Because they aren't public businesses.

Sigh....we've done this before, Dblack. Where you think that all discrimination laws should be disbanded because they prioritize one form of discrimination while not prioritizing the other. Thus, you argue that everyone should be unable to discriminate against anyone for any reason......or that all discrimination laws should be eliminated entirely, and anyone can discriminate against anyone.

Do we just skip the back and forth on what constitutes a business, and why you think churches should be included.....and instead get to the fucking point.

You are the avatar of bullshit proxy issues. And I'd appreciate just skipping the bullshit.

 

[dblack]

As I've said previously, no. But again, that's not the topic of the thread. I don't think churches should be exempted from any laws. Whether I agree with the law is irrelevant.

So you believe that churches should be subject to laws that you don't think should exist?

Exactly. Yes. Equal protection of the law is fundamental to just government, and far more important than any solitary law.

PA laws apply to public business. Churches aren't public business. Nixing any 'equal protection' issues.

Other than what I consider a misapplication of the First Amendment, I don't see how they aren't treated the same as other businesses. They provide public accommodations in a similar manner and make money by providing a service.

Because they aren't public businesses.

Sigh....we've done this before, Dblack. Where you think that all discrimination laws should be disbanded because they prioritize one form of discrimination while not prioritizing the other. Thus, you argue that everyone should be unable to discriminate against anyone for any reason......or that all discrimination laws should be eliminated entirely, and anyone can discriminate against anyone.

Do we just skip the back and forth on what constitutes a business, and why you think churches should be included.....and instead get to the fucking point.

You are the avatar of bullshit proxy issues. And I'd appreciate just skipping the bullshit.

The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.

If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?

 

[JakeStarkey]

So you believe that churches should be subject to laws that you don't think should exist?

Exactly. Yes. Equal protection of the law is fundamental to just government, and far more important than any solitary law.

PA laws apply to public business. Churches aren't public business. Nixing any 'equal protection' issues.

Other than what I consider a misapplication of the First Amendment, I don't see how they aren't treated the same as other businesses. They provide public accommodations in a similar manner and make money by providing a service.

Because they aren't public businesses.

Sigh....we've done this before, Dblack. Where you think that all discrimination laws should be disbanded because they prioritize one form of discrimination while not prioritizing the other. Thus, you argue that everyone should be unable to discriminate against anyone for any reason......or that all discrimination laws should be eliminated entirely, and anyone can discriminate against anyone.

Do we just skip the back and forth on what constitutes a business, and why you think churches should be included.....and instead get to the fucking point.

You are the avatar of bullshit proxy issues. And I'd appreciate just skipping the bullshit.

The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.

If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?

Each poster has the right to tell another poster, within the rules of that forum, just how much nonsense is the other poster's comments.

You are a libertarian. Your opinion is yours, not incumbent on anyone else, and many of us think you are flat wrong about PA and churches exemptions. You get irky when told that. I doubt the reaction is going to change. Tough, dblack.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So you believe that churches should be subject to laws that you don't think should exist?

Exactly. Yes. Equal protection of the law is fundamental to just government, and far more important than any solitary law.

PA laws apply to public business. Churches aren't public business. Nixing any 'equal protection' issues.

Other than what I consider a misapplication of the First Amendment, I don't see how they aren't treated the same as other businesses. They provide public accommodations in a similar manner and make money by providing a service.

Because they aren't public businesses.

Sigh....we've done this before, Dblack. Where you think that all discrimination laws should be disbanded because they prioritize one form of discrimination while not prioritizing the other. Thus, you argue that everyone should be unable to discriminate against anyone for any reason......or that all discrimination laws should be eliminated entirely, and anyone can discriminate against anyone.

Do we just skip the back and forth on what constitutes a business, and why you think churches should be included.....and instead get to the fucking point.

You are the avatar of bullshit proxy issues. And I'd appreciate just skipping the bullshit.

The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.

If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?

​

 

[Skylar]

So you believe that churches should be subject to laws that you don't think should exist?

Exactly. Yes. Equal protection of the law is fundamental to just government, and far more important than any solitary law.

PA laws apply to public business. Churches aren't public business. Nixing any 'equal protection' issues.

Other than what I consider a misapplication of the First Amendment, I don't see how they aren't treated the same as other businesses. They provide public accommodations in a similar manner and make money by providing a service.

Because they aren't public businesses.

Sigh....we've done this before, Dblack. Where you think that all discrimination laws should be disbanded because they prioritize one form of discrimination while not prioritizing the other. Thus, you argue that everyone should be unable to discriminate against anyone for any reason......or that all discrimination laws should be eliminated entirely, and anyone can discriminate against anyone.

Do we just skip the back and forth on what constitutes a business, and why you think churches should be included.....and instead get to the fucking point.

You are the avatar of bullshit proxy issues. And I'd appreciate just skipping the bullshit.

The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.

That only took 18 posts. We're improving.

If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?

You're confused. Its not your position I think is bullshit. I disagree with you on your perspective on discrimination. But your position is principled and thought through. In comparison to most of the nonsense posted here, I actually kind of admire that.

Its the proxy issues one has to wade through for you to get to the fucking point that I think is bullshit. Where instead of simply making your argument on discrimination, one has to meander pointlessly through whatever proxy you're using as a screen for your argument.

In this case, religion as a 'business'. How many posts would have been wasted in debating that proxy issue before we *finally* got to your point about how you don't believe laws should regulate any form of discrimination? That's what I get sick of; wasting my time with pointless proxies just to get to the same destination you *always* end up at.

That you're libertarian. And you're pimping libertarian values.

 

[Silhouette]

The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.

If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?

In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that. We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all, yet) deviant behaviors as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point the LGBT blogger to the fact that they're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice (the courts myopia) to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution. If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...

We've seen how far into the elementary schools they've shoved their sexualized agenda. Folks, on the deviant scale of "anything goes"...they are just getting warmed up...

This is why in this case more than most, the US Supreme Court needs to remove its blindfold and take a look at the Big Picture over the long term and come to grips with what's really going on with the "we just want equal rights to marraige" proposed-redaction to the thousand's year old word.. Regulation of behaviors has always been at local levels in the penal, civil and family codes of each state, enacted and maintained by the push and pull of progressive vs conservative values. Progressives are like the unbrindled think-tank of "what if we try this?". Conservatives are the brakes on that system. You take the brakes off a vehicle like this rainbow-progressivism, for example, and you might as well hang it up. Majority rule preserves both the new ideas and the brakes on those new ideas. What LGBTs are asking the Court to do is nothing less than removing the braking system for that vehicle . These questions belong to the states' majorities. And that is where they must remain or we will have no democracy.

 

[kaz]

How do you "debunk" a question? The topic of the thread is whether or not churches should be exempt. I see no reason they should be exempt from any laws. I think doing do is actually a perversion of the First Amendment.

If you are aware of the 1st Amendment and the jurisprudence of it that answers this question, then you are being obstructionist. If not, you are being ignorant and need to do some study before returning to this thread. Your opinion means nothing. St. Keys the Relativist is having the same problem. No church has ever been forced to accommodate for a marriage it did not want, and nothing is on the horizon to change that.

Nah, he's just a libertarian. Trying to use this issue as a vehicle for elminating any law that his libertarian values find inconsistent with the constitution. Including all PA laws.

You just have to push him a little before he'll get to the fucking point.

Exactly. Yes. Equal protection of the law is fundamental to just government, and far more important than any solitary law.

PA laws apply to public business. Churches aren't public business. Nixing any 'equal protection' issues.

Other than what I consider a misapplication of the First Amendment, I don't see how they aren't treated the same as other businesses. They provide public accommodations in a similar manner and make money by providing a service.

Because they aren't public businesses.

Sigh....we've done this before, Dblack. Where you think that all discrimination laws should be disbanded because they prioritize one form of discrimination while not prioritizing the other. Thus, you argue that everyone should be unable to discriminate against anyone for any reason......or that all discrimination laws should be eliminated entirely, and anyone can discriminate against anyone.

Do we just skip the back and forth on what constitutes a business, and why you think churches should be included.....and instead get to the fucking point.

You are the avatar of bullshit proxy issues. And I'd appreciate just skipping the bullshit.

The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.

That only took 18 posts. We're improving.

If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?

You're confused. Its not your position I think is bullshit. I disagree with you on your perspective on discrimination. But your position is principled and thought through. In comparison to most of the nonsense posted here, I actually kind of admire that.

Its the proxy issues one has to wade through for you to get to the fucking point that I think is bullshit. Where instead of simply making your argument on discrimination, one has to meander pointlessly through whatever proxy you're using as a screen for your argument.

In this case, religion as a 'business'. How many posts would have been wasted in debating that proxy issue before we *finally* got to your point about how you don't believe laws should regulate any form of discrimination? That's what I get sick of; wasting my time with pointless proxies just to get to the same destination you *always* end up at.

That you're libertarian. And you're pimping libertarian values.

Gotcha, only pimps think we should be able to make our own decisions. Pure folly more advanced thinkers like you have long since moved past

 

[Skylar]

The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.

If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?

In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that. We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant behaviors as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution. If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...

The issue of whether or not gays are protected was decided nearly 20 years ago in Romer v. Evans. They are. The question of whether the USSC can overturn unconstitutional standards of State marriage was decided nearly 50 years ago in Loving V. Virginia. The issue of whether gay marriage is constitutionally permissible was decided 2 years ago with Windsor v. US.

These aren't new issues. These are the logical application of existing precedent. That you insist they are 'behavior' based is irrelevant. Religion is a behavior. And yet the religious are protected. Speech is a behavior. Yet speech is protected.

Your 'behavior' standard....isn't.

 

[kaz]

The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.

If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?

In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that. We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant behaviors as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice (the courts myopia) to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution. If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...

We've seen how far into the elementary schools they've shoved their sexualized agenda. Folks, on the deviant scale of "anything goes"...they are just getting warmed up...

This is why in this case more than most, the US Supreme Court needs to remove its blindfold and take a look at the Big Picture over the long term and come to grips with what's really going on with the "we just want equal rights to marraige" proposed-redaction to the thousand's year old word..

I don't trust the government to decide what is and isn't deviant. I just oppose the courts legislating

 

[Skylar]

How do you "debunk" a question? The topic of the thread is whether or not churches should be exempt. I see no reason they should be exempt from any laws. I think doing do is actually a perversion of the First Amendment.

If you are aware of the 1st Amendment and the jurisprudence of it that answers this question, then you are being obstructionist. If not, you are being ignorant and need to do some study before returning to this thread. Your opinion means nothing. St. Keys the Relativist is having the same problem. No church has ever been forced to accommodate for a marriage it did not want, and nothing is on the horizon to change that.

Nah, he's just a libertarian. Trying to use this issue as a vehicle for elminating any law that his libertarian values find inconsistent with the constitution. Including all PA laws.

You just have to push him a little before he'll get to the fucking point.

PA laws apply to public business. Churches aren't public business. Nixing any 'equal protection' issues.

Other than what I consider a misapplication of the First Amendment, I don't see how they aren't treated the same as other businesses. They provide public accommodations in a similar manner and make money by providing a service.

Because they aren't public businesses.

Sigh....we've done this before, Dblack. Where you think that all discrimination laws should be disbanded because they prioritize one form of discrimination while not prioritizing the other. Thus, you argue that everyone should be unable to discriminate against anyone for any reason......or that all discrimination laws should be eliminated entirely, and anyone can discriminate against anyone.

Do we just skip the back and forth on what constitutes a business, and why you think churches should be included.....and instead get to the fucking point.

You are the avatar of bullshit proxy issues. And I'd appreciate just skipping the bullshit.

The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.

That only took 18 posts. We're improving.

If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?

You're confused. Its not your position I think is bullshit. I disagree with you on your perspective on discrimination. But your position is principled and thought through. In comparison to most of the nonsense posted here, I actually kind of admire that.

Its the proxy issues one has to wade through for you to get to the fucking point that I think is bullshit. Where instead of simply making your argument on discrimination, one has to meander pointlessly through whatever proxy you're using as a screen for your argument.

In this case, religion as a 'business'. How many posts would have been wasted in debating that proxy issue before we *finally* got to your point about how you don't believe laws should regulate any form of discrimination? That's what I get sick of; wasting my time with pointless proxies just to get to the same destination you *always* end up at.

That you're libertarian. And you're pimping libertarian values.

Gotcha, only pimps think we should be able to make our own decisions. Pure folly more advanced thinkers like you have long since moved past

You can decide whatever you like. But if you're going to waste my time with proxy issues used as a screen for a completely different argument, I'm going to call you on it.

 

[kaz]

The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.

If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?

In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that. We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant behaviors as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution. If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...

The issue of whether or not gays are protected was decided nearly 20 years ago in Romer v. Evans. They are. The question of whether the USSC can overturn unconstitutional standards of State marriage was decided nearly 50 years ago in Loving V. Virginia. The issue of whether gay marriage is constitutionally permissible was decided 2 years ago with Windsor v. US.

These aren't new issues. These are the logical application of existing precedent. That you insist they are 'behavior' based is irrelevant. Religion is a behavior. And yet the religious are protected. Speech is a behavior. Yet speech is protected.

Your 'behavior' standard....isn't.

Loving isn't a precedent in any way for gay marriage. Being black changed who you could marry, that has nothing to do with gay marriage