Some Gays Turn Attention to Civil Unions

[Polk]

Was your head in the ground while this was going on last year? Do your own googleing. What I said is correct, the Mormon church did not give any money to groups over prop 8. You don't like it, I can tell. Still looking for a scapegoat, are you?

45 percent of out-of-state funding for pro-Prop 8 came from Utah.

And of course, no one lives in Utah but Mormons.

Why would the donations from Utah be so disproportionately high?
Is Utah a very populous state? No, it's 34th largest state in terms of population.
Is Utah a wealthy state? No. It's 33rd in GSP (gross state product) and one of the poorest states per capita.

 

[Missourian]

Here is the relevant section under Conclusions enumerated as 3 and 4:

3. Ms. Willock brought a claim of public accommodation discrimination based on sexual orientation against Elane Photography, LLC, alleging that Elane Photography refused to offer its photographic services to her because of her sexual orientation, in violation of Section 28-1-7(F) of the NMHRA.

4. Section 28-1-7(F) of the NMHRA provides, in applicable part, that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for: "any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of ... sexual orientation...." NMSA 1978, § 28-1-7(F).​

 

[Modbert]

Here is the actual case with judgment from Georgetown Law.

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/moralvaluesproject/News/documents/ElainePhotographycase.pdf

Interesting, it seems the law they used also stemmed back to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

" Al l per s ons shall b e ent i t l ed to
the full and equal enj oyment o f the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advant ages, and
accommodat i ons o f any pl ace o f publ i c accommodat i on, as defi ned in t h i s section, wi t hout
di scri mi nat i on or segr egat i on o n t he gr ound o f race, color, religion, or nat i onal or i gi n. " 42
U. S. C. § 2000a (a).

Didn't copy and paste over well.

I'm not sure about this law. Because now you're getting into a whole touchy field of who can give services to whom. Obviously this was already argued back in the 60's with segregation being found illegal. (Racial segregation that is)

Question is, would it now also apply to sexual orientation?

Racial segregation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Using Wiki for a moment:

By 1968 all forms of segregation had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and by 1970, support for formal legal segregation had dissolved. Formal racial discrimination was illegal in school systems, businesses, the American military, other civil services and the government. Separate bathrooms, water fountains and schools all disappeared and the civil rights movement had the public's support.

The Supreme Law of the Land makes it tougher to decide upon.

 

[Missourian]

Here is the actual case with judgment from Georgetown Law.

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/moralvaluesproject/News/documents/ElainePhotographycase.pdf

Interesting, it seems the law they used also stemmed back to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

" Al l per s ons shall b e ent i t l ed to
the full and equal enj oyment o f the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advant ages, and
accommodat i ons o f any pl ace o f publ i c accommodat i on, as defi ned in t h i s section, wi t hout
di scri mi nat i on or segr egat i on o n t he gr ound o f race, color, religion, or nat i onal or i gi n. " 42
U. S. C. § 2000a (a).

Didn't copy and paste over well.

I'm not sure about this law. Because now you're getting into a whole touchy field of who can give services to whom. Obviously this was already argued back in the 60's with segregation being found illegal. (Racial segregation that is)

Question is, would it now also apply to sexual orientation?

Racial segregation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Using Wiki for a moment:

By 1968 all forms of segregation had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and by 1970, support for formal legal segregation had dissolved. Formal racial discrimination was illegal in school systems, businesses, the American military, other civil services and the government. Separate bathrooms, water fountains and schools all disappeared and the civil rights movement had the public's support.

The Supreme Law of the Land makes it tougher to decide upon.

So have we determined this is law?

And if so, wasn't this your response?

In that case, the state would be wrong.

 

[Modbert]

Well the state would be wrong if it's simply ruling without any precedent. However, there is precedent, Supreme Court precedent in this case.

It's tough for me to decide one way or another in this case.

On one hand, there is the people's way of life and they want to discriminate. On the other hand, there is the law already in place saying that all discrimination such as that type is illegal.

Either way this case is decided, there is major backlash as to what can happen. If it's ruled against the people bringing the suit, then anyone can Segregate once again. If it's ruled in favor of them, the precedent is set that people can sue if they are not allowed a business's product.

See the problem here?

 

[California Girl]

If the same people were to deny a adoption for African American couple a child based on their skin color, they would be fired.

It's all about equal opportunity. When you choose to take a job in the public sector like that, you have to follow the rules set. Their beliefs hold no water.

You don't see this affecting the church at all.

That's comparing apples to orangutangs, Dog.

The thing here is about equal rights. If it goes against the beliefs of one person to council a same sex couple - why do the rights of the same sex couple outweigh the rights of the other? Equal rights is about equality. That means that same sex couples should not be denied access but that if the councilor feels that they cannot provide the best service to that couple, why should that person lose their job?

The problem is that equal rights seems pretty fucking unequal.

 

[CurveLight]

How are they endorsing pedophilia? It's stupid arguments like that which really harm the cause of equality.

Not understanding an argument doesn't make it stupid and I said "silently supporting." Do you know what that means? We are forever hearing things like:

Gay marriage will destroy marriage!

Marriage has always been between one man and one woman!

Marriage is defined as two adults of the opposite sex!


There has never been a single definition of marriage in the US. If a 50 year old marries a 13 year old in Texas and moves to Maine then by Law Maine must legally recognize that marriage....which is legalized pedophilia.
So what I am doing with that argument is showing several reasons why the arguments from the anti gay crowd have little to no merit and it doesn't matter if you think it's stupid but thanks for your high quality feedback.

 

[Modbert]

That's comparing apples to orangutangs, Dog.

The thing here is about equal rights. If it goes against the beliefs of one person to council a same sex couple - why do the rights of the same sex couple outweigh the rights of the other? Equal rights is about equality. That means that same sex couples should not be denied access but that if the councilor feels that they cannot provide the best service to that couple, why should that person lose their job?

The problem is that equal rights seems pretty fucking unequal.

Are you referring to this here?

Counsellor sacked for refusing to give sex therapy to gay couples because it was 'against his Christian beliefs' | Mail Online

Because this happened in England, not the U.S.

 

[KittenKoder]

Marriage is just legalized prostitution as it is, so who gives a fuck?

 

[Missourian]

Well the state would be wrong if it's simply ruling without any precedent. However, there is precedent, Supreme Court precedent in this case.

It's tough for me to decide one way or another in this case.

On one hand, there is the people's way of life and they want to discriminate. On the other hand, there is the law already in place saying that all discrimination such as that type is illegal.

Either way this case is decided, there is major backlash as to what can happen. If it's ruled against the people bringing the suit, then anyone can Segregate once again. If it's ruled in favor of them, the precedent is set that people can sue if they are not allowed a business's product.

See the problem here?

Yes I do...but I don't agree.

Let's pose a hypothetical...

You are a member of an ultra-liberal PAC and I am a conservative print shop owner.

You call me and ask if I can print mailers for your PAC and I say no, I'm an ultra-conservative and my political stance prohibits me from printing your mailers.

Should that be a crime?

Should you be able to sue me because I make a personal choice based on what you do?

Should we add political orientation to the hate crimes list?

 

[Modbert]

Yes I do...but I don't agree.

Let's pose a hypothetical...

You are a member of an ultra-liberal PAC and I am a conservative print shop owner.

You call me and ask if I can print mailers for your PAC and I say no, I'm an ultra-conservative and my political stance prohibits me from printing your mailers.

Should that be a crime?

Should you be able to sue me because I make a personal choice based on what you do?

Should we add political orientation to the hate crimes list?

I do believe according to the law that political beliefs hold no water. The thing is, that's not a hate crime. We're debating the law here, not what ifs.

And if that was made the law, I would disagree against it.

 

[CurveLight]

Oh, no, they would NEVER take it across church thresholds.

So other than your fantasies do you have any evidence? Is it possible some gay couple would try to sue a church? Sure, but so what? You can't point to anomalies and fantasies and use those to try and justify denying equal rights.

For all the einsteins who claim gay marriage is bad or immoral......it's been legal in MA for about five years. It's too bad MA has one of the lowest divorce rates in the entire Nation, otherwise you could point to the divorce rates as evidence of immorality. Who has the highest divorce rates? Mmmmmm.....

 

[California Girl]

That's comparing apples to orangutangs, Dog.

The thing here is about equal rights. If it goes against the beliefs of one person to council a same sex couple - why do the rights of the same sex couple outweigh the rights of the other? Equal rights is about equality. That means that same sex couples should not be denied access but that if the councilor feels that they cannot provide the best service to that couple, why should that person lose their job?

The problem is that equal rights seems pretty fucking unequal.

Are you referring to this here?

Counsellor sacked for refusing to give sex therapy to gay couples because it was 'against his Christian beliefs' | Mail Online

Because this happened in England, not the U.S.

I'm aware, it's the theory of it that matters. Who's equal rights? Because it seems to me that equal rights means that minorities get to tell the majority what we can and can not do. And that is just as wrong as treating minorities differently.

As I have said, I am supportive of civil unions for same sex couples - with the rights and responsibilities that other couples have. I am not in favor of anything that allows same sex couples to force their views on others.

 

[Missourian]

Yes I do...but I don't agree.

Let's pose a hypothetical...

You are a member of an ultra-liberal PAC and I am a conservative print shop owner.

You call me and ask if I can print mailers for your PAC and I say no, I'm an ultra-conservative and my political stance prohibits me from printing your mailers.

Should that be a crime?

Should you be able to sue me because I make a personal choice based on what you do?

Should we add political orientation to the hate crimes list?

I do believe according to the law that political beliefs hold no water. The thing is, that's not a hate crime. We're debating the law here, not what ifs.

And if that was made the law, I would disagree against it.

OK then, you tell me the difference between a law based on political orientation and one based on sexual orientation.

 

[Modbert]

I'm aware, it's the theory of it that matters. Who's equal rights? Because it seems to me that equal rights means that minorities get to tell the majority what we can and can not do. And that is just as wrong as treating minorities differently.

As I have said, I am supportive of civil unions for same sex couples - with the rights and responsibilities that other couples have. I am not in favor of anything that allows same sex couples to force their views on others.

The Majority doesn't have the right to tell the minority what to do. THAT is equal rights. Everyone is equal under the law. That means all the laws apply to everyone equally.

Does this mean that churches should be forced to allow Gay Marriages? No. Technically, marriage shouldn't it be a part of the legal institution. Marriage is a religious institution. All legal marriages should become civil unions with equal rights under the law.

Simple as that.

 

[Modbert]

OK then, you tell me the difference between a law based on political orientation and one based on sexual orientation.

Political Orientation: I don't let you sit in my diner because you think that the War in Iraq is right/wrong.

Sexual Orientation: I don't let you sit in my diner because I think you're a homosexual or even a heterosexual.

 

[CurveLight]

Wrong...the government is restricted from making or enforcing laws that prohibit freedom of religion.

The government. Notice your examples do not involve the government I'm pretty sure? And when they do, the rules are clear on equal opportunity. By those people denying an adoption for example, they are violating someone else's rights by law.

The Government is not private companies either. If a private company says you can't discriminate on the basis of Gender, Religion, Sexual Orientation, etc then you can't. Don't like it? Someone else is more than willing to take your job.

It's not the company Robert, the sued photographer owned the business.

Owning a business doesn't mean you get to ignore the laws. Was this the case where the Board of Health ruled against the photographer for discrimination?

You know what's weird? In all of these cases you're citing the bigger picture is being missed. You're actually defending bigotry. What would happened if people stopped being homophobic?

 

[Missourian]

OK then, you tell me the difference between a law based on political orientation and one based on sexual orientation.

Political Orientation: I don't let you sit in my diner because you think that the War in Iraq is right/wrong.

Sexual Orientation: I don't let you sit in my diner because I think you're a homosexual or even a heterosexual.

More like:

Political Orientation: I don't let you sit in my diner because you are liberal or conservative.

Sexual Orientation: I don't let you sit in my diner because you are homosexual or heterosexual.

So what is the difference, why should one be legal and the other illegal?

 

[CurveLight]

I'm aware, it's the theory of it that matters. Who's equal rights? Because it seems to me that equal rights means that minorities get to tell the majority what we can and can not do. And that is just as wrong as treating minorities differently.

As I have said, I am supportive of civil unions for same sex couples - with the rights and responsibilities that other couples have. I am not in favor of anything that allows same sex couples to force their views on others.

The Majority doesn't have the right to tell the minority what to do. THAT is equal rights. Everyone is equal under the law. That means all the laws apply to everyone equally.

Does this mean that churches should be forced to allow Gay Marriages? No. Technically, marriage shouldn't it be a part of the legal institution. Marriage is a religious institution. All legal marriages should become civil unions with equal rights under the law.

Simple as that.

Marriage is a religious institution? I'm quite sure I have heard of atheists getting married.

 

[Modbert]

So what is the difference, why should one be legal and the other illegal?

Because political beliefs are entirely subjective. Your gender, your race, your sexual orientation, your nationality, are all things you are born with. It's all about equal rights.

As for religion, that should be allowed to be practiced freely under the belief of freedom of religion. However, religion is not the law of the land. Which means religion should not be shaping our laws. However, one can not discriminate against someone because of their freedom to choose a certain religion.