Escher462
-
Posts
20 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Escher462
-
-
A lot of different things and I'll do my best to respond, but considering I spent most of the afternoon working on a dead furnace who's water line froze . . .
1. I believe marriage is ordained by God not by man, therefore it is not in the purview of the state to do anything with marriage. Marriage resides within the realm of religion not within the realm of the state.
I reject the notion that the state should regulate marriages; if the state has the power to regulate marriages it has the power to declare who can or cannot get married. The State should not be in the business of marriage, it should be in the business of ensuring free and voluntary associations and that social contracts are upheld.
You can reject notion that the state should regulate marriages all day long, but that doesn't stop it from happening in the real World. That isn't reality! So let's debate reality.
Religion and State (Govt) and two different entities. The are separate.....you know separation of Church and State. That is what I am talking about:
- 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
- 14th Amendment: Equal Protection clause
From a religious perspective any organization, any group, any congregation may preach, believe, and enforce any marriage tradition they choose. You believe marriage is ordained by God, perfect, you are totally within your right to believe that. If a church believes Gay Marriage is a sin and refuses to marry anyone of that kind, totally fine, that is within that organizations right to do so. That is your morality and your beliefs. Go forth and be happy.
Now we go over to the Govt side of the house. In the America today, marriage is sanctioned by State and Federal Govt. There are a couple of thousand laws that protect married couples. No if's and's or but's. Fact. You may feel the govt should not be in the marriage business, fine, but doesn't change the fact that they are! It's a fact the govt is in the marriage business and your disagreements with that fact are actually irrelevant.
The debate at hand is what the Govt should do w/ respect to Gay Marriage, NOT religion. - 1st and 14th Amendments
- Laws that say govt can't discriminate based on race, gender, or SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
- Plus your Libertarian point of view
Without religion, I totally agree with you that marriage is a social contract. It's a social contract established by the Govt w/ laws and protections. Those laws and protections must be equally applied for all Americans, straight or gay, which is a right dictated by the 14th Amendment.
The problem I think you are having is your are mixing your religious views w/ the rights granted to us under the Constitution. They are separate. Keep them separate.
From a philosophical standpoint: what is the definition of marriage?
Marriage developed out of religion.
True, but irrelevant. In eyes of the Govt is a social contract that is separate from religious tradition.
What Gay Marriage is really about is benefits and legitimacy. They have an agenda that they want to force everyone else to legitimize and make it "moral" because in today's vapid intellectually bankrupt society, what is legal is "moral" and what isn't legal is "immoral".
No, they aren't forcing you or anyone else to legitimize it. This is about forcing our govt to apply our laws equally. You can believe Gay Marriage is completely illegitimate and immoral all day long. Nothing is forcing you to believe in anything else.
2. No racial discrimination by a business does not infring on your rights. How can you have a right to buy products from any business?
I'll break this down very simply with playground examples of 6-7 year olds. Johnny is playing on the playground and brought from his home a Spiderman toy. Billy brought his Dr. Octopus toy. Billy would like to trade with Johnny and play, but Johnny doesn't want to. Does Billy have the moral right to start pounding Johnny because he doesn't want to trade? Does Billy have the moral right to get 5 of his friends to coerce Johnny to trade? The answer is an obvious no.
It's difficult example because we don't know the value of the toys. Let's us simple real World examples.
I go into Home Depot and want to buy a snow blower for $15 when it costs $450, then Home Depot can refuse to sell it to me at that price.
If I go into Home Depot to buy a snow blower and white Johnny bought one and white Billy bought one for $450. Then black Steve tries to buy one for $450 and Home Depot refuses to sell it to because he is black.....that is a violation of HIS RIGHTS.
That is settled law. This is reality. That is America. You may think it is wrong and a violation of the business owners rights based on some fringe libertarian view....fine....your right to 'believe it'. In the real World that is deemed WRONG, illegal, and Unconstitutional. Thank God for it.....
-
Insisting that the taxpayers fund something that doesn't have a substantial public benefit isn't very Libertarian, either.
How are tax payers funding marriage straight or gay? Are we paying for their wedding??? LOL!!
I believe the Iraq war didn't have a substantial public benefit AND I still had to pay for it.
-
I'll chime in because I hear this over and over and over and I wish people would realize how breaking the foundation of society damages everybody.
No it does not and that was recently proven in the court of law in California.
Remember GW Bush v Gore at Supreme Court over the Presidential Election. Well both those lawyers teamed up and took on Prop 8 in California. Yes, that is right a Republican and Democrat teamed up.
They utterly destroyed all the arguments posed by the Defendants that claimed Gay Marriage harms society. They got your side, the ones opposed to Gay Marriage, to admit on the record that Gay Marriage does not cause harm to straight couples.
Watch the trial:
It's read word for word based on the courts transcript of the trial.
-
This is not true.
All Americans are equal - they can only marry one person of the opposite gender who are not their parent or sibling or uncle/aunt or first cousin.
Just because I want to marry my son does not make me lose equal rights when the law says I can't.
We aren't talking incest for pete sake. That isn't even comparable.
We are talking marriage. You know one of the happiest moments in your life.
-
Gay marriage affects my rights because it affects what public schools will be teaching my children. Schools in CA and MA at least are teaching that gay relations are healthy and normal with no option to back out of the curriculum unless you pull your children out of public school ( that are paid for by public taxation).
Gay marriage as sanctioned by the states affects the rights of children who have NO say in what gender their parents will be.
Gay marriage should never be compared to the human rights of all races. Gays may or may not be able to choose their orientation. The jury is still out. ( I'm reading a book that shows without a doubt that it can be a variable situation depending on ones faith, desire and support system to overcome it. Many with same sex attraction tendencies are happily married to the opposite gender. They can most definitely choose how they will respond to their attractions. ) But race can never be "chosen" by the individual.
1. Being Gay is NOT a lifestyle choice, they are born that way. Jury has come back on that one. Are there bi-sex people yes, but we aren't talking about that.
2. You can not pray the Gay away. That form has been completely dismissed by all major mental health associations. The largest pray gay away group was Exodus Global Alliance and its founder Alan Chambers closed practice and apologized for damage he caused.
Lastly, did you choose your sexuality? Nope....neither did I and homosexuals don't either. Imagine being heterosexual and trying to pray away your sexuality. Doesn't work.
You can't choice your sexuality
You can't choose your skin color
You can't choose your disability
You can't choose your gender.
That is why this is a human rights issue. Just like the Civil Rights, Disability Rights, and Women's Rights.
-
Define Fascists - that may be the problem. Would you define Fascists as an organized effort within the government to use governmental institutions (like the IRS or EPA) to harras and punish political opponents or pay off political supporters (like organized unions) with exceptions and grants?
How about this: Gorge Orwell used the example in Animal Farm of oppressive Government changing definitions of rights by first promising - "All animals are equal" Then later saying that it is true "All animals are equal, whoever, pigs are more equal than others." Does that sound at all like or compare to - "If you like you can keep you current health care plan" Then later saying - "Oh you may have liked that health care plan you use to have but you cannot keep it because it is not current."
How about this: It does not matter what the Law (constitution) defines it only matters what is enforced - Think "Fast and Furious".
The Traveler
The IRS and EPA are not fascist organizations! They don't have that kind of power because the heads of those departments are NOT DICTATORS! That is more crazy talk. You are listening to right wing media w/out critical thought. Hilter, Kim Jung Un, Stalin all controlled and promoted fascist states. The IRS and EPA are not the gestapo! That is alternate World crazy talk.
Using George Orwell is a great example.
All Americans are equal, however, heterosexuals are more equal than others. Others being those who want Gay Marriage. That fits perfectly.
-
I disagree - If someone you do not know is murdered - it has no impact on you your relationship with your wife, your family or any property you own. Therefore, as far as you are concerned - any murder of someone you do not know is a freedom every American should have.
NO...that isn't logical because the person that was murdered had THEIR rights infringed upon by the murderer. I'm not the center of the universe. HA! =]
As a libertarian all that I ask is that if we use the force of law to force public support - there must be a demonstrable public benefit. Gay marriage has no possible public benefit that I know of. If someone knows of any public benefit I would be interested in considering the validity of such a claim.
Does smoking have a public benefit?
Does drinking have a public benefit?
Does gambling have a public benefit?
Nope. Banning things that don't have a public benefit isn't very Libertarian. Actually...and just trying to be factual / NOT CRAZY....that is moving towards communism.
As a Libertarian, I'm free to do what I want so long as it doesn't impact your rights. Tens of thousands of Gay people have been married across this country and it hasn't impacted you one bit. Gay people have the FREEDOM to marry and obtain all the rights and protection as anyone else in America. That is Libertarian.
-
Welcome to a fascist state. We'll see how you like it when someone gets in control that disagrees with your philosophical beliefs and starts banning them or forcing you to do something you don't like.
Welcome to AMERIKA. Welcome to the Real World of the NSA and might makes right.
Just because something is a law does not make it a moral or a just law or even a law that one should obey!
Fascist state! That is the totally CRAZY. I was wondering when Mr. Crazy would come out and play. We have problems in American but we are no where near a fascist state. That is just insane talk.
NSA spying on US Citizens is totally and utterly unconstitutional. This will be a very true test of our country to see if the Supreme Court will rule this violates 4th Amendment.
Fascists.....you sound like Glenn Beck...Hannity....Savage....almost entire right wing Republican party. Thought you were a Libertarian.
-
So long as they do not infring upon the rights of another individual, they have that right, no matter how deployable it is.
Right there!! That is where our lines cross!! Meaning this is the point at which we totally AGREE with each other.
I don't care what you do so long as you don't infringe upon my rights.
I agree to my bones that you can do almost anything so long as it doesn't infringe upon my rights. I have a very wide spectrum but I'm sure there could be some outlying situations that this may not apply, but I think its ~98% correct.
Now lets see if YOU 'really' agree with this belief and I'll bring it back on topic. Yes....this is a test and remember: I don't care what you do so long as you don't infringe upon my rights.
1. Gay Marriage: Gay Marriage does not infringe upon my rights. Gay Marriage has no impact on me, my relationship w/ my wife, my family, or any property I own. Therefore Gay Marriage is a Liberty and a freedom that every American should have.
Agree / Disagree?
2. Racial Discrimination by businesses: Racial discrimination by businesses DOES infringe upon my rights as an American. If I need to buy supplies from a supplier and they will not sell to me based on my skin color, that infringes upon my rights as an American. It is my right as an American to be about to by products from any business regardless of how I was born. I did not choose my skin color, therefore this violates my rights.
Agree / Disagree?
-
Cool. So forcing hypothetical racist me against my will to do business with people I'd rather not is liberty. Interesting definition of freedom. Explain how forcing someone to do something against their will by force of government is freedom please. I don't understand how it can be so. I certainly understand it is wrong and unjust for me to refuse business to people based solely on skin color, but I don't understand how it is liberty that forces me to do so.
News alert. You don't have the absolute liberty to do anything you want. This absolute Liberty World you believe in DOES NOT EXIST. There are laws that you must follow. There are laws that if you break them, the govt will punish you by taking away your money, your property and/or taking away almost every bit of your freedom. You do not have absolute Liberty!
I'll say it again. Welcome to the REAL AMERICA. Welcome to the Real World.
-
It seems that somebody does, yes. Because nothing in the constitution prohibits private-sector race-based discrimination. The fact that the constitution allows the federal government to prohibit a certain behavior, and that the federal government went ahead and did so legislatively, does not render the prohibited behavior unconstitutional. It just renders it illegal.
Racial Discrimination is a violation of the 14th Amendment, therefore unconstitutional. That is backed up by the below Supreme Court Cases.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
Washington v. Davis (1976)
Arlington Heights v. MHDC (1977)
Batson v. Kentucky (1986)
-
Ah. You subscribe to the argument of Thrasymachus of old: that liberty (well, justice, if you want to be nit-picky) is nothing more or less than the interest of the stronger.
I have a feeling someone's civics teacher's head just exploded.
I subscribe to Liberty and how it applies to our rights as they exist today. If you feel that definition of Liberty is hindered upon then petition your govt. If you feel it's a business owners Liberty to refuse service based on race, start marching and try to change it. But know that there will be fierce opposition because this battle was already fought and WON.
-
Liberty isn't forcing someone to sell you gas... Liberty is buying gas from someone who wants to sell it to you.
You may believe that in your alternate World, but in the America we live in today that isn't Liberty. Until you get the Supreme Court to over turn the laws to meet YOUR definition of Liberty.....my definition of Liberty WINS.
-
You apparently believe it is a sodomist's right to sodomize. Does that mean you defend the actual practice of sodomy?
Which provision of or amendment to the Constitution, or Supreme Court interpretation thereof, prohibits racial discrimination by private parties?
Race-based discrimination by private business is prohibited by congressional legislation, not the Constitution.
READ my posts for pete sake. I'm talking about BUSINESSES! Laws passed by Legislative branch that are signed into Law by the Executive branch and upheld by the Judicial branch means it's Constitutional.
Is Marriage between a man/ women in the US Constitution? No. Is it Constitutional? YES
Sodomy is Constitutional.
Racial Discrimination by businesses IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.
Do we need to go back to Civic's 101 here????
Dude. Accusing someone who disagrees with you of racism is textbook race-card play.
Not if that somebody advocates the position that businesses should have the right to be racist and openly discriminate against by the color of ones skin. If that isn't racism or supporting of racism.....what would you call it?
-
He's defending liberty, not racism, and this kind of semantically manipulative bull-poogie is beneath you. But thanks for playing the race card--the universally acknowledged white-flag of intellectual discussion since 1980.
Read his comments. He believes it is a business owners right to openly discriminate against an Americans based on race. He believes it is our Constitutional right to open businesses and ONLY SERVE white people, or black people, or Latino people. That is racism AND that is Unconstitutional.
That isn't Liberty, especially for the American that can't get Gas at the store because the owner is Latino and ONLY SERVES LATINO's. No gas station for 5 miles....sorry start walking.
That isn't playing the race card because ANY RACE can be racist.
-
......I don't believe a business should discriminate based on skin color, however I support their right to do just that. .....
OK, you are saying while you don’t ‘personally’ support discrimination based on skin color you have no objection that ‘other’ people doing it because it’s their right. You are saying every American should have the right to discriminate based on skin color.
Therefore, logically, you are defending racism.
Discrimination based on skin color is racist and ANY race can be racist. So you believe Americans should have the right to be racist and operate racists businesses.
That Racism should be a freedom every American should have....
You are also advocating for Discrimination based on Sexual Orientation and I’m sure will support discrimination based on age, nationality, and everything else.
I’m just glad that is your Fantasy and not our Reality. See I have reality on my side. I live in the REAL America that deems that type of behavior as UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Welcome to the Real World.
.
.
.
-
@marshac
The individual mandate was absolutely a Republican idea that came out of the Heritage Foundation. Look it up. When you think about it....it makes sense because it satisfies an pillar of Republican tenant: Personal Responsibility
Those that do not have Health Insurance who get sick or have a catastrophic accident results is ALL OF US paying for it. We all pay for it now. Think someone making $30k a year will be able to pay off a $350k medical bill? No. They declare bankruptcy and the hospital eats it....then passes that cost onto us.
Heath Insurance is a Personal Responsibly for everyone so that everyone pays into the system. No free rides.
-
Legally that is correct, but having the government force a business to not discriminate is enforcing a positive right (i.e. forcing them to do something) at the expense of a negative right (i.e. I don't want to serve xyz). This is the very definition of tyranny of the majority!! I as a business owner don't want to serve redheads, the Majority says I must, if I don't I go to jail. That is a screwed up world to put someone in jail or shut down their business by force if they choose not to serve someone.
Sir that is a very dangerous line of thinking. You are advocating open discrimination against fellow Americans. Imagine a black, asian, or latino soldier coming back home from 3 tours of duty. They go into a local Mall for shopping and find stories that say WHITE ONLY. NO BLACKS! NO ASIANS! NO LATINOS! You are defining that as Tyranny of the Majority???
I think your positive / negative right framing is leading you not only into very dark places but also into real World case law that been stricken down as completely, and utterly Unconstitutional.
If I as an individual have a right to discriminate what company I give my business to, why does a company not have the same right to discriminate who they want to do business with?
The definition of discrimination is:
The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
If I don’t buy products from Amazon that IS NOT discrimination!!
If Amazon won’t sell me a product because I’m Asian that IS discrimination!!
Sir your logic needs a complete re-wiring.
Nope, fine by me, everyone discriminates, it is a fact of life.
There it is again, advocation of open discrimination. Maybe in your World, not in mine. You have some serious morality issues based on the World you are advocating.
FYI – Chick-fil-A did NOT discriminate. The COO basically said he was against Gay Marriage. That was it. They didn’t put signs on all their restaurants saying “NO HOMO’s” in our restaurants.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. For the time being you are correct. In the future? 25 years ago, homosexual marriage wasn't even on the radar....
Really. You are going to argue slippery slope on what the future will hold 25 years from now. You seem to live in this Rand Paul fantasy World. In the real World, Social Security is 100% Constitutional. So is Obama Care….well at least the Individual Mandate which was a Republican idea BTW. And if you are paying attention Supreme Court blocked requirement for religious institutions to mandate birth control.
So the reality that I’m living in seems to be more in tune vs your Rand Paul fantasy World where business owners can open discriminate against other Americans and what it will look like 25 years in the future.
You don't need the government in marriage business for that . . . that is what contract law, wills, and social contracts are for.
Now that makes zero sense. Who creates contract law? Who creates the laws so you can will your assets? Who enforces these laws when they are breached?
YES…..the government!!!
To bring you back into the real World for a moment, the Govt creates and enforce laws. We absolutely need the Govt which still might be a surprise to you even after this most recent shutdown.
-
The United States of America is a REPUBLIC......NOT a democracy. James Madison warned against Tyranny of the Majority. Just because the voters of Utah voted to ban gay marriage does not mean its Constitutional. The majority of Utah voters CAN NOT pass laws that infringe upon the rights of Americans. Even though this may conflict w/ your religious views, it does not give you the right to infringe upon the rights of other Americans.
A business that is in the public domain can not discriminate. What if I started a discount retail outlet that ONLY served non-Mormons. Taken to its logical extension, giving businesses the right to ONLY serving 'X' category of people would be a very ugly place to live.
Religious institutions that are tax exempt WILL NOT be forced to marry gay couples. That is insane. Is the Mormon church forced to marry non-Mormons? NO Is the Mormon church forced to marry anyone today? NO Therefore these exceptions for religious institutions will remain in place.
The govt is in the marriage business because there are around 3,000 laws that protect married people. Property rights, passing on assets, Social Security benefits, etc, etc. That is why the govt is in the business.
Federal judge rules Utah same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional
in Current Events
Posted
I have cited the Supreme Court cases regarding racial discrimination as unconstitutional. It's called facts, evidence to back up my points. You....what PROOF have you submitted to back up your claim???
Here some more Supreme Court Cases
Jones v. Mayer Co. (1968)
Batson v. Kentucky (1986)
Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)
Griggs v. Duke Power Co
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green
Connecticut v. Teal
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins
Logic test: If racial discrimination by govt and/or business it is Constitutional, but illegal according to you, then where is the Supreme Court cases challenging these laws? ANY law can be challenged and overturned by Judicial Branch. There are plenty of racist business owners that I'm sure would LOVE to overturn the civil rights act. Why haven't they sued? Why hasn't that lawsuit made it to the Supreme Court? Why didn't the Supreme Court throw out the entire Civil Rights act this past year?