Federal judge rules Utah same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional


tubaloth
 Share

Recommended Posts

You are comparing apples with oranges. Those stories are from businesses and not religious organizations. Businesses does not have the same right as churches to discriminate against people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

A more relevant question would be: Has any church in the United States ever been forced to perform an interracial marriage ceremony? As far as I know the answer is: No. Same thing will happen to gay marriage. The LDS church will not be forced by law to perform same-sex marriages in its chapels and temples.

Not yet they haven't. Churches are tax-exempt organizations. A significant push for the Revolution was exerted by the local churches. That cannot happen today as there are limits on what a Church can do and say in order to be considered tax-exempt.

If you don't think that at some point in time a lawsuit will come against a church for failing to perform a "marriage" for homosexuals when they perform marriages for straight then I think you've got another thing coming. Someone will make a claim that because they are tax-exempt they can't discriminate.

And you are dead wrong, businesses do have the right to discriminate, they just don't have the legal ability to do so. The Civil Rights Act took care of that; racial discrimination is flat out wrong, but it is equally wrong to force a business to serve someone that it doesn't want to serve. This cake incident is just an extension of the mis-guided notion that because a business is open to the public it must serve without discrimination.

The whole homosexual marriage problem wouldn't even be a problem is 1) the government got out of the marriage license business. 2) Allowed businesses to discriminate. 3)Didn't have an income tax system that plays favorites on deductions, exemptions, etc. What we have in this social issue is a failure of too much government getting too involved in too many places and it will cause lots of grief in the end.

Edited by yjacket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I hope you are right. The way society is presently moving tells me otherwise. There is a growing majority of amoral people in the United States. Personal responsibility, work and sexual morality are being pushed away by many in the rising and our own generation. Our nation will suffer more as these standards are pushed away. It is possible that people will repent in the future and turn back to God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The United States of America is a REPUBLIC......NOT a democracy. James Madison warned against Tyranny of the Majority.

If only it were still a republic, it's a republic in name only. In fact, I'm not sure what people mean today by a republic. Originally the United States was a federal republic, with the States being more akin to an actual Nation than a subset of the national government. Sadly, in many ways the EU today is closer to the original construct of the US than the US is today.

When the Constitution was formed only male land-owners could vote, today it is closer to an actual Democracy vs. a true Federal Republic. Originally the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, it was only for Congress.

I firmly believe we have a tyranny of the Majority today. Several checks and balances were put in place to protect the Minorities, specifically as it applied to the federal level, the minority could gum up the government. This happens to some extent, but witness Obamacare . . . . if that isn't tyranny of the Majority, I'm not sure what is.

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.

I agree that the government shouldn't infringe on rights, but the question is what is a right. Is it a positive right (i.e. someone must to something for me) or a negative right (i.e. someone can not force me to do something). The government shouldn't infringe on negative rights, once it starts enforcing positive rights, it is over.

A business that is in the public domain can not discriminate.

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.

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?

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.

Nope, fine by me, everyone discriminates, it is a fact of life. If a retail outlet doesn't want to serve Catholics then I will discriminate by not giving my business to that retail outlet. If enough people discriminate the company will either go out of business or change. Look at the most recent prime examples, Chick-fil-A and BSA. There was such a massive public backlash that the BSA changed their policy (which I disagree with . . .) they changed their policy specifically because the individuals who voted on the change in policy were by and large district BSA leaders. The goal of the district leader is to fund-raise. Their fund-raising dried up drastically before the change, so they changed their policy so they wouldn't get hit by it. I know this b/c I got a letter from my local district just about stating as much.

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.

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, 30 years ago no one would have possibly thought that we truly would have national healthcare. To make a claim that it positively will not happen . . . . well I don't think you've studied much history (if the government can not admit Utah as a State due to polygamy, it sure as junk can do something about a religion not wanting to marry homosexuals).

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.

You don't need the government in marriage business for that . . . that is what contract law, wills, and social contracts are for. As for Social Security, yes unconstitutional program of more government. See the problem with programs like this and with just about most government programs in general is the unintended consequences. The government program creates more side-effect problems so we need more government to solve those side-effect problems and then more programs to solve those problems . . . . it never ends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howdy- I read through all the thread- ok if I join in? Regarding the purpose of law- whether it is, or should be, only to protect us from harming each other, or whether it's to represent a broader collective morality- I've wondered this for some time. How did the founding fathers intend it to be?

I believe that the law of the land under a democratic / republic government reflects a collective societal morality, and that it influences what people in that society think is moral.

I've also wondered if there actually are any moral principles that, if not followed, would not cause harm to others. That almost seems to be the definition of morality to me- not doing harm to others. But I suppose the definition of morality should not stop there, but should also include doing good unto others. But that addition would only be necessary if you believe that failure to do good is not necessarily the same as doing harm...

Anyhow, this question of re-defining marriage seems to be an example where there may be differences of opinion on whether it would cause harm to others or not.

There was an interview done with Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman in Dec 2012 that got me thinking about this purpose of the law, here - Interview With Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman: Same-Gender Attraction :

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: You talked about the harm that could come on society by redefining marriage. What would you say to those people who declare: “I know gay people who are in long-term committed relationships. They’re great people. They love each other. What harm is it going to do my marriage as a heterosexual to allow them that same ‘rite?’

ELDER WICKMAN: Let me say again what I said a moment ago. I believe that that argument is true sophistry, because marriage is a unified institution. Marriage means a committed, legally sanctioned relationship between a man and a woman. That’s what it means. That’s what it means in the revelations. That’s what it means in the secular law. You cannot have that marriage coexisting institutionally with something else called same-gender marriage. It simply is a definitional impossibility. At such point as you now, as an institution, begin to recognize a legally-sanctioned relationship, a committed relationship between two people of the same gender, you have now redefined the institution to being one of genderless marriage.

As we’ve mentioned in answer to other questions, [genderless marriage] is contrary to God’s law, to revealed Word. Scripture, ancient and modern, could not be clearer on the definition that the Lord and His agents have given to marriage down through the dispensations.

But it has a profound effect in a very secular way on everybody else. What happens in somebody’s house down the street does in very deed have an effect on what happens in my house and how it’s treated. To suggest that in the face of these millennia of history and the revelations of God and the whole human pattern they have the right to redefine the whole institution for everyone is presumptuous in the extreme and terribly wrong-headed.

...

ELDER OAKS: Law has at least two roles: one is to define and regulate the limits of acceptable behavior. The other is to teach principles for individuals to make individual choices. The law declares unacceptable some things that are simply not enforceable, and there’s no prosecutor who tries to enforce them. We refer to that as the teaching function of the law. The time has come in our society when I see great wisdom and purpose in a United States Constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is between a man and a woman. There is nothing in that proposed amendment that requires a criminal prosecution or that directs the attorneys general to go out and round people up, but it declares a principle and it also creates a defensive barrier against those who would alter that traditional definition of marriage.

There are people who oppose a federal Constitutional amendment because they think that the law of family should be made by the states. I can see a legitimate argument there. I think it’s mistaken, however, because the federal government, through the decisions of life-tenured federal judges, has already taken over that area. This Constitutional amendment is a defensive measure against those who would ignore the will of the states appropriately expressed and require, as a matter of federal law, the recognition of same-gender marriages — or the invalidation of state laws that require that marriage be between a man and a woman. In summary, the First Presidency has come out for an amendment (which may or may not be adopted) in support of the teaching function of the law. Such an amendment would be a very important expression of public policy, which would feed into or should feed into the decisions of judges across the length and breadth of the land.

ELDER WICKMAN: Let me just add to that, if I may. It’s not the Church that has made the issue of marriage a matter of federal law. Those who are vigorously advocating for something called same-gender marriage have essentially put that potato on the fork. They’re the ones who have created a situation whereby the law of the land, one way or the other, is going to address this issue of marriage. This is not a situation where the Church has elected to take the matter into the legal arena or into the political arena. It’s already there.

The fact of the matter is that the best way to assure that a definition of marriage as it now stands continues is to put it into the foundational legal document of the United States. That is in the Constitution. That’s where the battle has taken it. Ultimately that’s where the battle is going to be decided. It’s going to be decided as a matter of federal law one way or the other. Consequently it is not a battleground on such an issue that we Latter-day Saints have chosen, but it has been established and we have little choice but to express our views concerning it, which is really all that the Church has done.

Decisions even for members of the Church as to what they do with respect to this issue must of course rest with each one in their capacity as citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Well, they temporarily stayed it for now pending the supreme court challenges. As for the individual mandate, I can't wait for the next mandate that requires me to purchase a Gym membership of my choice (just as long as they have the minimum mandated facilities such as a pool, sauna, free weights, cardio, and a host of classes) in the name of reducing obesity in America... or else pay a tax. Why stop there? Maybe we should all purchase a new car of our choice (again, as long as it meets the min requirements of being able to tow 5000lbs, etc) to stimulate the economy too.

Lets not kid ourselves- the individual mandate wasn't a "left" or "right" idea- it was the idea of the insurance industry- everybody seems to be losing except them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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???

What?? dangerous thinking to have contract law and freedom of association? Are you serious? I don't believe a business should discriminate based on skin color, however I support their right to do just that. I support your right to be wrong!!! Something sadly lost in this country.

I wouldn't give my business to a company who did that and in today's society any company who tried to would quickly be out of business because people wouldn't buy from them.

I'm not sure what your definition of tyranny of the majority is, but in my book it is when the Majority enforces their will on a minority. A Majority of voters declaring through law that a business owner cannot discriminate is just that.

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.

Again ?? what the . . . you need to go and read a little bit on Hobes, Locke, Voltaire, Classical Liberal, Montesquieu, Bastiat, Smith, etc.

Claiming that the government has the right to force people to do things when they themselves are not infringing on anyone's right is ridiculous. Claiming that I have a right to enter into any store is equally untenable. Who owns the store? Do I own it, does the public own it? No the store-owner owns it- it is his private property which he allows people to use. If I have the right to enter into his store regardless of what his thoughts are about me that means that he truly doesn't own his business, it means the "public" owns it. Once the "public" owns it then they can expropriate it however they darn well please. How do they expropriate it, through the ballot box and the power of passing laws. How are laws passed? By a majority vote! Hence tyranny of the majority over a minority. Without a proper understanding of property rights any type of democratic society will tend towards tyranny of the majority.

As for the Constitution, you might want to look up some reversal cases. Here is a good snippet to get you started:

HowStuffWorks "10 Overturned Supreme Court Cases"

The first one is the money one:

"The Court decided the Lochner case in 1905, ruling that a New York State law limiting the number of hours a baker could work to 60 per week was unconstitutional. In a 5-4 decision, they declared that the law removed a person's right to enter freely into contracts, violating the 14th Amendment. The specific clause being violated states, "any State [shall not] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

The Court heard the Adkins case in 1923. It regarded a Washington, D.C., law that set a minimum wage for female workers. It was overturned on similar grounds as the Lochner case.

Lochner set a major precedent that severely limited federal and state laws regulating working hours and wages. In fact, the period following the case is known as "The Lochner Era." However, the Adkins case was a key point in the women's rights movement in the U.S., which for decades debated absolute equality for women versus favoring only special protections and regulations for them.

The Lochner Era ended in 1937 when the Court decided West Coast Hotel v. Parrish. The matter involved a law very similar to the Adkins minimum wage law, but in this case, the Court decided that the 14th Amendment did not explicitly guarantee freedom of contract, and that such freedom could be limited by reasonable laws designed to protect workers' health and safety."

I'm sure you are aware of how the Supreme Court reversed itself many times during the Great Depression after FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court with His cronies b/c the Supreme Court wasn't declaring things his way . . .

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.

Nice of you to leave out the other definitions of discrimination:

Such as:

Discrimination

The act of discriminating.

2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.

3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners

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!!

Yes it is: one is a discrimination based on finding a better price, not liking Amazon, etc, the other is based on race.

Sir your logic needs a complete re-wiring.

Please tell me where I said racial discrimination was right; people have a right to be wrong in this country.

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.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I support your right to be wrong, that does not mean I believe it to be morally correct; it just means I don't believe the government has the right to force you do to what I think you should at the point of a gun. There are some things that conflict with my personal moral compass, I do not agree having homosexuals in BSA, nor would I if I were a cake owner bake a cake for a homosexual "marriage". By the same token, I am fully supportive of homosexuals having homosexual bakeries cook only homosexual cakes or both. I'm in favor of homosexuals creating their own BSA, let them create their own religion and have their own pastors marry them. Just don't force me to do it!! It's actually the higher moral ground, it's called the non-agression principle.

And if you don't think people discriminate racially you've got another thing coming, I invite you to look at the geographical demographics of any major city:Mapping the 2010 U.S. Census - NYTimes.com. There is a neat little thing called "racial and ethnic distribution". Pull up NYC. By and large it broken up racially. You have hispanic blocks, black blocks, white blocks, asian blocks. I dare you, go to any major city and see what you find. Sure you find border areas that are 50/50 and you'll find pockets that are very integrated, but by and large it is very racially segregated. And before you call me a racist homophobe, I've lived in communities where I'm like 8%; I really don't care.

What I care about is safety; after my mission I looked for an apartment near college. I drove into a neighborhood where about 15 urban youths were playing basketball. One of them stopped me and said "whacha doin here" me: "I'm looking for a place to rent" him:"you don't want to be renting here, you best move on". Me: "Okay thank you". I'm actually really glad he talked to me, he did me a favor and saved me a lot of potential heartache in the future. Is it wrong to racially discriminate, sure, but I don't support the government shutting a business down and taking away someone's living simply because they refuse to serve someone.

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.

(Sigh), I know that, the point being that if any major company even tried to discriminate they get smacked down . . .

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 need to read more. I'm serious, start with the Federalist papers and the anti-Federalist papers. Take some free on-line classes from Harvard or Yale on the founding and the Constitution. The Constitution today does not mean what it did at it's founding just like it won't mean the same in another 50 years. I'm not arguing a slippery slope, it's a fact. And yes, the Heritage Foundation in '84 talked about an individual mandate, which is why IMO for the most part it's Red vs. Blue who are all part of the same club.

You can keep throwing insults all day long . . . I'm telling you that you need to read a little more.

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!!!

So what does ObamaCare or SS have to do with contract law? Yes the government is there to enforce property rights and contract law. You believe the government can force a property owner to sell his services to everyone violating his property rights in the process and you believe in Obamacare-more violating my property right (i.e. taking my earned money from me) I'm sure you also believe in minimum wage, etc. violating employers and employees rights to enter into a free contract.

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.

I know without the government so many people who were living off of everyone else would actually have to find something to do . . . the horror of it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really have no idea what you're talking about. The most relevant thing I could find was a supreme court case where Bob Jones University argued that they were allowed to discriminate in college admissions and not allow unmarried black students or those in an interracial marriage to apply because it was their religious belief (or something like that, I'm not even sure if I'm on the right track). If you don't see a difference between religious ceremonies and college admissions, then I have nothing more to say.

The point is that once certain Evangelical groups were told they couldn't ACT on their beliefs, the beliefs themselves sort of petered out. If you don't find that interesting--well, lots of legal scholars and even self-proclaimed LDS "intellectuals" certainly do.

Religious institutions that are tax exempt WILL NOT be forced to marry gay couples. That is insane.

Will they lose their tax-exempt status? (Mormonism has the commercial profit-generating asset base to take that hit. Lots of other churches don't.). Federal research and student aid eligibility for Church-owned schools? How about visas for missionaries--why should the Feds give travel protection to backwards Mormons who are trying to promulgate their message of discrimination and hate? What about FDA and other regulatory approvals to continue operating Church canneries and ranches and storehouses?

In our era of pervasive regulation, if you don't play ball with the Feds you won't play at all. So what happens when the Feds decide you and/or your church aren't worth playing with?

A business that is in the public domain can not discriminate.

To the extent that that's true, it isn't due to the Constitution (which regulates only government discrimination). It's a function of later congressional legislation.

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.

Depends on how widespread the prejudice is. If it's so pervasive that NO supplier will do business with me as a Mormon--we have a problem and government intervention may be appropriate, at least for necessities. But I find that these kinds of questions usually come only from people who have never run a business. Generally speaking--if there's a Baptist greengrocer who hates my guts and wants me out of his shop, and a Catholic greengrocer who's just happy to see me; I have no problem taking my business and my money to the Catholic. If the Baptist wants my money badly enough, he will reconsider--and if he then abandons his prejudice, it will be more likely to be a true conversion, because it was a voluntary decision rather than just going through the motions to satisfy the ever-watchful Big Brother (one drawback--perhaps unavoidable--of the way the Civil Rights movement played out is that it didn't end racism; it just drove it underground).

Is the Mormon church forced to marry non-Mormons? NO Is the Mormon church forced to marry anyone today? NO

Is there a large, vocal, politically powerful group of non-Mormons wanting their unions solemnized by Mormon clergy in Mormon temples? NO.

Can individual Mormons be forced to participate in gay unions by virtue of their business (baker, florist, photographer, etc)? Absolutely. It's happened to Evangelicals in New Mexico.

Can religions be forced to allocate "state benefits" like adoption services to all comers, regardless of marital/relationship status? Yep. It's happened to Catholics in Massachusetts, who then shut down rather than violate their principles.

You may think it acceptable to, in the name of nondiscrimination, either compel Mormons to aid and abet in what they see as morally repugnant behavior or else drive them from their chosen profession completely. I, for one, don't find this kind of government-compelled marginalization acceptable. If I don't reject abstinence, I shouldn't teach school? If I don't like gay sex I can't take pictures, or arrange flowers, or make food, or practice law or work in the mental health or child development fields? If I don't like abortion I shouldn't work in medicine?

Therefore these exceptions for religious institutions will remain in place.

Ten years ago, in the Lawrence[decision, we were promised that federal-judicially-mandated gay marriage would never happen. It was a lie.

I don't know you. But I read the message boards of people who think like you, and I am in contact with some of the legal minds who have laid and are laying the intellectual foundations for their long-term aims. And I'm telling you: the long term aim is cultural normalization of gay sexual relationships, and marginalization on par with the KKK for those who publicly condemn them.

When your allies invoke civil rights imagery--they mean it. Do you?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Unfortunately yes, it did come from the Heritage Foundation, but not because of any tenant of belief in personal responsibility. It's because by and large both parties love government.

Well it wouldn't be so darn expensive if it weren't for government mandates. There used to be charitable hospitals and hospitals (up until about 84) could refuse patients. After a law was passed to force hospitals to accept anyone and everyone things started going out of control. That is where you got all the free-loaders.

Medical bills wouldn't be so high if hospitals could actually refuse service, there was price transparency and more free competition; but you can thank state governments for highly regulating the insurance business. Look at any medical business not involved in insurance to a large degree and not regulated. Vision and Dental. Vision is extremely cheap, a couple hundred for a pair of glasses, 50 for an eye exam, lasik 1k an eye. Dental, a couple hundred for cavity, 50-100 for a check-up, it's pretty cheap. . . . hmm I wonder why?

And I hate this crap that "all of us pay for it" no all of us don't pay for it. Some people do, and some people don't. The all of us pay for it mantra is a way to get everyone to believe that by gosh we've got to force everyone to have insurance.

Claiming that someone declaring bankrupcy hurts all of us . . . well what about all those people who bought homes who couldn't afford it and went bankrupt, we should force them all to pay us back right?

Edited by yjacket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that once certain Evangelical groups were told they couldn't ACT on their beliefs, the beliefs themselves sort of petered out. If you don't find that interesting--well, lots of legal scholars and even self-proclaimed LDS "intellectuals" certainly do.

Well, while the fall of that belief may have been influenced by the supreme court ruling, it most certainly wasn't caused by it (a kind of belief that requires the support of the federal government is awfully weak). In this particular case Bob Jones University wasn't forced to change anything at all: it simply lost tax exemption status due to its discriminatory admissions policies conflicted with a fundamental federal interest. It was still allowed to discriminate in admissions: as Bob Jones University is a private college, not a state college, laws requiring non-discrimination for college admissions don't apply. BJU continued its policies until 2000 (thus still acting on their religious beliefs), and issued an apology for its past policies in 2008. These actions seem to be in response to media pressure and not legal action (that is, these actions were not compelled). BJU continues to be a successful, albeit not nearly as politically influential, university. Liberty University seems to have taken this particular torch nowadays.

On a general level, it can be difficult to distinguish between private and public actions, especially in a field such as religion where the legal boundary between the two is still being drawn. However, saying that state or federal courts can change a purely religious practice is nonsensical. Whatever religious movement that is/was behind BJU can continue to exclude unmarried black people from their religious ceremonies and no amount of court cases and lawsuits can change that barring (ironically) a revocation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and possibly a repeal of the 14th Amendment, but I'm not too sure about how the 14th Amendment was implemented prior to the Civil Rights Act). Similarly, the LDS Church's policy of allowing only one man and one woman to participate in temple sealings is protected from lawsuits and court cases. Any gay rights activist that thinks that forcing gay couples to get sealed in LDS temples is even remotely possible has absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

I believe the initial idea put forth by the Heritage Foundation was for catastrophic coverage- not the faux-luxury plans required by the ACA. With these 'metal' plans, do you think that your hypothetical $30k/yr person will shell out the $5k annual deductible their bronze plan requires? The problem with the ACA plans is that they aren't affordable to use, and as we're finding out their provider networks are pathetic. Worse still is that the "metal" plan mentality of ridiculously high deductibles have infested all the other consumer plans available. What's the difference now between a catastrophic plan from three years ago and a bronze plan now?

The free rides I see in the ED are usually already those with State medicaid insurance- they pay zero in copays, so there is no disincentive to come in for every little thing. Back ache or tooth pain? No problem. How about "I have a fever of 99F"... yup, I've seen that too. And you know what? In this litigious age we live in, every one of them gets some lab work done and the rest of us foot the bill- and in this regard, nothing will change.

JAG mentioned something kind of off offhandedly about abortion, but it really resonated with me- if a cake maker can be legally compelled to make a cake for a gay couple, could I be somehow compelled to perform an abortion because someone else has a court mandated "right" to one? This trend towards the creation of individual "rights" which require the service of another to render is disturbing in that if you remove the ability to freely consent or object to the transaction you are simply imposing slavery onto one of the involved parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a question come to mind recently. What if a house cleaning company refuses to hire a chain smoker because of the smell that person would leave behind in the house they were cleaning? (We've probably all experienced repairmen who smoke and leave behind an odor. AND we also know that a person doesn't have to be smoking at the time to be able to smell them.) Is that the kind of discrimination the smoker could sue the cleaning company for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a question come to mind recently. What if a house cleaning company refuses to hire a chain smoker because of the smell that person would leave behind in the house they were cleaning? (We've probably all experienced repairmen who smoke and leave behind an odor. AND we also know that a person doesn't have to be smoking at the time to be able to smell them.) Is that the kind of discrimination the smoker could sue the cleaning company for?

Smoking is not a protected class, so no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or a twist on that scenario. What if a housecleaner refused to clean the home of a smoker because the housecleaner gets asthma when they are around secondhand smoke?

Or a diet clinic refusing to do business with someone who is clearly underweight but still wants to lose more?

Or a gym refusing to allow a morbidly obese person on their wt equipment for fear of them breaking it?

Or a modeling company firing a model who gains weight?

Or a woman's only gym refusing to let men in?

Or the NFL or NBA refusing to hire women?

Don't businesses discriminate all the time?

Edited by carlimac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or a twist on that scenario. What if a housecleaner refused to clean the home of a smoker because the housecleaner gets asthma when they are around secondhand smoke?

The housecleaner has no constitutional protection from being fired. (S)he might have some kind of OSHA/workplace safety claim, I suppose; but generally speaking--if you won't do the work your employer hired you to do, your employer doesn't have an obligation to keep you on as an employee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smoking is not a protected class, so no.

OK then, how about a business not hiring someone from another country who's English is very poor? ( I've had some doctors in the mid-west who really shouldn't have been hired. Can you imagine not understanding what your doctor is saying...in America? It was extremely irritating.)

And what about not offering your business services to someone who refuses to speak your language?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The housecleaner has no constitutional protection from being fired. (S)he might have some kind of OSHA/workplace safety claim, I suppose; but generally speaking--if you won't do the work your employer hired you to do, your employer doesn't have an obligation to keep you on as an employee.

No I'm talking about the homeowner (smoker) suing because the housecleaner refuses to enter his home to clean it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, while the fall of that belief may have been influenced by the supreme court ruling, it most certainly wasn't caused by it (a kind of belief that requires the support of the federal government is awfully weak). In this particular case Bob Jones University wasn't forced to change anything at all: it simply lost tax exemption status due to its discriminatory admissions policies conflicted with a fundamental federal interest. It was still allowed to discriminate in admissions: as Bob Jones University is a private college, not a state college, laws requiring non-discrimination for college admissions don't apply. BJU continued its policies until 2000 (thus still acting on their religious beliefs), and issued an apology for its past policies in 2008. These actions seem to be in response to media pressure and not legal action (that is, these actions were not compelled). BJU continues to be a successful, albeit not nearly as politically influential, university. Liberty University seems to have taken this particular torch nowadays.

LW, it seems you've just conceded that if government finds a religion's teachings offensive, it can find ways to hurt that religion based on the way the religion applies the teachings until such time as the religion changes its teachings. Whether the government's punitive action indeed causes change, is beyond the scope of my argument; the point is that the punitive action can and does happen. And it will happen more, as the federal government enmeshes itself in the daily life of individuals and institutions ever more deeply.

Incidentally, the Bob Jones situation went far beyond tax exemption status; because a college that accepts students who are getting federally funded student loans or aid is deemed to be accepting federal funding and is therefore subject to the same, or similar, nondiscrimination requirements. (Grove City College v. Bell)

Whatever religious movement that is/was behind BJU can continue to exclude unmarried black people from their religious ceremonies and no amount of court cases and lawsuits can change that barring (ironically) a revocation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and possibly a repeal of the 14th Amendment, but I'm not too sure about how the 14th Amendment was implemented prior to the Civil Rights Act). Similarly, the LDS Church's policy of allowing only one man and one woman to participate in temple sealings is protected from lawsuits and court cases. Any gay rights activist that thinks that forcing gay couples to get sealed in LDS temples is even remotely possible has absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

It's the difference between hard pressure and soft pressure. And don't think hard pressure is off the table--Reynolds has never been overruled.

Never forget, LW: we're still dealing with Babylon. They cry "live and let live" because it makes a useful sound byte for the time being. But that's not their guiding principle. Never was; never will be.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I'm talking about the homeowner (smoker) suing because the housecleaner refuses to enter his home to clean it.

Ah. The homeowner has a contract claim against the housecleaning agency if the work doesn't get done and his money isn't refunded; but I think that's about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

......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.

.

.

.

Edited by Escher462
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An update, of sorts:

The high court approved the state's request to Justice Sonia Sotomayor for a stay in a two-sentence ruling that appears to have included all nine justices.

"The application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the court is granted," the order states. It will remain in place until a final decision is reached on Utah's appeal of a federal judge's decision allowing gay marriage.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals earlier denied the state's request for a stay of U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby's ruling last month that struck down Utah's voter-approved law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The 10th Circuit has set out an accelerated schedule for the appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share