Federal judge rules Utah same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

[Traveler]

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.

.

.

.

The word discriminate in essence recognizes that there are discernible differences. So as soon as we recognize a difference in skin color we are by definition discriminating based on skin color. Which by your definition makes you a raciest. Do you have a right to recognize different skin colors?

The Traveler

[Finrock]

This is the crux of the argument for those who feel that same-sex marriage is okay: they depend on the notion that governments dictate what is a "right" and what is not. I, for one, will never bow to such nonsense. The principles that our forefathers used to build this country were that government's function is to protect inalienable rights given of God, some of which are spelled out in the Constitution and other documents like the Declaration of Independence, but most of which are not.

We live in a society where allowing so called same-sex "marriages" is a luxury. We essentially have the luxury of allowing all sorts of unions to benefit from society. But, when we strip away the Babylonian varnish and get to the root of things we realize that marriage has been supported by secular governments in the free world because marriage is from God and it promotes the perpetuity and well being of the species, not because it is some right granted by governments.

To illustrate my point let us suppose that our world suffered some catastrophic event that wiped out our species to near extinction. In such a scenario do you think any community that crops up is going to support, foster, and encourage same-sex unions? They would be fools if they did. The survival of the species depends on man/woman sex. There is no life in homosexual principles (neither physically or spiritually). It is a dead end. We have taken God's blessings (in that we have a relatively free and prosperous nation) and used them to indulge in practices that cannot produce life. We essentially have the luxury of allowing our society to support same-sex unions. But because we can do it, of course does not mean that we ought to do it.

In the end there are inescapable facts (eternal truths) that no rhetoric, sophistry, or secular ruling from any government or court will ever change: God created marriage. He defined it. It is His, not ours to define. Because the world is ignorant of this fact is no excuse to us who know better.

It causes me sorrow in a very real way to see so many of God's children both in and out of the Church to succumb to the delusions and madness of Babylon. I want to add that I am glad, however, that Babylon the great is falling. Soon we will live under the reign of the true Master. I cannot wait for the day!

-Finrock

Edited January 6, 2014 by Finrock
A ray of hope.

[Swiper]

In the end there are inescapable facts (eternal truths) that no rhetoric, sophistry, or secular ruling from any government or court will ever change: God created marriage. He defined it. It is His, not ours to define. Because the world is ignorant of this fact is no excuse to us who know better.

So you say.

[Just_A_Guy]

Huh, I didn't know Bob Jones University was a religion.

Uh, you know that Bob Jones University is based on tenets of Christianity (as its administrators interpret it), right? The parallels between it and BYU should be obvious (aren't you currently a student there?).

But in the interest of semantics I'll go ahead and amend my verbiage:

LW, it seems you've just conceded that if government finds a religion's teachings offensive, it can find ways to hurt the individuals who follow that religion based on the way the religion applies the teachings until such time as the religion changes its teachings or the individuals abandon the religion.

Do you feel more secure in your religious freedom now?

Edited January 6, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Finrock]

Good Afternoon Swiper. I hope you're doing well! :)

So you say.

I do say so, but lets be clear, it isn't just me, but millions have testified that this is so. Prophets, apostles, disciples, men and women of all ages have declared these truths. Marriage is ordained of God. You don't have to believe it but it doesn't change the truth, not one iota. It still remains irrespective of the ignorance of mankind.

Unbelief is what us disciples of Christ are trying to overcome, both in ourselves and in the world.

-Finrock

[Just_A_Guy]

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.

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.

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.

Uh . . . It isn't unconstitutional between private parties. You might want to read up on the difference between the words "wrong", "illegal" and "unconstitutional" before you try to lecture us on constitutional law.

[jerome1232]

Looks like there is a stay in place.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/us/justices-block-gay-marriage-in-utah-pending-appeal.html?_r=0

After having been through the California debacle, I hope your representatives have more integrity than ours, they wouldn't defend our amendment to California's constitution, which is the reason the ruling on prop 8 played out the way that it did.

[Escher462]

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.

[LittleWyvern]

LW, it seems you've just conceded that if government finds a religion's teachings offensive, it can find ways to hurt the individuals who follow that religion based on the way the religion applies the teachings until such time as the religion changes its teachings or the individuals abandon the religion.

If you're forcing me into that grammar here's what I'm really trying to say:

...[if] government finds a religion's teachings opposed to a fundamental interest of the government, it can find ways to penalize such implementations of religious beliefs in the public square that thus conflict based on the way the religion applies the teachings until such time as the religion changes its teachings or the public implementation's conflicts are resolved.

[jerome1232]

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.

Liberty isn't forcing someone to sell you gas... Liberty is buying gas from someone who wants to sell it to you.

[Just_A_Guy]

Read his comments. He believes it is a business owners right to openly discriminate against an Americans based on race.

You apparently believe it is a sodomist's right to sodomize. Does that mean you defend the actual practice of sodomy?

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.

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.

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.

I don't argue that antidiscrimination legislation is never warranted in extreme circumstances. But it's worth pointing out that the American in your hypothetical hould have perfect liberty to open his own gas station that serves everyone (or only Caucasians, or African-Americans, or Asians, or whatever he wishes); or form a co-op with other non-Latino consumers and have gas trucked in at wholesale prices--compelling the Latino business owner to either re-evaluate his prejudices, or face the very real prospect of going out of business.

That isn't playing the race card because ANY RACE can be racist.

Dude. Accusing someone who disagrees with you of racism is textbook race-card play.

[Just_A_Guy]

If you're forcing me into that grammar here's what I'm really trying to say:

...[if] government finds a religion's teachings opposed to a fundamental interest of the government (as defined solely by the government), it can find ways to penalize such implementations of religious beliefs in the public square (where "public square" basically means "going about one's daily business", and "penalize" means "threaten individuals with fines, imprisonment, and ultimate death if the individual refuses to submit") that thus conflict based on the way the religion applies the teachings until such time as the religion changes its teachings or the public implementation's conflicts are resolved by the religion's adherents deserting the religion.

I think the implications of your statement become much more apparent with the additions in red.

[LittleWyvern]

Sweet, you took my quote and mangled it so it bears no resemblance to my post anymore. Not only are the words different, the meaning has completely changed. I really feel like you are interested in what I have to say.

[Just_A_Guy]

Which parts have I mangled, LW?

--Does government define what its own fundamental interests are, or does it not?

--Has government basically co-opted the meaning of the term "public square" to mean "anything an individual does once he leaves the four walls of his residence, and even some things he does inside it", or has it not?

--Does "penalizing" behavior involve subjecting an individual to fines, imprisonment, and possible death if one refuses to submit to the lighter penalties, or does it not?

--If the state's "fundamental interest" is at odds with the religion's teachings, and the "fundamental interest" doesn't change and the religion's teachings don't change, then isn't compelling people to abandon their religion's teachings the only real way to resolve the resulting conflict?

You can sanitize the language all you like. The realities remain, and they won't go away just because you refuse to talk about them.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[LittleWyvern]

Which parts have I mangled, LW?

I'd respond to this if the exercise didn't feel like talking to a brick wall.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm sorry you feel that way. But I still love you, bro (in a very platonic sort of way, naturally!) :)

[Finrock]

Good Evening LittleWyvern. I hope you are doing well! :)

Sweet, you took my quote and mangled it so it bears no resemblance to my post anymore. Not only are the words different, the meaning has completely changed. I really feel like you are interested in what I have to say.

What you wrote is sophistry. You are using rhetoric to try to soften the reality of what your statement implies. What your wrote, when stripped of the euphimistic assertions and taken to its logical conclusion is functionally equivalent to: The government "...can find ways to hurt the individuals who follow that religion based on the way the religion applies the teachings until such time as the religion changes its teachings or the individuals abandon the religion."

-Finrock

[Escher462]

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?

[Escher462]

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.

[Finrock]

Good evening Escher462. I hope you're having a fine day! :)

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.

What you espouse isn't liberty at all. It is antithetical to liberty. That is what is ironic. Also, the Supreme Court isn't the final arbiter of what constitutes liberty...FYI.

-Finrock

[Just_A_Guy]

Racial Discrimination by businesses IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.

Do we need to go back to Civic's 101 here????

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.

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?

Libertarian. Allowing contemptible behavior does not per se signify support for the contemptible behavior, anymore than allowing contemptible speech per se signifies support for the contemptible speech.

[Just_A_Guy]

Until you get the Supreme Court to over turn the laws to meet YOUR definition of Liberty.....my definition of Liberty WINS.

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.

Edited January 7, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Escher462]

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.

[Escher462]

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)

[jerome1232]

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.