"It's over: Gay marriage can't lose in courts" - Slate Magazine

[RMGuy]

(At least, that's how it was until the advocates for evil gained control of the courts . . .)

I thought we were toning down the rhetoric?

-RM

[yjacket]

I don't see what calling someone a gay or racial slur has to do with protecting life, liberty and property...

I could do without seeing hate signs on people's lawns, methinks that would lower property values... just saying, I would never live next to a homophobe or racist, and I think I am not the only one.

And yes people do have the tendancy to jump the gun, which is why that wouldn't work...

Me too, I don't care to see signs on lawns etc. But here is a secret it is already completely legal to have a hate sign on your own property.

And no people don't have the tendency to jump the gun; philosophically it comes down to are people basically good or are they basically evil. If people are basically good then you will have some bad actors but basic laws protecting life,liberty,property protect everyone else.

If people are basically evil, then one believes you need laws to make men good.

[raven2]

I'm pretty conservative and believe in preserving marriage between a man and a woman. But I don't actually think it's right that anyone should be denied employment, housing, business, etc. on the basis of their sexual orientation or sexual identity alone. I don't personally think Christ would want us turning such away for those things, either.

Where it gets complicated is when you bring marriage into the picture. For instance, I believe that the cake maker in Oregon should have had a right to saying "no" to making a wedding cake for a gay wedding, if he/she didn't believe in gay marriage. But I don't believe if that same couple walked in and wanted cupcakes for a snack, they should be turned away.

I certainly don't believe that it is moral or should be legal to deny them basics like housing, if they are otherwise capable of being responsible lessees. Employment is a little more sticky, but I think as long as a lifestyle of any kind doesn't interfere with being able to perform one's duties or with maintaining the company's image (for instance, Deseret Book shouldn't be forced to employ a transvestite), people should hire on a person's merits alone, not their orientation. But how to legislate or enforce any of that is beyond me.

I do think that a person should be able to put whoever they want to on their insurance if they're paying for it, and should be able to name whoever they wish as their next of kin (but can't they already do that in the form of a power of attorney?). I don't want to deny homosexuals any of those rights. Just leave marriage alone.

^^^I think this explains the church's view point pretty well.

"The Church’s doctrinal position is clear: Sexual activity should only occur between a man and a woman who are married."

"The Church has advocated for rights for same-sex couples regarding “hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.”7 In Salt Lake City, for example, the Church supported ordinances aimed at protecting gay residents from discrimination in housing and employment."

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affirms the centrality of doctrines relating to human sexuality and gender as well as the sanctity and significance of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.2 However, the Church firmly believes that all people are equally beloved children of God and deserve to be treated with love and respect. Church apostle Elder Quentin L. Cook stated, “As a church, nobody should be more loving and compassionate. Let us be at the forefront in terms of expressing love, compassion and outreach. Let’s not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle as a result of their feelings about their own gender.”

Same-Sex Attraction

Edited February 20, 2014 by raven2

[yjacket]

I'm pretty conservative and believe in preserving marriage between a man and a woman. But I don't actually think it's right that anyone should be denied employment, housing, business, etc. on the basis of their sexual orientation or sexual identity alone. I don't personally think Christ would want us turning such away for those things, either.

Well that's good, I don't believe it is right (or moral) for someone to do so either. The question becomes at what point is it right to deprive someone of their life, liberty, property for doing something that I believe is immoral.

Something that is illegal means the State has the ability to use force (i.e. police powers) to either arrest and put one in jail (deprive liberty), execute (life), or deprive property (fines).

Person A had a house to rent but will only rent to Mormons. Is it moral to take away person A's property simply because they won't rent to anyone else. I say no it is not moral to do so. And as much as I believe that Christ would condemn a person for not renting to other faiths, I can't find anything in the scriptures that indicate that Christ would be for taking person A and fining him or putting him in jail for not renting to other faiths.

Where it gets complicated is when you bring marriage into the picture. For instance, I believe that the cake maker in Oregon should have had a right to saying "no" to making a wedding cake for a gay wedding, if he/she didn't believe in gay marriage. But I don't believe if that same couple walked in and wanted cupcakes for a snack, they should be turned away.

From a moral standpoint, I agree. From a legal standpoint, I disagree.

I certainly don't believe that it is moral or should be legal to deny them basics like housing, if they are otherwise capable of being responsible lessees.

When we use words like basics, we conflate the issues. What is "basic" today is not "basic" in 50 years.

A simple scenario. I own land, I have a farm on my land, I grow potatoes for my own use. Is is moral and should it be legal for someone to come on my land and take my potatoes at the point of a gun? The answer is of course no.

What if they are starving? Morally, I would be a horrible person to not give them food, but legally if they came in with a gun and said food or you die I should have every right to refuse and fight back. Why is that? Because they do not have a claim on something that I have produced. The only person who has a claim on what I produce is me.

Now let's say we have laws that tell me I must support those who are starving. In a very, very basic economy where everyone is close to starvation this leads to perverse incentives. Basically, I have no incentive to store of excess food!!!!

The reason being because, why am I going to work twice as hard to get twice as much food when as soon as I get more food than I need to eat for my family someone can come and claim it! Property rights are the basis of a modern, functioning society.

Now what if I have a business where I sell food to other people, I take the excess food I produce and sell it. Now what happens if someone comes to me and is starving? Morally, I should give them food, legally do I have to-can they take food by force from me? Yes and no. If we answer yes to the 2nd that we should have laws to force me to give food to the starving, then we run into the scenario above . . . there is less incentive for me to actually do business because of the threat of someone taking it by force.

How does this apply to current economic society? There is a huge disincentive in the US to actually start up and do business. The litany of rules, regulations, threat of lawsuits, etc. dissuade individuals from starting businesses. It imposes additional costs on businesses in the form of lawyers to compile with all these regulations.

And in the end, just as in a basic society where you disincentivize property rights, you get less of the thing desired.

If anyone thinks discrimination in housing, employement etc. doesn't happen b/c of laws is sadly mistaken. In the private rental market for example wants to discriminate against race, religion, etc. all you need is a private interview. One can find out quite a bit without asking "forbidden" questions. All it does is push discrimination underground. If discrimination was above ground then it would be very easy for individuals to discriminate against companies or businesses that discriminate!

When property rights are respected, people find out relatively quickly that the best way to interact with others is to follow the golden rule and not discriminate.

[yjacket]

Now if yjacket had said something like "discriminate with in reason as long as it brings no actual harm" then i might be less worried.

I apologize that I was unclear: yes I mean discriminate without infringing on the life, liberty, or property of others.

[yjacket]

Even still, that could become a new segregation.

People already self-segregate!

Mapping the 2010 U.S. Census - NYTimes.com

Go to any major city and look at the demographics. You do not find many census areas that are very heterogeneous. The most heterogeneous areas are those areas that transition between homogeneous demographics.

[yjacket]

No... No... I don't have that much faith in people

I don't have much faith in the State. Jim Crow laws mandated discrimination.

[yjacket]

History will show you that people have a tendancy to take things too far

That would be the government taking things too far.

[Just_A_Guy]

When property rights are respected, people find out relatively quickly that the best way to interact with others is to follow the golden rule and not discriminate.

I often wonder what would have happened if the civil rights reformers of the 1950s and 1960s had exercised a lighter touch--prohibiting government discrimination and perhaps marketplace discrimination only with respect to necessary goods; and then let the belief that all dollars--if not all people--are created equal, combine with economic necessity and the invisible hand to lead people to more-or-less voluntarily put the rest of their prejudices behind them.

It may have taken longer; but I think over the long haul it would have eradicated racism far more effectively.

[yjacket]

It may have taken longer; but I think over the long haul it would have eradicated racism far more effectively.

I happen to think it would have happened much quicker:

"From page 111 of the 1918-1919 Negro Year Book, published by the Tuskegee Institute and edited by Monroe N. Work:

Railroads Attack Validity

Separate Car Laws.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee in a decision rendered in March, 1918, relative to white and Negroes being served in dining cars upheld the validity of the separate car laws of the United States, providing separate cars for white and Negroes. In December, 1918, the validity of the Kentucky law for the separation of races on trains was attacked in appeals to the Supreme Court by the South Covington and Cincinnati Street Railroads and the Covington and Erlanger Railway Company. These companies had been convicted in the lower courts for failing to provide separate coaches or compartments for Negroes."

I can't find the article but read one that basically stated that companies were already integrating because of the financial costs associated with maintaining separate systems; government intervention put a stop to that.

How different would things have turned out had the free market been allowed to run in this case . . .

As much as people talk about access to people denied "necessary goods", in reality it doesn't happen. Sure one particular company might not provide services or even a group of companies. But I can guarantee in a free market system if someone is desperate they will find someone to purchase goods from.

A quick example, housing. Say normal rent goes for 1000, but someone discriminates against an individual. At 2000, some enterprising young chap will most definitely enter into the market and provide housing for those who are discriminated. Yes the discriminated person will pay a higher price (I know, I know it's not "fair"---life isn't fair, deal with it), but they will get access to the good.

Edited February 21, 2014 by yjacket

[mnn727]

Is it even possible now to turn the tide and stop same-sex marriage from becoming the law of the land? What's your thoughts?

I don't believe it is possible to stop it, nor do I think it should be stopped.

The Church (and many others) may need to get out of the marriage business altogether at some point in the future as I see the day coming that anyone providing marriage services would have to marry gays.

Luckily we have Sealing's to fall back upon when/if that happens.

[apexviper]

Same-sex marriages cannot be forced upon churches. AZ businesses can deny business to gays because of religion. I'm glad AZ is taking a stand.

[Just_A_Guy]

AZ's bill isn't law yet. I sympathize with their motivations, but I think the law as-drafted is probably overbroad. I'd like to see it give judicial immunity only if discriminators can show that there is an actual religious basis for the discrimination; and also have some kind of mechanism to ensure that minority groups will still be able to get "essential" goods and services.

I've seen some interesting dialogue about how really what conservative Christians need is not to be able to discriminate against people; but to be able to discriminate against particular events. It would be interesting to see someone develop legislation that could honor that kind of distinction. The trouble here is, the bill's drafters are basically trying to tweak an earlier law that was passed over a decade ago (and was designed specifically for religions), in order to have a broader application. I think, to accomplish what they really want to do here, the legislature needs to start from scratch.

[Canuck Mormon]

Same-sex marriages cannot be forced upon churches. AZ businesses can deny business to gays because of religion. I'm glad AZ is taking a stand.

So if I walk in to a store wearing a rainbow t-shirt and the store owner then ASSUMES I'm gay, he/she can deny me service? Are we going to start issuing "gay ID's"? Maybe we'll give them the Mark of Cain....oh wait, that one is taken.

This is a rediculous law and should be struck down. If they want to protect religeous freedoms, than protect religeous freedoms, not pass a blanket law.

[Guest]

So if I walk in to a store wearing a rainbow t-shirt and the store owner then ASSUMES I'm gay, he/she can deny me service? Are we going to start issuing "gay ID's"? Maybe we'll give them the Mark of Cain....oh wait, that one is taken.

This is a rediculous law and should be struck down. If they want to protect religeous freedoms, than protect religeous freedoms, not pass a blanket law.

And this is the thing... NO CHURCH IN EXISTENCE believes wearing a rainbow shirt is sinful. Okay, I don't know every single Church in existence... but none of them that I know of, at least.

Engaging in homosex is sinful. In Church parlance since time immemorial, when they talk about gay being sinful they are talking about gay sex. Because, otherwise, there's no reason to identify yourself gay. In today's LGBT stuff, they have now changed the word gay to be people who don't have to have gay sex but wants to be identified gay for some reason. So that, even if you've never had sex with the same gender or even contemplated or desired to have sex with the same gender, you can call yourself gay just because you're a man and you're attracted to Tom Brady and not Gisele. But that is not what Churches are against. At least not the Catholic Church nor the LDS Church. It's the sexual relations that are sinful.

So, the business activity that is covered by the law are things like - things for gay weddings, adoption of children to gay couples, etc. Not just because you walked in to the store to buy candy wearing a rainbow shirt.

I am for the law - or the spirit for which it is intended. I sure don't want Catholic adoption agencies to have to close because of the LGBT movement!

Edited February 26, 2014 by anatess

[Just_A_Guy]

This is a rediculous law and should be struck down. If they want to protect religeous freedoms, than protect religeous freedoms, not pass a blanket law.

Just to make sure we're all on the same page: That is what the law purports to do. It isn't formally revoking existing anti-discrimination law; it's just granting an exemption to civil/criminal liability for discriminatory behavior if that behavior is rooted in religious belief--and it does it by broadening the language of a law that is already on the books. The text is online here.

[LittleWyvern]

And this is the thing... NO CHURCH IN EXISTENCE believes wearing a rainbow shirt is sinful. Okay, I don't know every single Church in existence... but none of them that I know of, at least.

How does this Arizona law define "religious belief," though? If I say that it's my religious belief to refuse service to redheads, skinny people, or men who speak with a New York accent, what verification is there? Do my religious beliefs have to be in a religion recognized by the state, or do I just say the magic words "religious belief" and I'm allowed to do whatever I want?

That's what worries me about this law, because either answer to this question makes me nervous. I don't like a verification process for religions or requiring religions to be recognized by the state, because Church history teaches us that we can't depend on that. At the same time, I don't like there being no verification process either, as in that setting what else is a determining factor on "religious belief" than "I told you I believe it?" People can say they believe anything.

EDIT: I've looked at the law JaG linked to and it doesn't seem like it has any operational definition of "religious belief" at all. Definition 2, which defines "exercise of religion," uses the term "religious belief" without defining it. That's an awfully large gray area.

Edited February 26, 2014 by LittleWyvern

[Guest]

How does this Arizona law define "religious belief," though? If I say that it's my religious belief to refuse service to redheads, skinny people, or men who speak with a New York accent, what verification is there? Do my religious beliefs have to be in a religion recognized by the state, or do I just say the magic words "religious belief" and I'm allowed to do whatever I want?

That's what worries me about this law, because either answer to this question makes me nervous. I don't like a verification process for religions or requiring religions to be recognized by the state, because Church history teaches us that we can't depend on that. At the same time, I don't like there being no verification process either, as in that setting what else is a determining factor on "religious belief" than "I told you I believe it?" People can say they believe anything.

EDIT: I've looked at the law JaG linked to and it doesn't seem like it has any operational definition of "religious belief" at all. Definition 2, which defines "exercise of religion," uses the term "religious belief" without defining it. That's an awfully large gray area.

But the law doesn't cover anything beyond the gay issue. So, you have to prove that you belong to a religion that is against gay sex. And sure, like the movie Joyful Noise, you can belong to a Church that Dolly Parton just created out of thin air so you can join the Christian Choir Contest and claim the religious exemption on the gay service if your Church considers gay sex sinful.

[LittleWyvern]

But the law doesn't cover anything beyond the gay issue.

It does cover the "gay issue," but in an indirect way which by consequence allows discrimination for any religious reason whatsoever. Sexual orientation isn't mentioned explicitly, so the scope of the law goes far beyond just the "gay issue." I don't think sexual orientation could be mentioned explicitly without running up against the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

So, you have to prove that you belong to a religion that is against gay sex.

Nope. According to the law JaG posted, you don't have to be against gay sex in particular: you could think redheads are of the devil and discriminate against them in your business and this law would protect you just as much as if you discriminated against sexual orientation, so long as you mention the magic words "religious belief."

[Windseeker]

So your force someone to video tap your wedding when they don't agree with it, what would prevent something like this happening?

A Jewish bride and antisemitic wedding video | The Jewish Chronicle

[Just_A_Guy]

But the law doesn't cover anything beyond the gay issue.

The way I read the bill, it could cover pretty much any kind of conduct so long as the actor claims a religious basis for the action. That could cover otherwise-illegal discrimination--against gays, redheads, Mormons, Filipinos or whatever--but also, say, animal sacrifice that would otherwise be prohibited by health/safety/humanity regulations, or peyote smoking, or zoning requirements for religious structures, or sex rituals (possibly even including otherwise illegal intercourse between adults and teenagers) . . . anything, really. Once the actor alleges religious grounds, then the state has to prove that the law really should apply nonetheless because the law furthers a compelling state interest.

You're kind of creating a mess for the courts, then; because every. single. one. of Arizona's (presumably) thousands of individual laws, could be challenged by any yahoo who claims a religious grounds for disobeying the law. It might be worth the increased case load; that problem could be easily avoided if the legislature would just pass something that was more carefully drafted.

In short: I'd take this bill over nothing; but I'm not happy with it.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Soulsearcher]

So your force someone to video tap your wedding when they don't agree with it, what would prevent something like this happening?

A Jewish bride and antisemitic wedding video | The Jewish Chronicle

Or the businesses could do what not one has done yet. Each of the businesses has done an out right rejection which is what's got them in trouble. A few of them have done it after the person accepted the job at first then canceled after finding out what it's for. Not one has said " Now due to the law i cannot refuse to serve you, that being said I'm not very comfortable with this type of event and cannot guarantee the usual quality of my work, i know of someone on par with my quality who would do a much better job, can i give you their info so i can assure you get the level of service you are paying for." The choice of the customer could go either way, but that being said it might have saved some law suits and might have made things easier for both sides. Believe it or not, the owners showing the level of respect they want to their customers could go a long way rather than an email after the job was accepted saying "sorry you're gay, I'm dropping you" which if i remember correctly was what one of them did.

The other thing as i said earlier is as much as religious people like this i don't think they see some downsides that could pop up. Yes it gives you the right to say no based on religious beliefs, but what happens if your business is not consistent with those belief's. This could end up putting people with religious belief's who run businesses under a microscope if they choose to invoke this law.

[Just_A_Guy]

So your force someone to video tap your wedding when they don't agree with it, what would prevent something like this happening?

A Jewish bride and antisemitic wedding video | The Jewish Chronicle

Shades of Shel Silverstein:

If you have to dry the dishes

(such an awful, boring chore)

If you have to dry the dishes

'stead of going to the store

If you have to dry the dishes

and you drop one to the floor,

Maybe they won't make you

dry the dishes, anymore.

[carlimac]

Or the businesses could do what not one has done yet. Each of the businesses has done an out right rejection which is what's got them in trouble. A few of them have done it after the person accepted the job at first then canceled after finding out what it's for. Not one has said " Now due to the law i cannot refuse to serve you, that being said I'm not very comfortable with this type of event and cannot guarantee the usual quality of my work, i know of someone on par with my quality who would do a much better job, can i give you their info so i can assure you get the level of service you are paying for." The choice of the customer could go either way, but that being said it might have saved some law suits and might have made things easier for both sides. Believe it or not, the owners showing the level of respect they want to their customers could go a long way rather than an email after the job was accepted saying "sorry you're gay, I'm dropping you" which if i remember correctly was what one of them did.

The other thing as i said earlier is as much as religious people like this i don't think they see some downsides that could pop up. Yes it gives you the right to say no based on religious beliefs, but what happens if your business is not consistent with those belief's. This could end up putting people with religious belief's who run businesses under a microscope if they choose to invoke this law.

How do you know exactly what was said in each of the cases? Do you reallythink the wording would have made any difference in how the gays or lesbians reacted? I say no because they were out for attention and money from the minute they were rejected.

[carlimac]

And now, if Fox News alerts is accurate, Texas, of all places is in on the fun.

I don't know much about the legality of all this, but my attorney husband says this is corruption of govt. and way overreach of the judicial branch of govt.

Anyone want to join me on a deserted island in the ocean to start over?

Federal judge strikes down Texas ban on gay marriage, postpones action pending appeal | Fox News