Marriage is Totally Gay

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 30200
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Warren »

lunchstealer wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 18:27
JasonL wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 17:53 I don't understand why religious practice should have a micrometer more breadth for association than a commercial enterprise.
On a first-principles take, perhaps, but our constitution was not written that way, so I understand why from a legal standpoint religious practice should have more breadth for association than a commercial enterprise.
Whacha talkin bout Willis?
Nobody, men included, wants a world where men treat women with the same respect they show to other men. - thoreau
User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 19070
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by lunchstealer »

Jennifer wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 17:09
Eric the .5b wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 16:23
Jennifer wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 16:19
Eric the .5b wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 16:15 Nobody has a right to get married in "Boone's Camp" that must be protected with government force.
Except that's the same argument segregationists made to justify opposition to equal-protection laws based on race: nobody has a right to stay in a given motel, eat in a given restaurant, shop in a given store, etc.
Which I already pointed out isn't even relevant to wedding venues in the bit you cut out.
True, and for that I apologize (I've currently got three windows open with three things going on, and got sloppy), but -- even assuming a scenario where sellers of "travel necessities" were obligated to treat all would-be customers equally, and only those who run "luxury" businesses (such as for-profit wedding venues, or convention centers) were allowed to be bigots in the name of their god, I'm still not comfortable with that because I DON'T see it stopping with "Okay, so gays and mixed-race couples and non-Christians and whatever can't get married here; big whoop." The people demanding the super-important right to discriminate against people they don't even know because Zod Almighty conveniently hates the same people they do are not going to be satisfied with "Okay, so long as they don't get hitched in my business I don't care what they do." And, while "everyone can travel without a green book" beats the Jim Crow status quo, I would not be too thrilled with a hybrid scenario "Well, anyone can dine at any restaurant or stay at any hotel -- but when this black couple travels to TouristLand they're not allowed to browse my flea market, visit my wax museum or any other touristy crap going on. You may have the right to stay in a given motel provided you have the money to pay for it -- but there's no right to visit my amusement park or buy my secondhand goods or etc. etc."
This is my concern. What's the difference between a wedding venue and, say, a concert venue? Or a bar, for that matter. I mean, as with weddings, one can host some friends for drinks in your house or backyard or maybe at a hotel room or something.

Do we really want the government to start proscribing which businesses/amenities are 'essential' and therefore prohibited from free-association decisions, and which are sufficiently luxury/optional that they drop an n-bomb on you for walking in the door and send you on your way? I know that freedom of association is important in libertarianism, but in non-anarchist libertarianism where there is some regulation it's generally considered a good to have a simple, easily interpreted, easily implemented law in place. Just saying, "Commercial enterprises shall not exclude large groups of people on the basis of race, ethnicity, religious status, or gender," is a lot easier to implement and understand than, "Commercial enterprises which provide sufficiently essential services shall be in a class of open-accomodation businesses, but others which are more luxury things are, y'know, not that big a deal if they tell people to fuck off."

And I don't see how same-sex attraction/relationships/romance/marriage isn't sex/gender discrimination. If I walk into a wedding venue looking to marry Rachel Weiss, and am allowed to do so because I am male, but after my tragic death, Ellie walks into that same venue looking to marry the now tragically single Rachel Weiss, and is turned down, it is because she is a woman and I'm a man and that's sex discrimination. So I don't see any reason to carve that particular bit of sex discrimination out from other forms of sex discrimination and say, "Well the gays aren't persecuted enough so STFU."
"Dude she's the Purdue Pharma of the black pill." - JasonL

"This thread is like a dog park where everyone lets their preconceptions and biases run around and sniff each others butts." - Hugh Akston

"That's just tokenism with extra steps." - Jake
User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 19070
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by lunchstealer »

Warren wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 18:49
lunchstealer wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 18:27
JasonL wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 17:53 I don't understand why religious practice should have a micrometer more breadth for association than a commercial enterprise.
On a first-principles take, perhaps, but our constitution was not written that way, so I understand why from a legal standpoint religious practice should have more breadth for association than a commercial enterprise.
Whacha talkin bout Willis?
The first amendment specifically references free exercise of religion but no similar free-exercise of commerce discussed in the Bill of Rights. Hence, there's a legal reason why religion gets treated as a special case.
"Dude she's the Purdue Pharma of the black pill." - JasonL

"This thread is like a dog park where everyone lets their preconceptions and biases run around and sniff each others butts." - Hugh Akston

"That's just tokenism with extra steps." - Jake
User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 26096
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Jennifer »

lunchstealer wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 18:57
Jennifer wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 17:09
Eric the .5b wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 16:23
Jennifer wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 16:19
Eric the .5b wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 16:15 Nobody has a right to get married in "Boone's Camp" that must be protected with government force.
Except that's the same argument segregationists made to justify opposition to equal-protection laws based on race: nobody has a right to stay in a given motel, eat in a given restaurant, shop in a given store, etc.
Which I already pointed out isn't even relevant to wedding venues in the bit you cut out.
True, and for that I apologize (I've currently got three windows open with three things going on, and got sloppy), but -- even assuming a scenario where sellers of "travel necessities" were obligated to treat all would-be customers equally, and only those who run "luxury" businesses (such as for-profit wedding venues, or convention centers) were allowed to be bigots in the name of their god, I'm still not comfortable with that because I DON'T see it stopping with "Okay, so gays and mixed-race couples and non-Christians and whatever can't get married here; big whoop." The people demanding the super-important right to discriminate against people they don't even know because Zod Almighty conveniently hates the same people they do are not going to be satisfied with "Okay, so long as they don't get hitched in my business I don't care what they do." And, while "everyone can travel without a green book" beats the Jim Crow status quo, I would not be too thrilled with a hybrid scenario "Well, anyone can dine at any restaurant or stay at any hotel -- but when this black couple travels to TouristLand they're not allowed to browse my flea market, visit my wax museum or any other touristy crap going on. You may have the right to stay in a given motel provided you have the money to pay for it -- but there's no right to visit my amusement park or buy my secondhand goods or etc. etc."
This is my concern. What's the difference between a wedding venue and, say, a concert venue? Or a bar, for that matter. I mean, as with weddings, one can host some friends for drinks in your house or backyard or maybe at a hotel room or something.

Do we really want the government to start proscribing which businesses/amenities are 'essential' and therefore prohibited from free-association decisions, and which are sufficiently luxury/optional that they drop an n-bomb on you for walking in the door and send you on your way? I know that freedom of association is important in libertarianism, but in non-anarchist libertarianism where there is some regulation it's generally considered a good to have a simple, easily interpreted, easily implemented law in place. Just saying, "Commercial enterprises shall not exclude large groups of people on the basis of race, ethnicity, religious status, or gender," is a lot easier to implement and understand than, "Commercial enterprises which provide sufficiently essential services shall be in a class of open-accomodation businesses, but others which are more luxury things are, y'know, not that big a deal if they tell people to fuck off."

And I don't see how same-sex attraction/relationships/romance/marriage isn't sex/gender discrimination. If I walk into a wedding venue looking to marry Rachel Weiss, and am allowed to do so because I am male, but after my tragic death, Ellie walks into that same venue looking to marry the now tragically single Rachel Weiss, and is turned down, it is because she is a woman and I'm a man and that's sex discrimination. So I don't see any reason to carve that particular bit of sex discrimination out from other forms of sex discrimination and say, "Well the gays aren't persecuted enough so STFU."
Relevant excerpt from MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail:
You suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children.
Having Funtown closed to gay children, or gay couples' children, is no better, IMO. And changing Funtown to "for-profit wedding/party venue" does not improve things.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b
User avatar
Warren
Posts: 30200
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Warren »

lunchstealer wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 18:59
Warren wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 18:49
lunchstealer wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 18:27
JasonL wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 17:53 I don't understand why religious practice should have a micrometer more breadth for association than a commercial enterprise.
On a first-principles take, perhaps, but our constitution was not written that way, so I understand why from a legal standpoint religious practice should have more breadth for association than a commercial enterprise.
Whacha talkin bout Willis?
The first amendment specifically references free exercise of religion but no similar free-exercise of commerce discussed in the Bill of Rights. Hence, there's a legal reason why religion gets treated as a special case.
That's a novel theory. The first amendment also references freedom of assembly with no ties to religion.
Nobody, men included, wants a world where men treat women with the same respect they show to other men. - thoreau
User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 26096
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Jennifer »

lunchstealer wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 18:57
Do we really want the government to start proscribing which businesses/amenities are 'essential' and therefore prohibited from free-association decisions, and which are sufficiently luxury/optional that they drop an n-bomb on you for walking in the door and send you on your way?
I'm trying to imagine such a nightmare scenario, especially with "bigotry is okay in the name of religious liberty" scenarios, and ... ouchywawa, it's a fucking mess.

To avoid the necessity for modern green books, certain things have to be considered "necessities," at minimum: food, lodging, bathroom facilities and emergency medical care. (Food, of course, does not go so far as to include wedding cakes.) But technically -- especially if you're talking about travelers far from their own homes and the homes of friend and family -- laundromats and clothing stores count too: you are legally required to wear a certain amount of clothing at all times, biologically required to wear a certain amount of clothing in certain climate conditions (e.g. "heat-retaining clothes in subfreezing temperatures"), and socially (and sometimes hygienically) required to have those clothes be at a certain minimum level of cleanliness. And even if travelers always pack sufficient quantities of clothes for their trips, things happen and those clothes might need to be cleaned or replaced en route.

That said: many people (including me) buy clothes primarily at thrift stores, many of which are run by religious charities. So, presumably, Salvation Army or St. Vincent de Paul stores -- and local "indie" thrifts like the First Independent Reformed Freewill Baptist Rattlesnake-Handlers charity thrift store or weekend fundraising bazaars -- could keep gay couples, or mixed-race couples, or whoever they might hate out of their places of business, but things like hospital thrift stores could not (unless it's a Catholic hospital, in which case they can).

Presumably, interstate or intrastate travel is a "necessity" -- airlines can't refuse to sell tickets to gay passengers -- but what about super-touristy travel shit like "the trolley shuttle that only ever travels between the beach district, the tacky-wedding-chapel district and the theme park district?" We've already established that there is no "right" to be married at any business establishment, presumably there's no right to visit a given beach (unless it's public property in which case anti-discrimination laws presumably apply), and I doubt there's a "right" to attend a given theme park either... so why bother letting gays (or mixed-race couples, or wrong-race individuals, or whoever) ride these trolleys which would only take them to places they're not allowed entry to anyway?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b
User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 20446
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

I wouldn't try to justify my position on whatever "first principles" means. Practically and politically, American society and government is what it is today because of America's past and I have no interest in tearing down the social order to begin at Libertarian Year Zero. Nor, in my opinion, is the question what is or is not essential particularly useful. Social interactions and commercial transactions are necessarily rule governed, so to me the issue is how to fashion those rules to create as open and free a society that is achievable and sustainable given, as Jimmy Durante would have said, "the conditions that prevail." Race doesn't exist except that people believe it does, so it does. Why is religion more important than commerce? Because people believe that it is. Or, if you prefer, because commerce is more important than religion, it's more important to maximize everyone's access to it. I don't care which way we try to justify it or whether we try to justify it at all. No rights are inviolable, all rights must be balanced against competing rights, not all slopes are equally slippery and after that is acknowledged; that is, once we've agreed some minimal government is necessary for any sort of well ordered society I think anyone would actually want to live in, we're just quibbling about the price.
User avatar
Warren
Posts: 30200
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Warren »

Shorter DAR: Nevermind about principle or precedent, just do what I want.
Nobody, men included, wants a world where men treat women with the same respect they show to other men. - thoreau
User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 19070
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by lunchstealer »

Warren wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 19:11
lunchstealer wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 18:59
Warren wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 18:49
lunchstealer wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 18:27
JasonL wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 17:53 I don't understand why religious practice should have a micrometer more breadth for association than a commercial enterprise.
On a first-principles take, perhaps, but our constitution was not written that way, so I understand why from a legal standpoint religious practice should have more breadth for association than a commercial enterprise.
Whacha talkin bout Willis?
The first amendment specifically references free exercise of religion but no similar free-exercise of commerce discussed in the Bill of Rights. Hence, there's a legal reason why religion gets treated as a special case.
That's a novel theory. The first amendment also references freedom of assembly with no ties to religion.
That's a REALLY novel reading of the right of the people peaceably to assemble - which I've never heard anyone refer to as anything other than the right to peaceful public protest.
"Dude she's the Purdue Pharma of the black pill." - JasonL

"This thread is like a dog park where everyone lets their preconceptions and biases run around and sniff each others butts." - Hugh Akston

"That's just tokenism with extra steps." - Jake
User avatar
Warren
Posts: 30200
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Warren »

lunchstealer wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 21:40
Warren wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 19:11
lunchstealer wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 18:59
Warren wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 18:49
lunchstealer wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 18:27
JasonL wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 17:53 I don't understand why religious practice should have a micrometer more breadth for association than a commercial enterprise.
On a first-principles take, perhaps, but our constitution was not written that way, so I understand why from a legal standpoint religious practice should have more breadth for association than a commercial enterprise.
Whacha talkin bout Willis?
The first amendment specifically references free exercise of religion but no similar free-exercise of commerce discussed in the Bill of Rights. Hence, there's a legal reason why religion gets treated as a special case.
That's a novel theory. The first amendment also references freedom of assembly with no ties to religion.
That's a REALLY novel reading of the right of the people peaceably to assemble - which I've never heard anyone refer to as anything other than the right to peaceful public protest.
Well it's not my argument. I'm sure I read it somewhere. At any rate, freedom of association is not mentioned in the constitution. The first amendment talks about freedom of religion, but it also talks about freedom of speech, press, and assembly. It's nonsense to say that religion has special protection with regards to other rights. You don't get more freedom of speech in church.
Nobody, men included, wants a world where men treat women with the same respect they show to other men. - thoreau
User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 19070
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by lunchstealer »

No because speech is already highly protected, but other things that are not so protected as speech that can be better protected for churches than for us plebs. Peyote use comes to mind.
"Dude she's the Purdue Pharma of the black pill." - JasonL

"This thread is like a dog park where everyone lets their preconceptions and biases run around and sniff each others butts." - Hugh Akston

"That's just tokenism with extra steps." - Jake
User avatar
Andrew
Posts: 7110
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 21:52
Location: Vale of Eternal Fire

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Andrew »

lunchstealer wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 21:40 That's a REALLY novel reading of the right of the people peaceably to assemble - which I've never heard anyone refer to as anything other than the right to peaceful public protest.
There are a number of Supreme Court decisions that interpret assembly as including freedom of association in non-political settings. Plenty of them are politically related or related to unions and political activity, but some are more general. Here's a decent summary:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitutio ... ssociation
We live in the fucked age. Get used to it. - dhex
User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 17293
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Aresen »

Not to mention libertarians' right to split into factions over minute ideological interpretations.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex
User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 15105
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Eric the .5b »

Jennifer wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 17:09True, and for that I apologize (I've currently got three windows open with three things going on, and got sloppy), but -- even assuming a scenario where sellers of "travel necessities" were obligated to treat all would-be customers equally, and only those who run "luxury" businesses (such as for-profit wedding venues, or convention centers) were allowed to be bigots in the name of their god
I'm not assuming that scenario. That's a long, winding argument you and Lunchstealer went on without me. Though, I have to note that yes, the scenario you and him devise would in fact be more complicated than just broad rules for all private establishments that completely deny freedom of association. Just like the rules involving freedom of speech are more complicated than "anyone in authority can silence anything they don't like" or "Here's the list of things you can talk about." or "a Republican wants to use your soapbox, you have to let him".

I was noting that issue to point out that not even the argument about weary travelers applies, here.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.
User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 19070
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by lunchstealer »

Aresen wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 23:33 Not to mention libertarians' right to split into factions over minute ideological interpretations.
REAL libertarians split into factions over minute CONSTITUTIONAL interpretations!
"Dude she's the Purdue Pharma of the black pill." - JasonL

"This thread is like a dog park where everyone lets their preconceptions and biases run around and sniff each others butts." - Hugh Akston

"That's just tokenism with extra steps." - Jake
User avatar
Warren
Posts: 30200
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Warren »

lunchstealer wrote: 03 Sep 2019, 00:24
Aresen wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 23:33 Not to mention libertarians' right to split into factions over minute ideological interpretations.
REAL libertarians split into factions over minute CONSTITUTIONAL interpretations!
9th Amendment or GTFO
Nobody, men included, wants a world where men treat women with the same respect they show to other men. - thoreau
User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 15105
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Eric the .5b »

Warren wrote: 03 Sep 2019, 01:49
lunchstealer wrote: 03 Sep 2019, 00:24
Aresen wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 23:33 Not to mention libertarians' right to split into factions over minute ideological interpretations.
REAL libertarians split into factions over minute CONSTITUTIONAL interpretations!
9th Amendment or GTFO
Warren, you Third Amendment squish.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.
User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 17293
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Aresen »

We almost need a thread for anti-gay preachers and activists who later come out as gay:

Founder of conversion therapy organization comes out as gay and apologizes
The founder of one of the largest conversion therapy organizations has come out as gay and has apologized for his role in pushing the practice.

McKrae Game, 51, the founder and leader of Hope for Wholeness in South Carolina, publicly revealed his sexuality back in June, more than two years after he was fired by the board of directors.

He opened up about the situation in a Facebook post last week, which began: "I WAS WRONG! Please forgive me!"
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex
User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 26096
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Jennifer »

I'm not even being snarky when I say: anytime a politico goes on at length about the evils of homosexuality, I take for granted he's in the closet. (The one possible exception is Kim Davis, but she doesn't need closeted gayness to be a sexual hypocrite; she's already got multiple "adulterous-in-the-eyes-of-Jesus" marriages to sustain her.)
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b
User avatar
Jake
Posts: 2932
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:38

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Jake »

Aresen wrote: 03 Sep 2019, 15:39 We almost need a thread for anti-gay preachers and activists
Aresen wrote: 03 Sep 2019, 15:39who later come out as gay
But you repeat yourself. :)
"One doesn't want to be a Chicken Little but OTOH does the sky look closer to you? It looks closer to me." -- Warren
User avatar
Number 6
Posts: 3422
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:41

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Number 6 »

D.A. Ridgely wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 20:09 I wouldn't try to justify my position on whatever "first principles" means. Practically and politically, American society and government is what it is today because of America's past and I have no interest in tearing down the social order to begin at Libertarian Year Zero. Nor, in my opinion, is the question what is or is not essential particularly useful. Social interactions and commercial transactions are necessarily rule governed, so to me the issue is how to fashion those rules to create as open and free a society that is achievable and sustainable given, as Jimmy Durante would have said, "the conditions that prevail." Race doesn't exist except that people believe it does, so it does. Why is religion more important than commerce? Because people believe that it is. Or, if you prefer, because commerce is more important than religion, it's more important to maximize everyone's access to it. I don't care which way we try to justify it or whether we try to justify it at all. No rights are inviolable, all rights must be balanced against competing rights, not all slopes are equally slippery and after that is acknowledged; that is, once we've agreed some minimal government is necessary for any sort of well ordered society I think anyone would actually want to live in, we're just quibbling about the price.
As is so often the case, DAR speaks my mind better than I can.
I would, however, add the caveat that though we know that there are no such things as inviolable rights and principles, there are some that we should pretend are just that. At the very least, we should pretend they are violable only under extreme circumstances.
" i discovered you eat dog dicks out of a bowl marked "dog dicks" because you're too stupid to remember where you left your bowl of dog dicks."-dhex, of course.
"Come, let us go forth and not rape together"-Jadagul
User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 15105
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Eric the .5b »

Number 6 wrote: 04 Sep 2019, 18:00I would, however, add the caveat that though we know that there are no such things as inviolable rights and principles, there are some that we should pretend are just that. At the very least, we should pretend they are violable only under extreme circumstances.
I'm certainly against blowing off those principles and rights for everyone merely because some people are assholes.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.
User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 14668
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Kolohe »

It seems to me that in today’s 6-3 Bostock v Clayton county decision, the precedents cited and the logic used could have wound up with the result that you can’t fire someone for being transgender, but you could for being gay/lesbian/bi.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/c ... y-georgia/
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex
User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 19741
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: Elev. 5280 ft

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Hugh Akston »

SCOTUS declined Kim Davis’ appeal yesterday, but Thomas and Alito suggested that maybe this whole equal protection thing might be worth another look.
“Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society,” Justice Thomas wrote, adding that the decision had stigmatized people of faith.

“Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss,” Justice Thomas wrote, adding, “In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals.”
The state discriminating against gays is one thing, but people treating Christians like bigots just for acting like bigots is too much to bear.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Somali pirates are beholden to their hostages in a way that the USG is not." ~Dangerman
User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 19070
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by lunchstealer »

Hugh Akston wrote: 06 Oct 2020, 09:41 SCOTUS declined Kim Davis’ appeal yesterday, but Thomas and Alito suggested that maybe this whole equal protection thing might be worth another look.
“Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society,” Justice Thomas wrote, adding that the decision had stigmatized people of faith.

“Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss,” Justice Thomas wrote, adding, “In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals.”
The state discriminating against gays is one thing, but people treating Christians like bigots just for acting like bigots is too much to bear.
“In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals.”
Or "...being a public official who refuses to perform their duties in such a way that the government itself fundamentally operates according to those religious grounds in a way that the government invidiously discriminates against homosexuals is invidious government discrimination against homosexuals."

I can't imagine that a Muslim or even a member of certain Christian sects who object to the charging of interest as usury on religious grounds could exercise those beliefs in such a way that they interfere with and fundamentally prevent all non-zero-interest-rate mortgage lending in their jurisdiction. My mother in law used to, with apparent sincerity, believe that God intended for white and black races not to intermarry and interbreed. Should she, if she were to have Kim Davis' job, be allowed to contravene Loving v Virginia and refuse to sign marriage licenses for interractial marriages?

Government officials who refuse to set aside religiously motivated discrimination are de facto establishing their religion and their interpretation of that religion as dominant over the Constitution and over democratic choices and over their constituents many of whom will not share that religion and/or interpretation thereof.

There's no way to see what Thomas and Alito argue here as anything short of a separate standard for religious opposition to gay marriage and reproductive rights than for most other religious beliefs, or a method whereby a religious majority could supersede the rights of religious minorities by simply electing people who will refuse to and will hire people who refuse to accommodate other religions based on religious grounds. Boom, 14th and 1st Amendments become dead letter. Congrats Thomas and Alito and your wonderful devotion to constitutionalism!
"Dude she's the Purdue Pharma of the black pill." - JasonL

"This thread is like a dog park where everyone lets their preconceptions and biases run around and sniff each others butts." - Hugh Akston

"That's just tokenism with extra steps." - Jake
Post Reply