Marriage is Totally Gay

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 25725
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Mo »

But we were told that allowing people to discriminate only on religion would only lead to discriminating against the gheys, not based on race.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex
User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25475
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by JasonL »

Sigh. I still think they should be allowed to be awful. They are shit but it just isn’t right to use the power of state.
User avatar
Andrew
Posts: 7110
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 21:52
Location: Vale of Eternal Fire

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Andrew »

JasonL wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 09:03 Sigh. I still think they should be allowed to be awful. They are shit but it just isn’t right to use the power of state.
Yes, this.
We live in the fucked age. Get used to it. - dhex
User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 19730
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: Elev. 5280 ft

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Hugh Akston »

So say we all
"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
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 »

No, on reflection, I think Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a necessary evil that led to a good end and one that should be extended to LGBT people, as well. No question it violates my libertarian sensibilities, but the result of forcing hotels, restaurants, etc. to serve African Americans, though it took many years, was a society in which even in the deepest South no one bats an eye to see integrated hotels, restaurants, etc. We can argue counterfactually whether or at what pace such change would have occurred but for Title II, but having lived through that era I am certain it would have been much, much longer coming.

Yes, there are legitimate First Amendment issues in requiring some vendors and service providers to engage in commerce that offends their religious beliefs or requires them to participate in what amounts to "forced speech," but they are a tiny fraction of cases or, if they're not, they're mostly cases in which the balancing of rights should mostly lean in opposition to the discrimination that they seek to justify on the basis of those beliefs. You can believe any damned thing you want. You can say any damned thing you want. But you can't do any damned thing you want in the performance of whatever it is you do to earn a living in a pluralistic society. You don't want to bake a cake that says "God Bless the Marriage of Adam and Steve"? Get out of the cake baking business or at the very least stop decorating anybody's cake with anything even remotely resembling religious or political symbols or speech.
User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 17288
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Aresen »

Team DAR. It may cost me my decoder ring, but I don't think things would have changed much if certain troglodytes hadn't been dragged screaming and kicking into the second half of the 20th Century.
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
lunchstealer
Posts: 19059
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by lunchstealer »

Perfect world, yeah, but if Trump has shown me anything it's that horrible people are more plentiful than I thought.
Aresen wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 14:39 Team DAR. It may cost me my decoder ring, but I don't think things would have changed much if certain troglodytes hadn't been dragged screaming and kicking into the second half of the 20th Century.
And I'm starting to think that they're screaming and kicking to get back to the first half of the 20th Century. I am not sanguine about the fate of certain parts of the south if left to its own devices in that regard.
"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
thoreau
Posts: 30419
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by thoreau »

There are days when I think it's a shame that Sherman didn't have nukes.
" Columbus wasn’t a profile in courage or brilliance despite the odds, he was a dumb motherfucker that got lucky. Oddly, that makes him the perfect talisman for the Trump era."
--Mo
User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 26089
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Jennifer »

I'm Team DAResen on this one.
"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: 30178
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Warren »

D.A. Ridgely wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 14:34 No, on reflection, I think Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a necessary evil that led to a good end and one that should be extended to LGBT people, as well. No question it violates my libertarian sensibilities, but the result of forcing hotels, restaurants, etc. to serve African Americans, though it took many years, was a society in which even in the deepest South no one bats an eye to see integrated hotels, restaurants, etc. We can argue counterfactually whether or at what pace such change would have occurred but for Title II, but having lived through that era I am certain it would have been much, much longer coming.
No. There simply isn't the apartheid of Jim Crow oppressing LGBT. They're here, they're queer, we're all use to it. Are there LGBT bigots? Of course, otherwise you wouldn't need to force people to bake wedding cakes at gun point. But it's not like there are whole states where no one will cater a gay wedding. America 2019 is nowhere even fucking close to needing the sort of jackbooted THINK WHAT THE STATE TELLS YOU TO THINK correctives of Title II.
Last edited by Warren on 02 Sep 2019, 15:30, edited 2 times in total.
Nobody, men included, wants a world where men treat women with the same respect they show to other men. - thoreau
User avatar
Warren
Posts: 30178
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Warren »

thoreau wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 15:06 There are days when I think it's a shame that Sherman didn't have nukes.
Fuck that. I'll take Georgia politics over Illinois politics every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Nobody, men included, wants a world where men treat women with the same respect they show to other men. - thoreau
User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 26089
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Jennifer »

Warren wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 15:27 But it's not like there are whole states where no one will cater a gay wedding.
In part BECAUSE of those civil rights laws which Trump and Co. are trying to roll back. Remember, when Kim Davis was making headlines in Kentucky she was NOT the only government official to do so; had the courts sided with her, we'd have seen a lot more such incidents. And not just in the South, either.

EDIT: typo
Last edited by Jennifer on 02 Sep 2019, 15:53, edited 1 time in total.
"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 »

Warren wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 15:27
D.A. Ridgely wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 14:34 No, on reflection, I think Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a necessary evil that led to a good end and one that should be extended to LGBT people, as well. No question it violates my libertarian sensibilities, but the result of forcing hotels, restaurants, etc. to serve African Americans, though it took many years, was a society in which even in the deepest South no one bats an eye to see integrated hotels, restaurants, etc. We can argue counterfactually whether or at what pace such change would have occurred but for Title II, but having lived through that era I am certain it would have been much, much longer coming.
No. There simply isn't the apartheid of Jim Crow oppressing LGBT. They're here, they're queer, we're all use to it. Are there LGBT bigots? Of course, otherwise you wouldn't need to force people to bake wedding cakes at gun point. But it's not like there are whole states where no one will cater a gay wedding. America 2019 is nowhere even fucking close to needing the sort of jackbooted THINK WHAT THE STATE TELLS YOU TO THINK correctives of Title II.
If you don't think there are hotels and restaurants and bars across not just the South but the entire country that would refuse service to homosexuals if they believed they could do so with impunity, you're oblivious to the very reason a gay demimonde existed here and pretty much everywhere else in the world until very recently. The religious right is as overt in its aim to overturn Obergfell and reinstate anti-sodomy laws as it is to overturn Roe, return prayer to public schools, erect 10 Commandments plaques in courthouses and reinstate anti-pornography and obscenity laws.

That said, I agree that America in 2019 isn't what it was in 1959, but that evolution is not irreversible and, in any case, I'll repeat that we have become as open a society as we have managed to become in good measure because Title II forced people to do things they otherwise wouldn't have done until eventually the majority of them agreed it was the right thing to do.
User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25475
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by JasonL »

I think people should generally have to demonstrate a backdrop similar to 1964 if they want to use benefit/harm from CRA as an argument in 2019.

That is, the association argument isn’t an inviolable principle to me but it also isn’t nothing. Overruling those personal decisions should be an extraordinary measure made for extraordinary reasons.
User avatar
Warren
Posts: 30178
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Warren »

D.A. Ridgely wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 15:49 I'll repeat that we have become as open a society as we have managed to become in good measure because Title II forced people to do things they otherwise wouldn't have done until eventually the majority of them agreed it was the right thing to do.
You got the cart before the horse. America didn't change because we passed a law. The law was passed because America was changing.
Nobody, men included, wants a world where men treat women with the same respect they show to other men. - thoreau
User avatar
Warren
Posts: 30178
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Warren »

JasonL wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 15:50 I think people should generally have to demonstrate a backdrop similar to 1964 if they want to use benefit/harm from CRA as an argument in 2019.

That is, the association argument isn’t an inviolable principle to me but it also isn’t nothing. Overruling those personal decisions should be an extraordinary measure made for extraordinary reasons.
Exactly. And we simply aren't even close to that line.
Nobody, men included, wants a world where men treat women with the same respect they show to other men. - thoreau
User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 26089
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Jennifer »

JasonL wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 15:50 I think people should generally have to demonstrate a backdrop similar to 1964 if they want to use benefit/harm from CRA as an argument in 2019.
Arguably, at least SOME aspects of Trump's America are worse than 1964. To offer just one example: that was the year the voting rights act IIRC was established, whereas now voting rights are being curtailed under the guise of fighting "voter fraud." Wasn't it Alabama, for example, that recently passed voter-ID laws ... and promptly shut down various state DMV offices all of which just happened to be in majority-minority neighborhoods? And over on the Trump thread, someone posted the recent news story about how our government is trying to deny citizenship to the daughter of two gay US citizens.(Not even "they're trying to make her a second-class citizen," they're trying to keep her from being a citizen AT ALL.)
"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 »

Warren wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 15:51
D.A. Ridgely wrote: 02 Sep 2019, 15:49 I'll repeat that we have become as open a society as we have managed to become in good measure because Title II forced people to do things they otherwise wouldn't have done until eventually the majority of them agreed it was the right thing to do.
You got the cart before the horse. America didn't change because we passed a law. The law was passed because America was changing.
No, both were in play. The Civil Rights Movement couldn't have prevailed if it did not convince large segments of white America that segregation and racial discrimination was evil, so to that extent you are correct. But the law has -- I wish this were not true, but it is -- a legitimizing function, no pun intended, for many who (wrongly) believe there to be a much closer nexus between what is illegal and what is ethically wrong. Moreover, it gave permission for merchants, etc. who wanted to do the right thing but feared the social backlash from white racists if they did. Once it became a legal requirement, they could shrug and say to their racist clients "I don't like it any more than you do, but what are you going to do? It's the law."

Positive law and positive morality always have reciprocating influences on each other. When they don't; that is, when they are entirely at odds, that law becomes impossible to enforce in anything still resembling a free society. Usually, however, one is a bit ahead or a bit behind the other.
User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 15099
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Eric the .5b »

So, who gets mandated to perform a "Christian race" wedding that they want nothing to do with?

Wedding venues aren't pharmacies, where access is limited by the state. They aren't even hotels or restaurants or stores, where an argument could be made that people discriminated against could stop somewhere on a trip and not be able to get something to eat or be able to rest. You can get married in many places, from professional venues all the way down to in a backyard by someone with an internet ordination. This story isn't "missed-race couple can't find a professional wedding venue", it's "one group of assholes refuses service to this couple".

I sympathize with wanting to punish the venue openers for being shitty people, but I can't get behind that. Nobody has a right to get married in "Boone's Camp" that must be protected with government force.
"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
Jennifer
Posts: 26089
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Jennifer »

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. I don't want a return to the Jim Crow status quo wherein minorities hoping to travel outside their immediate area had to buy a "green book" to determine where they could get basic amenities.
"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
Eric the .5b
Posts: 15099
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Eric the .5b »

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.
"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
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 would distinguish between commercial wedding businesses, however their owners might characterize them, from religious institution. Yes, as recently disclosed, I have a dog in that fight, so to speak, and yes, I'm aware that the distinction between many organized religions, per se, and 'religious' enterprises is iffy, at best. Still, you've got to try to preserve some fundamental sense of the difference between religious activity, which should be given greater weight and deference under the First Amendment, and commercial enterprise targeting and profiting from what would be in a different setting, i.e., a bona fide place of worship and thus off-limits to state control. There's a spectrum and I don't have a bright line test in questionable cases but, say, you're an Elvis impersonator so-called minister in Vegas, you don't get to turn down anyone with a marriage license "because Elvis hated fags" or any such nonsense, but if you're an ordained minister of some sort in something even remotely resembling an organized religion even by the loose standards of the IRS and you refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for interracial couples or same sex couples or people who aren't willing to let you include a prayer decrying "the Bishop of Rome and his detestable enormities" (a delightful phrase from an early Anglican Book of Common Prayer), well, that's your right and more power to you. At least, that's my preferred approach even though I'm fully aware there will be plenty of situations between those extremes that will be hard to call.
User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 26089
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by Jennifer »

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."
"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
JasonL
Posts: 25475
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by JasonL »

I don't understand why religious practice should have a micrometer more breadth for association than a commercial enterprise.
User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 19059
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Marriage is Totally Gay

Post by lunchstealer »

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.
"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