Stupid Supreme Court

[ndcent]

Really?! This may be one of the most ignorant comments ive ever seen on this board

It's a symbol of treason and racism. You're free to believe whatever Fox News revisionist history about it you like. And please continue to display it, you'll go far.

 

[Dous]

This is a slippery slope, what's next? Are we going to start treating people right? Respecting one another?

 

[nevada]

@nevada

In regards to the marriage thing, it's being used to discriminate against a subset of human beings and to differentiate them in such a way that they are not treated equally; I think the only thing the government can do in that case (which is what they have done) is to point out officially that it is the constitutional right of any male or female human being under the American flag to marry equally among other human beings. They are not doing anything more that clarifying to the rest of the people that this subset of human beings is within their constitutional rights to legally bond under a marriage license like any other human being under the American Constitution. So I don't see an issue there, for a state to say otherwise is to deny them a basic human right on a legal level (because marriage is being recognized in this case on it's legal merits not it's potential religious ones) and thus infringe on their constitutional right. Now if the Federal or State Government was ruling that the churches MUST allow marriages to be performed by their certain religious venues regardless of what they may believe and/or choose, that infringes on separation of Church and State. The Federal and State Government can rule to the legal standing/clarity of an individual's right to be married under a marriage license issued by the government. But the Government cannot force a Church to recognize that marriage if it is against their belief (at least unless it infringes on the legality of the issued marriage license.) Basically what I am getting at is that the Federal Government did their job and reminded everyone that under the Constitution we are granted individual rights and equality, so legally gays are just as entitled to a legal marriage license as any other human being under the American Flag. Now whether or not the churches and individual people want to recognize/acknowledge that is up to them, they have the fully constitutional right to voice their opinions and not agree with the ruling on a religious, personal, and intellectual level and can do what they like within their church wall; but from a legal standpoint they can get married regardless of what their god may say (and to be honest if one of the many interpretations of "God" does in fact exist, it is in His/Her/Its Higher Court that such a judgement will be made; not for us mortals to decide.)

I appreciate the thought out response.

one of the things that made this country so great, we didnt always have to agree with each other. that is slowly changing though. being forced upon us by our own government. its a terrible thing.




is that the case though? can they say NO? we already have private businesses being forced to provide services. will churches/pastors/private business be allowed the freedom to deny a same sex couple a marriage because it goes against their beliefs?

my problem is the huge government overreach.

All right, as long as we're going there, I'll jump back into the ring. I think the gov't being involved in marriage is silly in the first place, and the SC should have said "fukkit, we're out, do what you want".

You wanna live with somebody else, same or opposite sex? Great. Want to be in a romantic partership with that person? Awesome. Wanna have sex with them, have and/or adopt children, be a family? More power to ya. Wanna go to your local preferred clergyperson and get your relationship recognized by that church? Whatever floats your boat. Want to get with a lawyer and have a civil contract drawn up laying out who gets what and what happens to the kids in case you break up or one of you dies or whatever? Fantastic idea.

Why on earth anyone thinks the gov't should have anything to say about any of that is beyond me. There should be no relation to your taxes, your insurance rates, your credit score (lol), none of it. Marriage was originally a religious ceremony anyway, the gov't should have fukkall to do with it. Get them out of the marriage business and suddenly who gets to marry who is entirely between two people who love eachother and their clergy-dude. No hand-wringing necessary. "Legalized" same sex marriage, wtf? There should never have been a law regarding ANY type of marriage in the first place.

exactly.

Where exactly in the constitution does it mention anything about marriage?

I don't know the Constitution that well, so I didn't bring that up. but I had wondered the same thing.

It's a symbol of treason and racism. You're free to believe whatever Fox News revisionist history about it you like. And please continue to display it, you'll go far.

treason? you mean like when we broke off from England? that kind of treason? you realize, OUR current US flag would be a sign of treason had we lost. technically, I think it still is...

 

[nevada]

Breaking it down would mean it would be legal here and there and some people would lose their marriage because of a move. That's absurd unless applied to all marriages.







Instead they should use other government funded programs like Medicaid? We're forced to pay taxes which is a product that funds things we have no say about. So is Social Security which we are required to buy. I won't go on but you get the idea.

they wouldn't lose their marriage. they would just have to go somewhere else that is willing to do it for them under their own volition, and not being forced to by the powers that be.


are you saying that the people who previously were on government funded programs(welfare?) are now, under the ACA suddenly PAYING for their medical insurance?

 

[BlackWorksInc]

treason? you mean like when we broke off from England? that kind of treason? you realize, OUR current US flag would be a sign of treason had we lost. technically, I think it still is...

History is written by the victors...

 

[MSinDC]

treason? you mean like when we broke off from England? that kind of treason? you realize, OUR current US flag would be a sign of treason had we lost. technically, I think it still is...

Not defending the flag by any means, it has definitely become a symbol of hate/racism but definitely not treason. To play devil's advocate, look at the Constitution and tell me why secession was treasonous.

 

[Bigshankhank]

is that the case though? can they say NO? we already have private businesses being forced to provide services. will churches/pastors/private business be allowed the freedom to deny a same sex couple a marriage because it goes against their beliefs?

my problem is the huge government overreach.

I normally stay out of these threads but I will step in a say that on this point I fully agree with you. In a free market economy, any and every business should have the "Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" for whatever reason. Let the market decide if whatever sociological bigotry the shop owner abides by is going to keep him in business or shutter his windows. Personally if I was gay (I am not FWIW, trust me on this :hand I wouldn't trust a cake decorator to make me a wedding cake without a big rat turd in the middle of it if I knew he didn't believe in the sanctity of my committed relationship. But some people have to make noise for the sake of doing it.
So as much ire as Indiana drew for passing a regulation to this effect, which again seems completely unnecessary for gov't at ANY level to do, Jims Hardware and Feed Store should be able to hang a confederate flag in the window and people who don't agree with it can hustle on down to Barry's Feed and Tools with the rainbow on the door.

 

[ben550]

I normally stay out of these threads but I will step in a say that on this point I fully agree with you. In a free market economy, any and every business should have the "Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" for whatever reason. Let the market decide if whatever sociological bigotry the shop owner abides by is going to keep him in business or shutter his windows. Personally if I was gay (I am not FWIW, trust me on this :hand I wouldn't trust a cake decorator to make me a wedding cake without a big rat turd in the middle of it if I knew he didn't believe in the sanctity of my committed relationship. But some people have to make noise for the sake of doing it.
So as much ire as Indiana drew for passing a regulation to this effect, which again seems completely unnecessary for gov't at ANY level to do, Jims Hardware and Feed Store should be able to hang a confederate flag in the window and people who don't agree with it can hustle on down to Barry's Feed and Tools with the rainbow on the door.

Well said.

 

[nevada]

I normally stay out of these threads but I will step in a say that on this point I fully agree with you. In a free market economy, any and every business should have the "Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" for whatever reason. Let the market decide if whatever sociological bigotry the shop owner abides by is going to keep him in business or shutter his windows. Personally if I was gay (I am not FWIW, trust me on this :hand I wouldn't trust a cake decorator to make me a wedding cake without a big rat turd in the middle of it if I knew he didn't believe in the sanctity of my committed relationship. But some people have to make noise for the sake of doing it.
So as much ire as Indiana drew for passing a regulation to this effect, which again seems completely unnecessary for gov't at ANY level to do, Jims Hardware and Feed Store should be able to hang a confederate flag in the window and people who don't agree with it can hustle on down to Barry's Feed and Tools with the rainbow on the door.

agreed. that's exactly how the free market is supposed to work.

 

[ndcent]

I normally stay out of these threads but I will step in a say that on this point I fully agree with you. In a free market economy, any and every business should have the "Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" for whatever reason. Let the market decide if whatever sociological bigotry the shop owner abides by is going to keep him in business or shutter his windows. Personally if I was gay (I am not FWIW, trust me on this :hand I wouldn't trust a cake decorator to make me a wedding cake without a big rat turd in the middle of it if I knew he didn't believe in the sanctity of my committed relationship. But some people have to make noise for the sake of doing it.
So as much ire as Indiana drew for passing a regulation to this effect, which again seems completely unnecessary for gov't at ANY level to do, Jims Hardware and Feed Store should be able to hang a confederate flag in the window and people who don't agree with it can hustle on down to Barry's Feed and Tools with the rainbow on the door.

Your libertarian utopia is really sad.

Freedom isn't the ability to discriminate against people, thank God we don't live in that ****ed up idea of freedom.

 

[Bigshankhank]

Your libertarian utopia is really sad.

Freedom isn't the ability to discriminate against people, thank God we don't live in that ****ed up idea of freedom.

This confuses me, where is it stated that I or anyone else is under any obligation to provide services or goods to any other person? To that same point, where is it written that I am under any obligation to like everyone and not bear ill will towards them? Therein lies a seriously messed up utopia.

For the record I am not a public servant. Also, allow me to state for the record that I strongly disagree with bigotry and hate, and truly believe that to hate or discriminate against another person or group of people is wrong and a genuine indictment of the lack of character and a reflection of the ignorance of the "hater". But if someone wants to hate someone else, aside from that someone being a piece of shit, it is his right. If he is willing to put his livelyhood in the form of his personal business at stake by holding fast to what he calls his principles no matter how screwed up, then again that is his right and the market will "correct" for it.

Simple terms: everyone has the right to be wrong. The previous statement does NOT apply to criminal behavior.

 

[BlackWorksInc]

Your libertarian utopia is really sad.

Freedom isn't the ability to discriminate against people, thank God we don't live in that ****ed up idea of freedom.

To be fair, no one is outright saying that Freedom equates to the ability to discriminate as you please; it is merely a byproduct of having freedom of speech.

 

[ndcent]

To be fair, no one is outright saying that Freedom equates to the ability to discriminate as you please; it is merely a byproduct of having freedom of speech.

There are limits to free speech, just as there are now even more limits to discrimination and we're better for it.

 

[HammerHead]

Thought you were from Dystopia, isn't that normal where you're from? There are many definitions of Freedom, so maybe his definition and yours are not the same. Everyone has the right to think the way they want to, for now.

Your libertarian utopia is really sad.

Freedom isn't the ability to discriminate against people, thank God we don't live in that ****ed up idea of freedom.

 

[ndcent]

Thought you were from Dystopia, isn't that normal where you're from? There are many definitions of Freedom, so maybe his definition and yours are not the same. Everyone has the right to think the way they want to, for now.

You sound paranoid.

 

[HammerHead]

Not at all.

You sound paranoid.

 

[BlackWorksInc]

There are limits to free speech, just as there are now even more limits to discrimination and we're better for it.

I agree, but if an individual wants to run around in dirty overalls with buck teeth, a bible in one hand, Budweiser in the other, and a Confederate flag emblazoned on his chest while screeching at the top of his lungs how the lawd will smite the wicked black homosexuals who hump like dogs at gay weddings and rape the tax payer's money. That's unfortunately his constitutionally given right, is it discriminatory and horrid? Absolutely! It's horrifying and upsetting, but said hypothetical crazed person can express his points of view how he likes and he can maintain his prejudice against whoever he wants because it is protected under the 1st Amendment. Just as I can express my points of view and beliefs; it's a by product of both of us having the freedom to express our points of view.

Now obviously not everyone is going to be happy with my hypothetical crazed person's rantings; but as long as he's just expressing his point of views and not actually acting on them in any way that would infringe on the rights of others and/or go against any laws of the state or federal government... that's his right as an American. You can't have freedom for everyone and then complain that because other people don't agree with you, they can't express their point of view or that it's not freedom. :ranger:

 

[ndcent]

I agree, but if an individual wants to run around in dirty overalls with buck teeth, a bible in one hand, Budweiser in the other, and a Confederate flag emblazoned on his chest while screeching at the top of his lungs how the lawd will smite the wicked black homosexuals who hump like dogs at gay weddings and rape the tax payer's money. That's unfortunately his constitutionally given right, is it discriminatory and horrid? Absolutely! It's horrifying and upsetting, but said hypothetical crazed person can express his points of view how he likes and he can maintain his prejudice against whoever he wants because it is protected under the 1st Amendment. Just as I can express my points of view and beliefs; it's a by product of both of us having the freedom to express our points of view.

Now obviously not everyone is going to be happy with my hypothetical crazed person's rantings; but as long as he's just expressing his point of views and not actually acting on them in any way that would infringe on the rights of others and/or go against any laws of the state or federal government... that's his right as an American. You can't have freedom for everyone and then complain that because other people don't agree with you, they can't express their point of view or that it's not freedom. :ranger:

I agree with you on this free speech/free will thing - your colorful picture reminds me of those flying the confederate/surrenderer flag. Where I disagree is that free speech should mean free license to discriminate in business.

 

[KidVermicious]

Happy 4th of July weekend, everybody. Be safe, and remember that having a diverse culture is a good thing.

 

[nevada]

I agree with you on this free speech/free will thing - your colorful picture reminds me of those flying the confederate/surrenderer flag. Where I disagree is that free speech should mean free license to discriminate in business.

what is your definition of freedom then?