Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

[babe]

I think we should all be allowed to marry who or whatever we want whenever we want and however many we want.

So aren't we also discriminating against polygamists since it is still illegal? Who are we to say how many wives or husbands someone can have? I think we should lift all restrictions on marriage in any way shape or form. I should be allowed to marry a tree, or a pancake, or a chicken if I want to as well. Or all 3. Maybe not with all the benefits of a married life (like tax breaks etc.), but why restrict it. It should be recognized if we so choose.

I've got a better idea. A constitutional amendment prohibiting the Federal government from regulating "marriage", which I would argue is a tenet of "religion".


. . . . . . oh. . . . I see . . . . . it's already there, twice. Congress shall make no law regarding establishment of religion, and the tenth amendment which proscibes the Federal government from assuming powers not specifically delegated to it by specific provisions of the Constitution. . . . . .

individuals already have the power of contract to define interpersonal relations/responsibilities, and we shouldn't let States infringe on that.



people already have the right to enter "contract" arrangements, and even states can't infringe on the right or power to contract between individuals.

 

[One Brow]

Personally I think that a private business (using private in the sense that they are not taking government subsides and are not city/state/federal offices...) has the right to be a hate filled place if they want to be. Society will respond accordingly.

You mean, a privately-owned, publicly accessible business that doesn't have a public sidewalk outside it's door next to a public street? One that doesn't use public water? Etc.? Taking advantage of being a public business means having the responsibility to act like a public business.

No, society, as a whole, will not respond accordingly. We have seen this over and over again, throughout history. You are making a claim counter to precedent.

 

[One Brow]

oh ok, and i think they are legit concerns. It is simply an area that where everyone wont be happy. But I can see a distinction between having gay marriage legal and forcing people to participate in it.

Baking a cake or shooting a photograph is not participating in a marriage.

 

[Stoked]

Baking a cake or shooting a photograph is not participating in a marriage.

If you are for that marriage then yes it is.

 

[Gameface]

Baking a cake or shooting a photograph is not participating in a marriage.

Agreed. Does the envelop manufacturer feel dirty if their envelops are used to announce a gay wedding? Does the street sweeper throw down his broom if he knows people going to a gay wedding will be driving down his street?

 

[Stoked]

Agreed. Does the envelop manufacturer feel dirty if their envelops are used to announce a gay wedding? Does the street sweeper throw down his broom if he knows people going to a gay wedding will be driving down his street?

I can see your point on the baker as he bakes a cake and that's it. But the wedding photographer has to be present and circulating thru out the wedding.

I know I am in the minority on this specific point and I am ok with that.

 

[Gameface]

I can see your point on the baker as he bakes a cake and that's it. But the wedding photographer has to be present and circulating thru out the wedding.

I know I am in the minority on this specific point and I am ok with that.

Well, as far as the photographer, I agree. They play an intimate role in the wedding. They are also often a one-person small business. I'd say that it wouldn't be hard for them to decide to shoot one wedding over another, or to be busy on the occasion of a wedding they didn't want to participate in.

 

[LogGrad98]

You mean, a privately-owned, publicly accessible business that doesn't have a public sidewalk outside it's door next to a public street? One that doesn't use public water? Etc.? Taking advantage of being a public business means having the responsibility to act like a public business.

No, society, as a whole, will not respond accordingly. We have seen this over and over again, throughout history. You are making a claim counter to precedent.

Public? We pay for that stuff. A private club pays for the same public water that McDonald's does. If it is provided free of charge to "public" businesses then I think that is a stronger case. But it isn't.

The sidewalk isn't free either. My dad's sidewalk was replaced and he found an increase on his property tax the next year. When he inquired it was to offset the cost of the "improvement" to the property the city undertook when they fixed the sidewalk.

 

[LogGrad98]

Marriage just like any other contract is signed between consenting adults, so unless a chicken, a tree or a pancake can give informed consent and sign a contract, one can't marry them. On the other hand I personally have no opposition to polygamy. If all involved parties agree to the terms of the marriage and enter into it voluntarily, I don't have any reasonable objections to it.

How do you know what my pancake is capable of? And my chicken is as informed as any other chicken.

 

[Gameface]

Bawk begawk


That means "I do" in chicken talk.

 

[LogGrad98]

^^ gets it

 

[TroutBum]

The truth is often distasteful and shameful to those who would prefer it otherwise.

I'm going to remember this quote the next time someone (see also: everyone) drops a truth nugget on you regarding race.

As for Mormons being bigots for not allowing gay marriage in their temples; I guess I'm fine being called a bigot. I am 100% in favor of, and support equal rights for all people. Temple marriage is not a right, it's a privilege.

 

[fishonjazz]

Temple marriage is not a right, it's a privilege.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Marriage just like any other contract is signed between consenting adults, so unless a chicken, a tree or a pancake can give informed consent and sign a contract, one can't marry them. On the other hand I personally have no opposition to polygamy. If all involved parties agree to the terms of the marriage and enter into it voluntarily, I don't have any reasonable objections to it.

thats your defintion of marriage. what make syour definition valid. or mine. or the churches. or the governments.

please tell me how i know which definition is valid

 

[Stoked]

thats your defintion of marriage. what make syour definition valid. or mine. or the churches. or the governments.

please tell me how i know which definition is valid

Both. It does not have to be one or the other.

 

[stitches]

thats your defintion of marriage. what make syour definition valid. or mine. or the churches. or the governments.

please tell me how i know which definition is valid

I am talking about a secular marriage. I don't care about churches, I don't want to force them to marry people who they don't want to marry. I am talking purely and only about state recognized and sanctioned marriage. Thus it's the legal definition of marriage that matters. As such the state could put whatever definition they want to put and can allow whatever marriages they deem acceptable and/or beneficial to society. I know that right now they don't recognize polygamous marriages in most countries. What I am saying is I don't have a good reason why polygamous marriages shouldn't be allowed by the state.

 

[DutchJazzer]

I am talking about a secular marriage. I don't care about churches, I don't want to force them to marry people who they don't want to marry. I am talking purely and only about state recognized and sanctioned marriage. Thus it's the legal definition of marriage that matters. As such the state could put whatever definition they want to put and can allow whatever marriages they deem acceptable and/or beneficial to society. I know that right now they don't recognize polygamous marriages in most countries. What I am saying is I don't have a good reason why polygamous marriages shouldn't be allowed by the state.

so business should be "forced" to provide services to "state recognized and sanctioned marriage."

 

[stitches]

so business should be "forced" to provide services to "state recognized and sanctioned marriage."

Businesses should be forced to not discriminate against protected characteristics. If you offer a service, you offer it for everybody. If you do straight wedding photography, you do all wedding photography. If you bake wedding cakes for straight people, you bake wedding cakes for all people. If you treat white people in your hospital, you treat all people. In other words your services should not be dependent on the (protected) characteristics of your clients(different states have different lists - in a lot of the states businesses can actually refuse service to gay people, but they can't refuse services to other protected groups based on race, nationality, etc.).

You have the choice not to offer a service(say wedding photography) at all, if you don't want to provide services to gay weddings in the states where sexual orientation is listed as protected characteristic.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Businesses should be forced to not discriminate against protected characteristics. If you offer a service, you offer it for everybody. If you do straight wedding photography, you do all wedding photography. If you bake wedding cakes for straight people, you bake wedding cakes for all people. If you treat white people in your hospital, you treat all people. In other words your services should not be dependent on the (protected) characteristics of your clients(different states have different lists - in a lot of the states businesses can actually refuse service to gay people, but they can't refuse services to other protected groups based on race, nationality, etc.).

You have the choice not to offer a service(say wedding photography) at all, if you don't want to provide services to gay weddings in the states where sexual orientation is listed as protected characteristic.

what if i only bake cakes with little customization options.
like only color and names could be edited. and not the couple on top. isnt that like only selling certain colors/models/brands of cars?

 

[colton]

You have the choice not to offer a service(say wedding photography) at all, if you don't want to provide services to gay weddings in the states where sexual orientation is listed as protected characteristic.

I don't think he's arguing that's what the U.S. law says (for one thing dutch isn't even from the U.S.), I think he's saying that sexual orientation should NOT be listed as protected characteristic in situations like he's describing.