Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

[stitches]

I think he's actually arguing that there should be NO protected characteristics at all(DutchJazzer, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). That businesses should be able to discriminate on any ground they want(sex, race, color, nationality, sexuality, etc.). He can argue that of course. Or he can argue for specific ones to not be protected characteristics. I still haven't seen any convincing arguments for that. I gave my reasoning why I think such laws are reasonable and even desirable in the previous pages.

 

[LogGrad98]

I think there was a time when those laws were necessary; I think that time has passed. Kind of like the time of the labor unions. There was a time they were absolutely necessary, but they are not anymore.

 

[franklin]

I think there was a time when those laws were necessary; I think that time has passed. Kind of like the time of the labor unions. There was a time they were absolutely necessary, but they are not anymore.

You're up in the chess thread. FYI, I pm'd Siro and told him I'm coaching you from here on out and would make sure you rip his spine out of his back. Sorry for stealing the thunder you're about to strike down.

 

[DutchJazzer]

I think there was a time when those laws were necessary; I think that time has passed. Kind of like the time of the labor unions. There was a time they were absolutely necessary, but they are not anymore.

exactly.


LET them MARKET decide.

if a no blacks allowed bar or pool opens. people will boycot it.
sooner or later people might bocoyt straight only marriage services.

the governement should stop regulating marriage and should stop forcing **** down our throat.

 

[stitches]

I think there was a time when those laws were necessary; I think that time has passed. Kind of like the time of the labor unions. There was a time they were absolutely necessary, but they are not anymore.

This also reminds me of the SCOTUS decision last year that lifted regulations that aimed at limiting states from implementing election laws that discriminated against minorities because SCOTUS deemed that this problem has been solved and there's no discrimination anymore. Just several days after, 5-6 states had filed for passing discriminatory laws to prohibit huge chunks of their citizenry from voting.

The belief that we don't need those laws anymore is demonstrably false on other levels as well. Even in current society blacks are being discriminated against, both from government officials and from private businesses and it has resulted in huge discrepancies in the way they are treated and the end results of it - less job opportunities, higher poverty levels, less education, higher crime rates, higher incarceration rates, etc. All of those are traceable back to discrimination by businesses and by officials. It fuels the vicious circle. I will give you an example - there was a study that was made in Chicago and Boston areas(I don't have it right now, if you demand to check it out, I'd have to search for it). The researcher sent resumes to thousands of companies that have announced job openings. The key was she sent resumes with equivalent qualifications and skills, but with different names(black sounding names vs white sounding names). The result was that the fictitious people with black sounding names got 50% less calls for interviews. Interestingly enough the study showed no statistical difference of significance between the number of calls men and women got. There was another similar research showing that black people with criminal record have less chance of getting a job than white people with criminal record. The fact that this discrimination is to a huge degree hidden doesn't mean that it's not happening and it's not problematic.

This libertarian idea is one of the few that has actually been tested and has been demonstrated to not work time and time again. Whenever discrimination has been allowed, it has been implemented and it has lead to horrible problems and results both to the society and to the people discriminated against.

 

[DutchJazzer]

This also reminds me of the SCOTUS decision last year that lifted regulations that aimed at limiting states from implementing election laws that discriminated against minorities because SCOTUS deemed that this problem has been solved and there's no discrimination anymore. Just several days after, 5-6 states had filed for passing discriminatory laws to prohibit huge chunks of their citizenry from voting.

THE GOVERNMENT.

goverments are EVIL!


LAWS should be TO protect us from criminals.
the government is a legalized criminal organization.

 

[One Brow]

Such a case would be laughed out of court. To this day, no interracial couple has been able to sue to use a religious building, and it won't happen with gay couples, either.

Now, there may be suits regarding land/buildings owned by religious groups, but available for public use. In the law, these are very different things from religious buildings. Your temples will be safe havens for bigotry.

This earned a negative reputation comment:

Your comment is offensive to me, and that is hard to do. The temple is sacred, and the work that is done there is 100% for the benefit of mankind, both spiritually and physically. Save the bigot comments for true bigots

Treating gay relationships as inferior to straight relationships is offensive to me, and people claiming this is for the benefit of mankind are no different, to me, then those people 60 years ago who claimed preventing interracial marriages was for the benefit of mankind. Your religion has a bigoted stance currently. I would prefer that you were more offended by that bigoted stance than by my pointing out it is bigoted, but people are who they are.

 

[One Brow]

If you are for that marriage then yes it is.

While I would invite a wedding photographer to grab a bite to eat at the reception as a courtesy, I don't consider them part of the wedding (barring other circumstances like a relative doing it as a gift, or course). The are professionals, hired to do a job. Their approval or lack thereof means exactly zero to me.

 

[Gameface]

I find it absolutely hilarious that someone would claim 100% of the work done in LDS temples is for the benefit of mankind.

We thank thee Lord for a profit!

 

[One Brow]

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

Good. You should hold me to high standards; I learn more that way.

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.

Driving is a privilege instead of a right, but if we had laws that Mormons were not allowed to get driver's licenses under any circumstances, I think you would find that bigoted. Anyone can earn the right to drive, gays can not earn the right to have their marriage sealed, no matter how qualified they are as Mormons otherwise.

 

[One Brow]

I think there was a time when those laws were necessary; I think that time has passed. Kind of like the time of the labor unions. There was a time they were absolutely necessary, but they are not anymore.

That's so very easy to say on one side of the fence; it's not so obvious on the other side.

 

[The Thriller]

Good. You should hold me to high standards; I learn more that way.



Driving is a privilege instead of a right, but if we had laws that Mormons were not allowed to get driver's licenses under any circumstances, I think you would find that bigoted. Anyone can earn the right to drive, gays can not earn the right to have their marriage sealed, no matter how qualified they are as Mormons otherwise.

Are you seriously equating a temple sealing to getting a driver's license?

Last I checked, licenses came from the state. Temple sealings come from the religion, a completely different entity. The state must be fair. A religion does not. They can exclude whomever they want.

 

[fishonjazz]

Treating gay relationships as inferior

do Mormons treat gay relationships as inferior or do they just treat them as different?

 

[fishonjazz]

gays can not earn the right to have their marriage sealed

what if they married someone from the opposite sex?

Would that earn them the privilege to have thier marriage sealed?

 

[Stoked]

what if they married someone from the opposite sex?

Would that earn them the privilege to have thier marriage sealed?

If they are active members in good standing then yes.

 

[Edgewriter]

In the Mormon church, smoking or drinking can keep you from getting your marriage sealed. It comes back to the belief that sex between two people of the same gender is a sin. People who do not believe that there is such a thing as sin don't understand that.

The church has never asked its members to persecute anyone, regardless of their sins. Christ's message was one of love. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

One Brows comments in this thread are proof to me that persecution of the church (Those Bigoted Mormons) won't end with the legal recognition of gay marriage.

 

[LogGrad98]

This also reminds me of the SCOTUS decision last year that lifted regulations that aimed at limiting states from implementing election laws that discriminated against minorities because SCOTUS deemed that this problem has been solved and there's no discrimination anymore. Just several days after, 5-6 states had filed for passing discriminatory laws to prohibit huge chunks of their citizenry from voting.

The belief that we don't need those laws anymore is demonstrably false on other levels as well. Even in current society blacks are being discriminated against, both from government officials and from private businesses and it has resulted in huge discrepancies in the way they are treated and the end results of it - less job opportunities, higher poverty levels, less education, higher crime rates, higher incarceration rates, etc. All of those are traceable back to discrimination by businesses and by officials. It fuels the vicious circle. I will give you an example - there was a study that was made in Chicago and Boston areas(I don't have it right now, if you demand to check it out, I'd have to search for it). The researcher sent resumes to thousands of companies that have announced job openings. The key was she sent resumes with equivalent qualifications and skills, but with different names(black sounding names vs white sounding names). The result was that the fictitious people with black sounding names got 50% less calls for interviews. Interestingly enough the study showed no statistical difference of significance between the number of calls men and women got. There was another similar research showing that black people with criminal record have less chance of getting a job than white people with criminal record. The fact that this discrimination is to a huge degree hidden doesn't mean that it's not happening and it's not problematic.

This libertarian idea is one of the few that has actually been tested and has been demonstrated to not work time and time again. Whenever discrimination has been allowed, it has been implemented and it has lead to horrible problems and results both to the society and to the people discriminated against.

I think there is a tremendously huge difference between laws that affect the administration of government and laws that affect business. Government is driven by who gets the votes, business by who gets the dollars. It is in no business' bottom-line interest to alienate large sections of the population, it is absolutely in any politicians interest to restrict voting rights to those who would reasonably be expected to vote for them. Apples and elephants in this comparison imo.

 

[LogGrad98]

Driving is a privilege instead of a right, but if we had laws that Mormons were not allowed to get driver's licenses under any circumstances, I think you would find that bigoted. Anyone can earn the right to drive, gays can not earn the right to have their marriage sealed, no matter how qualified they are as Mormons otherwise.

You can get married in the temple, the same as you can be allowed to drive. You just have to follow the rules, same as driving. I can't say that since I disagree with red lights then having a law that I have to stop at red lights is bigoted. Well I can say that but it isn't accurate. But I can simply choose not to get a license or I can choose to follow that rule and get my license. Same for termple marriage. One of the rules to get married in the temple is it has to be between man and woman. If you disagree with that rule then don't get married in the temple. Or you can choose to marry a member of the opposite sex and check that requirement off the list.

 

[stitches]

I think there is a tremendously huge difference between laws that affect the administration of government and laws that affect business. Government is driven by who gets the votes, business by who gets the dollars. It is in no business' bottom-line interest to alienate large sections of the population, it is absolutely in any politicians interest to restrict voting rights to those who would reasonably be expected to vote for them. Apples and elephants in this comparison imo.

Not really. It is in business' interest to profit as much as possible, even if that happens by alienating large sections of the population. For example - reportedly, the bakery that refused to make a gay wedding cake, received a huge bump in their sales from people who agreed with their decision.
The same goes for politician - it is in their best interest to profit(get most votes) even if that happens by alienating large sections of the population. That's the very reason why a lot of republican politicians out-republican each other and go to extremes, even if it means that this would alienate huge portion of the population. They make their analysis - what would serve me best - would this win me more votes than it would cost me. In a perfect situation the fact that they are trying to limit voting by certain minorities would result in a backlash from everybody and they'd lose more by trying to limit one of the pillars of democracy. This doesn't happen though... Just like it doesn't happen in the private business sector.

 

[LogGrad98]

Not really. It is in business' interest to profit as much as possible, even if that happens by alienating large sections of the population. For example - reportedly, the bakery that refused to make a gay wedding cake, received a huge bump in their sales from people who agreed with their decision.

Those are market forces in action, and nothing of the kind is guaranteed in any way shape or form. If they did get a boost to their business it was a fortunate unintended consequence. If I as a politician can restrict all the voters except those that will vote for me I am guaranteed the win. Funny you can't see that difference.