FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Continue the mudslinging.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!
- Thread starter FadeToBlack&Gold
- Start date
- Status
Continue the mudslinging.
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!
[one of] the open discussions in the prior thread was the question: "what is the role / purpose of marriage in our society today?"
So far, the majority opinion seems to be that it is an exalted form of "going steady" meant primarily to enhance the self-fulfillment of the [two? more?] people getting married. Any role beyond that apparently is seen as outmoded and absurd in our "modern" age.
[one of] the open discussions in the prior thread was the question: "what is the role / purpose of marriage in our society today?"
So far, the majority opinion seems to be that it is an exalted form of "going steady" meant primarily to enhance the self-fulfillment of the [two? more?] people getting married. Any role beyond that apparently is seen as outmoded and absurd in our "modern" age.
unofan
Well-known member
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!
To answer fishy's other red herring, no. You cannot force a church to marry gay people. No one is saying you can. The law is crystal clear.
You can sue if a non-religious business cites religious reasons for not serving gays/blacks/women/etc.. A baker who makes wedding cakes and sells them to the general public but refuses a gay couple cannot rely on their religion to safeguard them, because baking and selling a cake is not a religious activity but one of public accomodation.
To answer fishy's other red herring, no. You cannot force a church to marry gay people. No one is saying you can. The law is crystal clear.
You can sue if a non-religious business cites religious reasons for not serving gays/blacks/women/etc.. A baker who makes wedding cakes and sells them to the general public but refuses a gay couple cannot rely on their religion to safeguard them, because baking and selling a cake is not a religious activity but one of public accomodation.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!
But yet, a casino can throw you out for counting cards, something which has been proven, time and time again, to be perfectly legal?
It's called the right to refuse service. Something you obviously don't understand. A bakery is still a private establishment.
But yet, a casino can throw you out for counting cards, something which has been proven, time and time again, to be perfectly legal?
It's called the right to refuse service. Something you obviously don't understand. A bakery is still a private establishment.
unofan
Well-known member
Counting cards is not an inherent immutable characteristic protected by law. Race, gender, and in many states sexual orientation, are.
You can refuse service, but not because someone is gay (in many states). Religious belief won't protect you from a civil suit in that case.
Read up on your state laws.
Last edited:
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!
So a bakery can not serve a black man and get away with it? I am pretty sure that is not true under the law.
So a bakery can not serve a black man and get away with it? I am pretty sure that is not true under the law.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!
Ironically, I believe a wedding cake baker refused to make a cake for a gay couple and there was nothing the other "side" (at a lack of a better term) could do about it. Maybe a year or so ago.
Ironically, I believe a wedding cake baker refused to make a cake for a gay couple and there was nothing the other "side" (at a lack of a better term) could do about it. Maybe a year or so ago.
unofan
Well-known member
Odds are, the bakery didn't have enough employees to be covered by the law. Federally it's either 15 or 20. States are often less. In Iowa, it's 4 non-relative employees.
Edit: though as I think about it, that's probably just for employment cases. Not sure there's a minimum size in Iowa's public accommodation section. Might be it was a state that didn't cover sex orientation.
Last edited:
They didn't get a lot of coverage of all that Civil Rights stuff wherever Flaggy was living.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!
I thought everyone was related to each other in Iowa...
I thought everyone was related to each other in Iowa...
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!
I don't think race matters, or gender either. You cannot cook a human being and then offer to sell that meat as a meal.
what's that? ooops, sorry, never mind.
I don't think race matters, or gender either. You cannot cook a human being and then offer to sell that meat as a meal.
what's that? ooops, sorry, never mind.
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!
Well, I'm still waiting for the first coherent answer on the role / function / purpose of marriage in society.
Changing the subject, I'd much rather see all children have at least two full-time caretakers in the home that love and cherish him / her rather than so many single-parent households with no other relative residing there. Several days ago an article in the Wall St. Journal referenced another study that indicates that children from single-parent households, especially boys, do far worse in school and in subsequent work life than those raised in two-parent households.
A gay or lesbian couple raising children seems to me a much better choice than a working single parent, if that optoin is even available. Funny though there was a contestant on the recently concluded The X Factor whose lesbian mothers were in the middle of a divorce battle that sounded ugly.
When NY state passed its gay marriage law, the largest lobbying donations came from divorce lawyers. Isn't America grand?
Well, I'm still waiting for the first coherent answer on the role / function / purpose of marriage in society.
Changing the subject, I'd much rather see all children have at least two full-time caretakers in the home that love and cherish him / her rather than so many single-parent households with no other relative residing there. Several days ago an article in the Wall St. Journal referenced another study that indicates that children from single-parent households, especially boys, do far worse in school and in subsequent work life than those raised in two-parent households.
A gay or lesbian couple raising children seems to me a much better choice than a working single parent, if that optoin is even available. Funny though there was a contestant on the recently concluded The X Factor whose lesbian mothers were in the middle of a divorce battle that sounded ugly.
When NY state passed its gay marriage law, the largest lobbying donations came from divorce lawyers. Isn't America grand?
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!
The purpose of marriage in society is a convenient tax shelter for people, as assuming a prenuptial agreement was not signed, no estate tax is charged.
I suppose if I wanted to be REALLY sleazy, I could make my profession as marrying terminally ill women, as I'd be able to acquire all their possessions without paying an extra death tax, and then sell it all off for gigando buck-os.
The purpose of marriage in society is a convenient tax shelter for people, as assuming a prenuptial agreement was not signed, no estate tax is charged.
I suppose if I wanted to be REALLY sleazy, I could make my profession as marrying terminally ill women, as I'd be able to acquire all their possessions without paying an extra death tax, and then sell it all off for gigando buck-os.
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!
Given your opinions, I'm a bit surprised you didn't describe it as a disguised form of upscale prostitution for respectable women with a single exclusive john.
Given your opinions, I'm a bit surprised you didn't describe it as a disguised form of upscale prostitution for respectable women with a single exclusive john.
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!
Depending on how much money the partner with the Y chromosome has, that is one way of looking at it...
The purpose of marriage is what those couples who enter into it make of it. Whether they want to start a family and their families/religions say they have "go through it before they do it", or they've co-habitated for years with no intention of having kids and finally succumbed to pressure from family and friends to "make it official", or one partner wants a trophy wife and the other is just a gold-digging whore (and that happens, so don't deny it).
Given your opinions, I'm a bit surprised you didn't describe it as a disguised form of upscale prostitution for respectable women with a single exclusive john.
Depending on how much money the partner with the Y chromosome has, that is one way of looking at it...
The purpose of marriage is what those couples who enter into it make of it. Whether they want to start a family and their families/religions say they have "go through it before they do it", or they've co-habitated for years with no intention of having kids and finally succumbed to pressure from family and friends to "make it official", or one partner wants a trophy wife and the other is just a gold-digging whore (and that happens, so don't deny it).
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!
Assuming Chelsea Clinton actually intends to adopt an African child, I applaud her humanitarianism. And I'm looking forward to those extensive photo ops with granny, aren't you?
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/world-exclusive-chelsea-clinton-adopting-african-baby
Assuming Chelsea Clinton actually intends to adopt an African child, I applaud her humanitarianism. And I'm looking forward to those extensive photo ops with granny, aren't you?
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/world-exclusive-chelsea-clinton-adopting-african-baby
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!
husband doesn't appear to golf. no wonder he's shooting blanks
husband doesn't appear to golf. no wonder he's shooting blanks
GopherBigGuy911
The one you hate to love
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!
To everyone who posts in these threads, I just want to apologize for a previous comment. It was over the top and out of pocket.
To everyone who posts in these threads, I just want to apologize for a previous comment. It was over the top and out of pocket.
Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!
not all states have laws against discriminating against homosexuals.
Here in Maine it was decided that the first amendment guaranteed that a church is not required to marry same sex couples (or previously married people, or people that do not belong to that church, etc, etc). Because of this they decided not explicitly state that churches would not be required to perform or recognize same sex marriage in the wording of our most recent referendum (although they did the first time around when there was a referendum to veto our first same sex marriage law that was passed by the legislature and signed by the governor in 2009 or so). The 2012 referendum to approve a citizen initiated same sex marriage law simply asked if we wanted to state to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. The first amendment protects chruches from having to perform the ceremony but people that perform weddings on behalf of the government (notaries of the public) have to take an all or nothing approach. If some old lady town clerk performs marriages then she has to marry any couple with a valid marriage license. If they don't want to have to marry same sex couples then they have to choose not to perform any marriages (notaries of the public can but are not required to perform marriages in Maine but they can't discriminate).
Our state's anti-discrimination laws prohibit a baker from refusing to make a cake for a same sex couple or from a catering company to refuse to cater a same sex marriage reception, etc. Just like they couldn't refuse their service to a biracial couple.
not all states have laws against discriminating against homosexuals.
Here in Maine it was decided that the first amendment guaranteed that a church is not required to marry same sex couples (or previously married people, or people that do not belong to that church, etc, etc). Because of this they decided not explicitly state that churches would not be required to perform or recognize same sex marriage in the wording of our most recent referendum (although they did the first time around when there was a referendum to veto our first same sex marriage law that was passed by the legislature and signed by the governor in 2009 or so). The 2012 referendum to approve a citizen initiated same sex marriage law simply asked if we wanted to state to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. The first amendment protects chruches from having to perform the ceremony but people that perform weddings on behalf of the government (notaries of the public) have to take an all or nothing approach. If some old lady town clerk performs marriages then she has to marry any couple with a valid marriage license. If they don't want to have to marry same sex couples then they have to choose not to perform any marriages (notaries of the public can but are not required to perform marriages in Maine but they can't discriminate).
Our state's anti-discrimination laws prohibit a baker from refusing to make a cake for a same sex couple or from a catering company to refuse to cater a same sex marriage reception, etc. Just like they couldn't refuse their service to a biracial couple.
- Status