That will be challenged at the Federal level . Give it time. The argument used will be the 'full faith and credit 'clause.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
|
That will be challenged at the Federal level . Give it time. The argument used will be the 'full faith and credit 'clause.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
True enough. And it gets really screwed up if a married gay couple moves to another state that doesn't recognize gay marriage and then later want to get divorced. Gay married couples can't get divorced in Texas cause TX doesn't consider them legally married in the first place. So consider what happens if a gay couple gets married in, say, NY, then moves to TX, and they separate without being divorced (as it's impossible for a gay couple to be divorced in TX). Now suppose one or the other then falls in love with a person of the opposite sex and gets married in TX - no problem, according to TX. Now if this couple then moved back to NY they would be guilty of bigamy and could be arrested. So it seems that NY places a higher moral standard on protecting the sanctity of marriage than does TX - who'd have thought! To make it even more bizarre - suppose after moving back to NY one of the married couple dies without a will. Under state laws of both NY and TX if a married person dies intestate and if there are no children involved the spouse inherits the decedant's estate. So who inherits? NY says the original gay couple are still married and the hetero marriage is a sham; TX says the opposite. Yikes - this would make a fun case for the Supreme Court!Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Yup. My sil and her partner of over 30 years had to drive to Iowa from their home in Colorado last year to get married. Now, back in Colorado, their marriage and all the rights it confers doesn't exist. As they age into their 60s and 70s and end-of-life challenges overwhelm them, I wonder how this will play out legally.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
"... same sex union is quite opposite the laws of nature."
This is offensive.
I'd like to know more about the "laws of nature" that say this.
So everyone attracted to someone of the same sex is some sort of biological freak?
Could you possibly be more close minded!
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.Quote:
Yikes - this would make a fun case for the Supreme Court!
Article 4 Sec 1 .
Last time I looked the laws of nature said survival of the fitest, kill or be killed, like begats like
The deviance we see in society is the result of degeneration in the gene pool
I wonder, if the florist, in the link Cdad provided, had refused to sell flowers to a black couple, because she's a racist, would the reactions be different? Would those that think she was in her right to refuse to provide flowers, think differently?
Are your religious liberties being denied? NO! But you are denying others of their basic human rights, all based on a religious belief. It's utter nonsense.
The only time that florist failed to provide service was when it moved into a religious rhelm. She on other occasions had sold them flowers. I understand your point but your missing the gist of the situation. In America retailors can refuse service for many reasons. It is common for eating establishments to have signs like "No Shoes, No Shirt - No Service.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alty
True, but she served this customer for years, he was a regular customer. She didn't refuse service until she found out he was gay. That's discrimination, like it or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
So she's Christian, so she believes in God. So what? She has a legal right to believe what she wants, to be what she chooses. Religion is a right, and now, so is gay marriage! If she has a legal right "freedom of religion", and we all have to respect that, then why doesn't she have to respect the legal right to marry someone of the same sex? It goes both ways.
Let's paint this picture. A gay couple owns a flower shop. They sell to a Christian woman for years. One day she comes in, says that she's getting married in a church, that she'd like them to provide the flowers. They grasp her hand and say "I'm sorry, but I don't believe in God, so I won't sell you the flowers". Can you imagine the $hit storm the religious groups would cause over that? Don't tell me they wouldn't have the same reaction. In fact, we all know it would be a heck of a lot worse than what's happening to her, because it's religion, and any religious group that's discriminated against, well, hell would be more pleasant than dealing with the fallout lest you discriminate against religion.
Better yet, let's make it an Atheist that owns the flower shop. Let's leave gay out of it. No matter what, if someone refused to sell to someone because of their religious beliefs, the fit would hit the shan, and you all know it.
Then with some things we are going to have to agree to disagree. Chiristians aren't like that. Most likely they may complain but they would go find another flower shop to get flowers at.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alty
Also when you want to force things on people it never comes out good. Following your line of thinking I should be offended and demand (file suit) against a muslim butcher for not carrying bacon or my favorite pork roast? How dare they not carry my favorite pork product over "thier" silly religion. The same could be said about a jewish deli. You don't force them into converting to your way. You either participate or not. It's a "choice".
I highly doubt that the florist had no clue the person was gay. But I also believe they had a right to refuse service for a gay wedding based on their stated grounds.
So Westboro Baptist is equivalent to Gay Pride? Your analogy is suspect here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alty
Does the florist have a right to refuse flowers to a particular event? Absolutely. Do the participants have a right to organize a boycott or go to the media? Again, absolutely. Do the participants have the right to force the florist to provide the flowers? Never.
Besides, if you were the participants, would you really want the product of someone you had forced to create? Poison Ivy and Belladonna are rather pretty if arranged while wearing chemical resistant gloves.
The point is that she did not refuse to sell flowers ;she refused to partake in a ceremony that she had religious objections to. This is not the same as the civil rights movement... not even close.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alty
Of course you can't demand or file suit against a store for not carrying a product you want. That's ridiculous. That's not the case here. The patron went in to buy flowers, the store owner sells flowers. He was a loyal customer. It had nothing to do with demanding that she carry a specific product that's against her religious beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
You mentioned before that in the US store owners can decide who to serve, the whole "no shoes, no shirt, no service". We have that in Canada as well. There are signs on the doors letting patrons know what's allowed and what's not. Most stores don't allow pets, and have a sign stating that on the door, roller blades often aren't allowed, skateboards are usually forbidden, all posted on the door.
If the owner of the flower shop only wants to serve certain people perhaps she should put a sign on her door, a simple "Christians and heterosexuals only" sign. Of course that would be really bad for business, but she's already put her foot in her mouth, she may as well commit and put it on paper.
You know what guys, forget it.
I don't see why someone else's decision to marry has any effect on anyone else's religious beliefs or rights. We all have choices in this world. If you choose to discriminate against people because of your religious beliefs, and you're called out on it, then you pay the price.
Remember that religion is also a right. Be grateful no one has tried to take that right away from you.
Alty out.
Which is precisely what Washington State is trying to do with their anti-discrimination suit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alty
I believe religious rights of people and institutions like church should be kept intact while allowing gay marriages in legal terms. That's it.
I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at any time.
I believe religious rights of people and institutions like church should be kept intact while allowing gay marriages in legal terms. That's it.
That is not what you said - you said, "... same sex union is quite opposite the laws of nature."
Which is these two opposite statements do you believe? You appear to have shifted your position.
Otherwise, I do some work for HOME - discrimination takes many forms and shapes. I see unwed mothers discriminated against. If a woman has a child, is not married, can support that child, can afford the rent - why is she not a suitable tenant? Can all unwed mothers be "lumped" into one category?
Does the word "gay" take away a person's identity?
As far as refusing service to anyone at any time, that's fine if no one takes legal issue.
Within the law, and we do have guidelines for the basis you cannot refuse service to anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
There is a Muslim Temple in my neighborhood. People have protested, every now and then continue to protest, based on "religious" reasons. I think they are protests are discriminatory in origin.
That Temple does not infringe on my religious freedeom. The members do not fringe on my religious freedom.
Would it be any different if "gay" were in place of "muslim"?
Could I refuse to sell flowers to a Muslim who was getting married because I don't believe in Muslim marriage - particularly "multiple" marriages? And, yes, I occasionally knock on a door and ask for Mrs. X and there are two - the first and the second, both religious, one civil. Does that infringe on my religious rights?
What are those guidelines, Tal?
I'm not Tal, but for starters:
Is it a violation of your civil rights for a business to refuse to serve you because of the way you look, the way you smell, or the way you act? The answer is... it depends.
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability.
In addition to the protections against discrimination provided under federal law, many states have passed their own Civil Rights Acts that provide broader protections than the Federal Civil Rights Act. For example, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate against individuals based on unconventional dress or sexual preference.
In the 1960s, the Unruh Civil Rights Act was interpreted to provide broad protection from arbitrary discrimination by business owners. Cases decided during that era held that business owners could not discriminate, for example, against hippies, police officers, homosexuals, or Republicans, solely because of who they were.
In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.
On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.
In one more complicated case, a court held that a cemetery could exclude "punk rockers" from a private funeral service. A mother requested that the funeral service for her 17-year-old daughter be private and that admission to the service be limited to family and invited guests only. The cemetery failed to exclude punk rockers from the service. The punk rockers arrived in unconventional dress, wearing makeup and sporting various hair colors. One was wearing a dress decorated with live rats. Others wore leather and chains, some were twirling baton-like weapons, drinking, and using cocaine. The punk rockers made rude comments to family members and were generally disruptive of the service.
Ironically, the funeral business had attempted to rely on the Unruh Civil Rights Act, claiming that if they had denied access to the punk rockers, they would have been in violation of the Act. But the court held that the punk rockers' presence had deprived the deceased person's family of the services of the business establishment, which were meant to provide comfort to grieving family members. On that basis, the court stated that the funeral business could have legitimately denied access to the punk rockers.
It's interesting to note that while it is unlawful to refuse service to certain classes of people, it is not unlawful to provide discounts on the basis of characteristics such as age. Business establishments can lawfully provide discounts to groups such as senior citizens, children, local residents, or members of the clergy in order to attract their business.
Like many issues involving constitutional law, the law against discrimination in public accommodations is in a constant state of change. Some argue that anti-discrimination laws in matters of public accommodations create a conflict between the ideal of equality and individual rights. Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved." http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equa...refuse-service
I was in Texas, and my nephew and his wife could not get served because she is Hispanic - and he is not. Discrimination comes in many forms.
I am Christian. My late husband was an Orthodox Jew. I saw discrimination in many forms in both directions.
And, yes, by all means refuse service to people based on your individual "feelings" and beliefs. I need the work!
Speech ;you didn't build your business . What makes you think you can make decisions about what opportunities to accept or decline ?
Of course ;because as we all know ,the constitution was designed to protect the collective right over the individual.Quote:
For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved."
Hello:
I've never been to a wedding where a florist "partook" in the ceremony. At best, he delivered the flowers and put 'em where the people wanted 'em. That's NOT "participation" in anybody's book. If, to him, "delivery" equates to participation, then other arrangements could have been made. If he feels that simply HAVING his flowers AT a gay wedding infringes on his religious rights, he's bonkers.. FLOWERS aren't religious.Quote:
the point is that she did not refuse to sell flowers ;she refused to partake in a ceremony that she had religious objections to. This is not the same as the civil rights movement... not even close.
Excon
There's a lawsuit in NY right now - a photographer turned down a gay couple that was getting married because he doesn't believe in gay marriage. I wouldn't take it to this extent - but he got sued for violating their civil rights.
The Attorney changed it to the photographer being unfamiliar with same sex weddings, didn't know about two brides (which was the case), colors and angles and so forth, not a white dress and a dark suit, blah, blah, blah. Don't know how it will play out BUT the photographer is, at least for the moment, under Court Order NOT to photograph weddings. There goes his business!
I think the Court is infringing on the photographer's rights at the moment - but I'm not the Judge.
And a photographer "participates" in a wedding ceremony, i.e. is on the scene taking photos, whereas a florist delivers, arranges, and leaves before the wedding begins.Quote:
Originally Posted by JudyKayTee
The dufus photographer should have taken a page from the closet racist, smile and make up an excuse why he couldn't squeeze them into his busy schedule. He himself opened the door for redress with his blatant discrimination. That's why he has to pay a lawyer for his stupidity.
Not defending the hater who hides behind his "religious beliefs", but blatant discrimination is just not allowed. I mean if you want to holler about what YOUR rights are, how can you deny someone else THEIR rights. Goes back to the original question of how does exercising their rights stop you from exercising yours? It should not but we obviously see where we do have an effect on someone else by our actions.
Good or bad.
What it seems your failing to understand is that those rights you speak of are situational. That is why there are laws in place. But somewhere lines have to be drawn. "New" is never an easy process. They are still hammering everything out. But I stand by those that have religious convictions and don't wish to cross those convictions just because there is money involved. When you speak of rights you can't forget that there are responsibilities that go along with it. There is no need to be sue happy at every offence that comes your way. It hurts the very thing you proclaim to protect. We see every day discrimination on many levels. Visit a family court room and you will see it in action with the full force of the law protected by the barrel of a gun. Ask your insurance company if they have a redline policy. Its everywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
By selling and /or arranging ,the florist is facilitating a same-sex wedding .This case is in law suit too. Again ,this is not the same as a civil rights violation based on color . First ,this florist has frequently sold flowers to at least one of the couple previously ,and has on occasion hired a gay. . So no case can be made that she is discriminating over so called sexual orientation. In fact ;the only reason she refused is for religious reasons. Forcing her to sell flowers to the couple for that purpose indeed violates her 1st amendment rights of religion and the implicit freedom of association. .Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, tom:
Even if that's so, when her religious freedom bumps up against someone else's civil rights, it DOESN'T mean she automatically wins.. One Constitutional right does NOT trump another.Quote:
In fact ;the only reason she refused is for religious reasons.
Excon
They have a right to sue and let a judge decide. And everyone has there own convictions, gay or not, religious or not. Does that make one better than the other? You can't claim your religion allows you to break the law, nor more than you can shoot someone and claim self defense. The disputes are settled in courts and who cares if they are crowded or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
Bet a few court cases lost will make people think before they act or speak.
Not even lost - and I see both sides here.
Having your business sued, getting that publicity (lots of people have gay friends/relatives), having to pay an Attorney and traipse back and forth to Court, possibly having your business "frozen" while it plays out - any/all of these factors would scare me straight!
Yes that is the intimidating power of government to impose it's will on individuals .This is also the core problem with the IRS scandal . The founders never envisioned the system they constructed would grow to be such a Leviathan.
You are aware that there are laws on the books that address shooting someone in self defense right? Also when dealing with a protected class then aren't you asking the courts to give another superior rights?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Court and constitution allows equal rights to all. Law will provide gay marriages legal status. But even if law forces religious bodies to do gay marriages, it will not give them social status. So those religious places who are fine with gay marriages should do that. Those who don't must not be forced.
The legal system is designed to give people redress before the law, as opposed to duels and physical feuds. Or one group dominating another. It doesn't matter what the vision of the founders was, what matters is how we keep building this nation which has grown in leaps and bounds. We have to have a vision of ourselves as we have changed as a society, and will probably change a lot more in the future.
The founders could wear a small government because the nation was small and full of farmers and merchants and life was simpler. That's no longer the case, and there are many complexities and nuances that a larger population has to address. The behavior of the citizens being first and foremost.
I mean do you define the value of the citizen by the size of his wallet, and give him more power and privilege, or are we all equal under the law? The constitution says we are equal with no regard for the size of your wallet. The founders wrote that.
And those laws will have to stand the court and public scrutiny and be changed as necessary as have others before, that's the system.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
But I would like a definition of protected class.
Me too. But from Judy's earlier post you will see this as part of it:Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service.
Protected class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
Originally Posted by cdad
The patron can accept what a business does, or act in good conscious and do something about it. Is this not the way to establish what's acceptable, and what's not?
No I don't say that is the most acceptable way. The way to do it is to speak with your dollars and if you don't like how a business handles itself then you don't patronize that business. Isn't that what boycotts are all about? In cases of extreme discrimination then you can and should address the problems in a court room. Otherwise leading by example is a much better way to do things as it gets to the point directly.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Do you actually believe that most people need and want to live in a nanny state and be told what to do and how to live their lives?
Food for thought:
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/...under-New-Law/
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:49 AM. |