US Politics Mega-thread - Page 877

On February 14 2014 13:01 KwarK wrote:
If they wouldn't be allowed to refuse to cater to an interracial marriage they shouldn't be allowed to refuse to cater to a gay marriage. It's that simple.

On February 14 2014 13:14 xDaunt wrote:
It's just bad policy to have laws that enable or facilitate discrimination of any kind. Regardless of the intentions and the spin, this Kansas law will be used to facilitate discrimination. It's a classic example of overbroad legislation that carries significant negative impact along with whatever positive impact that it has.

I don't get how this is not illegal even if we keep the fact aside that not catering stuff to gay people is ridiculously intolerant.

If I understood that bill right it would mean that people/businesses would be allowed to not provide a service to someone if that interferes with their religious beliefs. But that means religious businesses would have more rights than non religious businesses.

That's actually exactly what it is. There's no reason to get all sophisticated and intellectual about why hating/not liking gay people is so much different from hating black people or Jews or any other minority.
Xenophobia, racism, islamophobia and what have you are essentially all the same thing: Hating stuff you don't know/understand because it scares you or interferes with your arbitrary belief system.

And like xDaunt said that is what people are going to use that law for.

On February 14 2014 13:18 Introvert wrote:
But moreover, it's important to clear up why this is nothing like segregation or the black codes. It's essentially using the term "racist!" to shut down discussion when that's not actually what's going on.

On February 14 2014 13:07 Introvert wrote:


I know, we can boil it all down to that once sentence! Wait a minute, I just explained why it's not the same. You don't have to agree with their moral view, you just have to recognize what it is and whats it's not.

"homophobia" =/= racism. One was based on the person, the other is based on what the person does or what you want to condone. Besides, at least in theory, private groups can refuse service to anyone, as long as it's not in violation of the commerce clause (I'm going to have to look over that one and see how that makes any sense).

They will serve gays at their store, they might just refuse to be the caterers at a gay wedding. This law will protect the minority of business that may refuse service, it's no institutionalizing some wide problem like the black codes.

I'm really done, this comparison to segregation and other such laws is simply wrong and displays that the poster knows next to nothing about the other side's position, since they figure it's so indefensible there isn't even any reason to understand it!

This reminds me of the time Ted Cruz's father made the comment about sending Obama back to Kenya and somehow that was racist statement, instead of a birther/reference-to-Obama's-father reference. It's just so much easier to use "-phobia" or "-ist" and be done with it!

On February 14 2014 13:37 KwarK wrote:

It's not in the least bit about race. If someone believes that an interracial marriage is wrong then it doesn't matter why they believe it, only that they do sincerely believe that it's immoral. Whether they believe it's wrong due to racism, cultural beliefs, religious beliefs, fashion sense (white with black? ew) or any other reason you come up with doesn't matter in the slightest, it's not about why, it's about whether or not it's up to the provider of the service to choose who he can and cannot serve. The law has concluded that sincere personal beliefs don't allow you to discriminate against someone in that case. Gay marriage is the exact same situation, sincere beliefs wanting to discriminate.

Homosexuals don't have to have been enslaved, it doesn't have to be racism, if you wanted to block an interracial marriage on sincere religious grounds rather than sincere racist grounds you wouldn't be allowed to. You just don't get it. Nobody is arguing that homophobia is literally the same thing as racism.

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, according to a ruling Wednesday by a federal judge, who struck down part of the state ban that he wrote treated “gay and lesbian persons differently in a way that demeans them.”

In 23-page a ruling issued Wednesday, U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II concluded that the government may define marriage and attach benefits to it, but cannot “impose a traditional or faith-based limitation” without a sufficient justification for it.”

“Assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law does not make it constitutional when that law discriminates against a class of people without other reasons,” wrote Heyburn, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush.

The decision in the socially conservative state comes against the backdrop of similar rulings or actions in states around the country where same-sex couples have long fought for the right to marry. The constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was approved by voters in 2004 and included the out-of-state clause.

A federal judge ruled Virginia's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional late Thursday.

From the ruling:

The Court finds Va. Const. Art. I, § 15-A, Va. Code §§ 20-45.2, 20-45.3, and any other Virginia law that bars same-sex marriage or prohibits Virginia's recognition of lawful same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions unconstitutional. These laws deny Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen wrote that the constitutional right to equality should apply to all, including same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses.

"Our Constitution declares that 'all men' are created equal. Surely this means all of us," wrote Allen, an Eastern District of Virginia judge in Norfolk. "While ever vigilant for the wisdom that can come from the voices of our voting public, our courts have never long tolerated the perpetuation of laws rooted in unlawful prejudice. One of the judiciary's noblest endeavors is to scrutinize law that emerge from such roots."

Allen stayed her order to allow an appeal, meaning nothing immediately changes for same-sex couples in the state.

On February 14 2014 13:46 Introvert wrote:


You've been using racism as a comparison this whole time. You said that those religious persons find gays "inferior."

Unless you were merely trying to make a law based judgement, instead of a moral one, then I disagree. I agree that in law sincerity is not the end all be all.

So, my point also doesn't have anything to do with sincerity.

But I agree, it's NOT like racism. So stop saying that those in favor "hate gays" or think they are "inferior." THAT is my problem. This continuing trend of conflating, purposely or ignorantly, two distinct views on two separate topics causes a lot of confusion.

On February 14 2014 13:59 KwarK wrote:

I've been using interracial marriage as an example this whole time and you keep repeating "but gays aren't black" as if that in some way responds to my argument. Interracial marriage was opposed based upon sincerely held beliefs and those beliefs were found to not be legal grounds to discriminate. It doesn't matter that gays aren't black (although some are), what matters is that sincerely held beliefs are not grounds to discriminate.

Fundamentalist Christians and other socially hardcore religious people should simply be content in knowing (or believing, if you prefer) that gays are going to go to Hell for their conduct. It's not their job to save others who don't want to be saved.

I can see there being certain things that religious people should not be forced to do in their interactions with the public that would force them to "sin." More limited laws can be enacted to address those situations. There just can't be an ambiguous law like this one that potentially gives religious people cover to discriminate in every day commercial interactions.

On February 14 2014 14:14 xDaunt wrote:
Fundamentalist Christians and other socially hardcore religious people should simply be content in knowing (or believing, if you prefer) that gays are going to go to Hell for their conduct. It's not their job to save others who don't want to be saved.

I can see there being certain things that religious people should not be forced to do in their interactions with the public that would force them to "sin." More limited laws can be enacted to address those situations. There just can't be an ambiguous law like this one that potentially gives religious people cover to discriminate in every day commercial interactions.

On February 14 2014 13:30 Nyxisto wrote:
Hating stuff you don't know/understand because it scares you or interferes with your arbitrary belief system.

On February 14 2014 14:14 xDaunt wrote:
Fundamentalist Christians and other socially hardcore religious people should simply be content in knowing (or believing, if you prefer) that gays are going to go to Hell for their conduct. It's not their job to save others who don't want to be saved.

I can see there being certain things that religious people should not be forced to do in their interactions with the public that would force them to "sin." More limited laws can be enacted to address those situations. There just can't be an ambiguous law like this one that potentially gives religious people cover to discriminate in every day commercial interactions.

On February 14 2014 11:57 Introvert wrote:


Once again, displaying that all anyone here knows are talking points and stereotypes.

I personally don't know of anyone who believes gays to be "inferior" like people did about blacks. They don't think they are incompetent, they DO think gays can provide for themselves, they DO think they are the same "race" (human)- please tell me in what way they think gays are "inferior."

They simply believe they are sinners (like they believe EVERYONE is), and they do NOT want the state to force them into participating or condoning what they believe to be sinful activity. They want to keep the (in their view) sacred institution of marriage as ordained by God Himself. I don't actually know of any "haters" or bigots. I don't know a single person who wants them put to death like Westboro and the Islamic countries advocate.

Are there people who believe gays to be from Satan himself (Westboro?) Yes. And every major Christian, Mormon, etc denomination has denounced their language.

I know that it's really fun to exaggerate, but to compare this to what blacks went through is absurd.

On February 14 2014 19:45 Velr wrote:
So it's a law for a problem that doesn't even exist yet and therefore it's ok to in advance discriminate people? How "progressive"...

Btw: How exactly would the state "force" them to marry gay couples? Afaik marriage is done by the state, the church is just some extra religious People like to add on top of it but totally unneeded to actually get married.