Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gay Rights. vs. 1st ammendment

BlackSand
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 6:06:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I believe the first amendment to be one of, if not the most, important right within the bill of rights. My fear, after reading a relevant article, is that the gay rights movement is infringing on my 1st amendments rights. I don't want to debate about the legality of gay marriage, that's been done to death. I want to know what rights can or should be preserved. Can a photographer refuse to take photos of a wedding because it is a gay wedding? Can a marriage counselor refuse to counsel a gay couple? Can a privately owned, but open to public, area refuse to allow a gay wedding on their premises? Can a religious university refuse to allow an openly gay couple to live in their married dorms? Can a religious school expel students who participate in homosexual activity?

US courts have decided with the gay rights movement in every issue I listed above.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 6:15:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
On the scenarios you listed, I would more or less side with private institutions in their right to discriminate. Though I take issue with you trying to homogenize the "gay rights movement" as necessarily lending themselves to the opposite analysis.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 6:18:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 6:06:53 PM, BlackSand wrote:
I believe the first amendment to be one of, if not the most, important right within the bill of rights. My fear, after reading a relevant article, is that the minority rights movement is infringing on my 1st amendments rights. I don't want to debate about the legality of interracial marriage, that's been done to death. I want to know what rights can or should be preserved. Can a photographer refuse to take photos of a wedding because it is am interracial wedding? Can a marriage counselor refuse to counsel a interracial couple? Can a privately owned, but open to public, area refuse to allow an interracial wedding on their premises? Can a religious university refuse to allow an openly interracial couple to live in their married dorms? Can a religious school expel students who participate in interracial activity?

US courts have decided with the minority rights movement in every issue I listed above.
BlackSand
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 6:21:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 6:15:48 PM, Noumena wrote:
On the scenarios you listed, I would more or less side with private institutions in their right to discriminate. Though I take issue with you trying to homogenize the "gay rights movement" as necessarily lending themselves to the opposite analysis.

Sorry if i misspoke. I didnt mean to group all gay rights activists into a single group with a single way of thinking. But rather that in the individual court cases where these issues were presented, the side that represented the homosexual couples, won.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 6:41:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 6:06:53 PM, BlackSand wrote:
I believe the first amendment to be one of, if not the most, important right within the bill of rights. My fear, after reading a relevant article, is that the gay rights movement is infringing on my 1st amendments rights. I don't want to debate about the legality of gay marriage, that's been done to death. I want to know what rights can or should be preserved. Can a photographer refuse to take photos of a wedding because it is a gay wedding? Can a marriage counselor refuse to counsel a gay couple? Can a privately owned, but open to public, area refuse to allow a gay wedding on their premises? Can a religious university refuse to allow an openly gay couple to live in their married dorms? Can a religious school expel students who participate in homosexual activity?

US courts have decided with the gay rights movement in every issue I listed above.

Can a restaurant refuse to serve a person because they are black? Can a judge decide a case against someone because they are Jewish? Can a person be singled out and anally probed because they are Arab?

There are other rights, and others rights, to consider.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 6:51:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 6:06:53 PM, BlackSand wrote:
I believe the first amendment to be one of, if not the most, important right within the bill of rights. My fear, after reading a relevant article, is that the gay rights movement is infringing on my 1st amendments rights. I don't want to debate about the legality of gay marriage, that's been done to death. I want to know what rights can or should be preserved. Can a photographer refuse to take photos of a wedding because it is a gay wedding? Can a marriage counselor refuse to counsel a gay couple? Can a privately owned, but open to public, area refuse to allow a gay wedding on their premises? Can a religious university refuse to allow an openly gay couple to live in their married dorms? Can a religious school expel students who participate in homosexual activity?

US courts have decided with the gay rights movement in every issue I listed above.

It often helps to analogize the situation to another one that you understand better. To "put the shoe on the other foot" as it were.

Would those cases have gone the same with an interracial couple? Would that have infringed on the "first amendment" rights of someone who was against interracial marriage?

The cases you list have specific reasons they were ruled the way they were ruled; the reasons were not that gays are a special class, but rather, that in those areas there were specific rules against discrimination, and the entity in question was discriminating. By your logic ALL discrimination laws would go against the 1st amendment, and while a case might be made for that, it's not gay rights specific.

In at least one case, I think you're misrepresenting it (the "open to the public, but private" case), and if it's the one I'm thinking of the place has been properly reclassified so that they can retain their bigotry; they had filed the paperwork improperly and were therefore a public accomodation as opposed to a religious place.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 7:14:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My stance has always been that if an organization takes public money then they should not be able to discriminate in such a manner because it constitutes a government endorsement of said discrimination, forcibly paid for by the very people being discriminating against. But if a private entity decides to, then that's their right entirely. If you're arguing against the coercion of private entities then you might want to look at the can of worms opened by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 instead of arguing against gay rights.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 7:16:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 6:06:53 PM, BlackSand wrote:
I believe the first amendment to be one of, if not the most, important right within the bill of rights. My fear, after reading a relevant article, is that the gay rights movement is infringing on my 1st amendments rights.

Being free does not mean that you have the right to deny the rights of others, ergo if in seeking to gain and secure their rights other citizens of our society flout your desire to prevent them from doing so they are not in the slightest guilty of diminishing the extent of the freedom that you're genuinely entitled to or of somehow abrogating your basic and inalienable rights. At any rate, freedom is not an absolute that annihilates all other principles; mm-hmm, the right of human beings to enjoy equality, for instance, is a democratic first principle that oughtn't be trumped by our entitlement to freedom, and one that must be hewed to by any society aspiring to earn its reputation for justice and decency. Item, the alleged right of a racist apartment building owner to exercise the freedom to choose his tenants on the basis of his bigotry does not take precedence over the principle of equality and therefore don't entitle him to discriminate. And yes, to state the obvious, there's no legitimate reason why the same principle shouldn't apply to discrimination against homosexuals. Why, pray tell, should gays be a special exception to the entitlement of all human beings to equality?!

I don't want to debate about the legality of gay marriage, that's been done to death. I want to know what rights can or should be preserved.

All rights should be preserved, but not your right to violate your neighbors rights with no cause other than a bigoted belief or mentality, that one is not a genuine right in the first place.

Can a photographer refuse to take photos of a wedding because it is a gay wedding? Can a marriage counselor refuse to counsel a gay couple? Can a privately owned, but open to public, area refuse to allow a gay wedding on their premises? Can a religious university refuse to allow an openly gay couple to live in their married dorms? Can a religious school expel students who participate in homosexual activity?

The answer to each of these questions is quite simple, apply the same standards that apply to other groups that are the frequent objects of discrimination.

US courts have decided with the gay rights movement in every issue I listed above.

And yet society still has far to go.

Liberation theologians have a beautiful concept, what they term the preferential option for the poor, which means that one does not take either a neutral stance or a stance with those who do the treading but rather with the downtrodden. If our courts are in fact making a preferential option for homosexuals and other victims of discrimination, then kudos to the judicial system. Now if the justice-prison-industrial complex will only stop dealing with the sociological ills of our society by warehousing massive numbers of black and brown men in the nation's penitentiaries!
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 7:23:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Sloppy typo correction, "Item, the alleged right of a racist apartment building owner to exercise the freedom to choose his tenants on the basis of his bigotry does not take precedence over the principle of equality and therefore don't entitle him to discriminate." should of course read: Item, the alleged right of a racist apartment building owner to exercise the freedom to choose his tenants on the basis of his bigotry does not take precedence over the principle of equality and therefore doesn't entitle him to discriminate.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
BlackSand
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 7:36:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 6:51:02 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
By your logic ALL discrimination laws would go against the 1st amendment, and while a case might be made for that, it's not gay rights specific.
In at least one case, I think you're misrepresenting it (the "open to the public, but private" case), and if it's the one I'm thinking of the place has been properly reclassified so that they can retain their bigotry; they had filed the paperwork improperly and were therefore a public accomodation as opposed to a religious place.

Fair point. Perhaps my point is about the right to discriminate. However, the word itself, discriminate, is an ugly word that implies hatred towards the person or group. It implies that there is someone who is morally wrong, and one who is morally right. A church cant exactly run on a campaign of a "right to discriminate." Nor a politician for that matter. It's not just about discrimination, its about being forced to do something you are morally against. Again, this is about the first amendment.

On your second point, you are probably thinking of the same case, but I'll stand my ground. The religious group had ownership of that land, and had right to do with it as they pleased.

Which also reminds me of another case where catholic adoption centers closed down, voluntarily, because they refused to allow same sex couples to adopt. How far into religious life is the government allowed?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 7:53:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 6:21:50 PM, BlackSand wrote:
At 2/9/2013 6:15:48 PM, Noumena wrote:
On the scenarios you listed, I would more or less side with private institutions in their right to discriminate. Though I take issue with you trying to homogenize the "gay rights movement" as necessarily lending themselves to the opposite analysis.

Sorry if i misspoke. I didnt mean to group all gay rights activists into a single group with a single way of thinking. But rather that in the individual court cases where these issues were presented, the side that represented the homosexual couples, won.

I hear it a lot is all. Small minded people tend to group their opposition into neat little homogeneous boxes. If that wasn't your intention then all I have to add is that private discrimination shouldn't be outlawed imo. It's gross and it sickens me but there's a difference between something that you find morally repugnant but which is in someone's rights to do and something repugnant that actually offends people's rights. Discrimination unfortunately belongs to the former lol.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
BlackSand
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 8:00:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 7:14:47 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
My stance has always been that if an organization takes public money then they should not be able to discriminate in such a manner because it constitutes a government endorsement of said discrimination, forcibly paid for by the very people being discriminating against. But if a private entity decides to, then that's their right entirely. If you're arguing against the coercion of private entities then you might want to look at the can of worms opened by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 instead of arguing against gay rights.

So would churches that do not allow gay marriages lose their tax exemptions?

The fact that someone does not want to take photos of a gay wedding does not mean they should be sued. The fact that someone does not want to counsel such a couple does not mean they should be fired. Yes, all men should be treated equally under the law. But the law should not sue or coerce anyone to do that which they are morally against. Just because one part of the population does not want to do something, does not mean that the other part of the population can force the the first part to do it.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 8:26:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 6:06:53 PM, BlackSand wrote:
I believe the first amendment to be one of, if not the most, important right within the bill of rights. My fear, after reading a relevant article, is that the gay rights movement is infringing on my 1st amendments rights. I don't want to debate about the legality of gay marriage, that's been done to death. I want to know what rights can or should be preserved. Can a photographer refuse to take photos of a wedding because it is a gay wedding? Can a marriage counselor refuse to counsel a gay couple? Can a privately owned, but open to public, area refuse to allow a gay wedding on their premises? Can a religious university refuse to allow an openly gay couple to live in their married dorms? Can a religious school expel students who participate in homosexual activity?

US courts have decided with the gay rights movement in every issue I listed above.

Replace "gay" with "christian".

Can a photographer refuse to take photos of a wedding because its a christian wedding ?

Can a secular university expel christians who participate in christian activity ?

This is something that really sh*ts alot of people. There are certain religious folks who have no problem having and demanding legal rights to discrimate say against homosexuals. Of course all hell would break loose if the same kind of discrimination was done against them.

Oh your a christian ? get the F*CK OUT = the war on Christianity

Oh your a homosexual ? get the F*CK out = Religious freedom
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 8:26:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 6:06:53 PM, BlackSand wrote:
I believe the first amendment to be one of, if not the most, important right within the bill of rights. My fear, after reading a relevant article, is that the gay rights movement is infringing on my 1st amendments rights. I don't want to debate about the legality of gay marriage, that's been done to death. I want to know what rights can or should be preserved. Can a photographer refuse to take photos of a wedding because it is a gay wedding? Can a marriage counselor refuse to counsel a gay couple? Can a privately owned, but open to public, area refuse to allow a gay wedding on their premises? Can a religious university refuse to allow an openly gay couple to live in their married dorms? Can a religious school expel students who participate in homosexual activity?

US courts have decided with the gay rights movement in every issue I listed above.

Are you sayng you think that anti-discriminations laws violate your first amendment right to discriminate?

Really?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 8:29:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 8:00:02 PM, BlackSand wrote:
But the law should not sue or coerce anyone to do that which they are morally against. Just because one part of the population does not want to do something, does not mean that the other part of the population can force the the first part to do it.

If I'm against taxation do you still think I should be forced to pay, regardless of whether I'm morally against it?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 9:04:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 7:36:04 PM, BlackSand wrote:
On your second point, you are probably thinking of the same case, but I'll stand my ground. The religious group had ownership of that land, and had right to do with it as they pleased.


That's just stupid. They did the paperwork wrong. Now that they have it right, they have the right to do with it as they please. It's not society or the gays, that's wholly the organization's fault.

It's like complaining about a high tax rate that you only have because you filled out your tax forms wrong and misplaced a decimal.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
BlackSand
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 9:16:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 8:26:10 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/9/2013 6:06:53 PM, BlackSand wrote:
I believe the first amendment to be one of, if not the most, important right within the bill of rights. My fear, after reading a relevant article, is that the gay rights movement is infringing on my 1st amendments rights. I don't want to debate about the legality of gay marriage, that's been done to death. I want to know what rights can or should be preserved. Can a photographer refuse to take photos of a wedding because it is a gay wedding? Can a marriage counselor refuse to counsel a gay couple? Can a privately owned, but open to public, area refuse to allow a gay wedding on their premises? Can a religious university refuse to allow an openly gay couple to live in their married dorms? Can a religious school expel students who participate in homosexual activity?

US courts have decided with the gay rights movement in every issue I listed above.

Replace "gay" with "christian".

Can a photographer refuse to take photos of a wedding because its a christian wedding ?

Can a secular university expel christians who participate in christian activity ?

This is something that really sh*ts alot of people. There are certain religious folks who have no problem having and demanding legal rights to discrimate say against homosexuals. Of course all hell would break loose if the same kind of discrimination was done against them.

Oh your a christian ? get the F*CK OUT = the war on Christianity

Oh your a homosexual ? get the F*CK out = Religious freedom

I would actually be fine with that. I would defend their right to 'discriminate'.

The more I read and hear arguments, the more I realize that the gay marriage debate goes a lot father than just gay marriage. It is decision that could cause significant changes in society. It causes society to reflect on the necessity of some freedoms, the purpose of government, family, marriage and even sex.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 9:44:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Could someone please explain to me what part of the bible a photographer is going against by photographing a gay wedding?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 9:44:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 8:00:02 PM, BlackSand wrote:
At 2/9/2013 7:14:47 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
My stance has always been that if an organization takes public money then they should not be able to discriminate in such a manner because it constitutes a government endorsement of said discrimination, forcibly paid for by the very people being discriminating against. But if a private entity decides to, then that's their right entirely. If you're arguing against the coercion of private entities then you might want to look at the can of worms opened by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 instead of arguing against gay rights.

So would churches that do not allow gay marriages lose their tax exemptions?

The fact that someone does not want to take photos of a gay wedding does not mean they should be sued. The fact that someone does not want to counsel such a couple does not mean they should be fired. Yes, all men should be treated equally under the law. But the law should not sue or coerce anyone to do that which they are morally against. Just because one part of the population does not want to do something, does not mean that the other part of the population can force the the first part to do it.

Tax-exempt status derives from the establishment clause of the first amendment (separation of church and state) and is pretty much sacrosanct in my eyes. I would say that they should lose any government money that they receive, but I'm against that entirely to begin with.

I agree about the lawsuit.

Whether or not the counselor should be fired is ultimately up to his employer, not you, I, or the government. I would just offer that, unless his employer specified that policy, he should certainly be fired for turning away a customer and potentially causing a public relations disaster.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 9:55:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 9:44:04 PM, Double_R wrote:
Could someone please explain to me what part of the bible a photographer is going against by photographing a gay wedding?

Don't think anyone was arguing for that being a correct interpretation. We're sorta hashing out whether they *should* be allowed to do so regardless.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 10:36:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 9:55:03 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/9/2013 9:44:04 PM, Double_R wrote:
Could someone please explain to me what part of the bible a photographer is going against by photographing a gay wedding?

Don't think anyone was arguing for that being a correct interpretation. We're sorta hashing out whether they *should* be allowed to do so regardless.

That's my point. If there is no place in the bible that suggests people should treat others differently because they do not fit with what the bible accepts then there is no infringement on ones religion, thus no violation of the first amendment.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 11:18:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 10:36:10 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/9/2013 9:55:03 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/9/2013 9:44:04 PM, Double_R wrote:
Could someone please explain to me what part of the bible a photographer is going against by photographing a gay wedding?

Don't think anyone was arguing for that being a correct interpretation. We're sorta hashing out whether they *should* be allowed to do so regardless.

That's my point. If there is no place in the bible that suggests people should treat others differently because they do not fit with what the bible accepts then there is no infringement on ones religion, thus no violation of the first amendment.

So? The point is over more so the right to free speech I would say, and the right to do with what you want with your business.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 11:25:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Can a photographer refuse to take photos of a wedding because it is a gay wedding? "
No. The photographer is in a for-profit business, which can't be selective about who it provides service too. To refuse on the basis of sexual orientation is regressive, and only takes us back to the days of segregation.

"Can a marriage counselor refuse to counsel a gay couple? "
No. See above.

"Can a privately owned, but open to public, area refuse to allow a gay wedding on their premises? "
Yes.

"Can a religious university refuse to allow an openly gay couple to live in their married dorms?"
No. A religious university is a for-profit enterprise, and, while it may carry the title of a religious institution, it is still subjected to that of what regular businesses are subjected to, as far as regulation goes. Now, a church (which is a non-profit entity) can refuse to allow a gay couple to attend, or to partake in said church.

"Can a religious school expel students who participate in homosexual activity?"
Only if they also expel students who participate in heterosexual activity.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 11:29:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 11:25:35 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
"Can a photographer refuse to take photos of a wedding because it is a gay wedding? "
No. The photographer is in a for-profit business, which can't be selective about who it provides service too. To refuse on the basis of sexual orientation is regressive, and only takes us back to the days of segregation.


So? Why should the government be allowed to tell a business what it can do with its product?

"Can a marriage counselor refuse to counsel a gay couple? "
No. See above.

"Can a privately owned, but open to public, area refuse to allow a gay wedding on their premises? "
Yes.


Why?

"Can a religious university refuse to allow an openly gay couple to live in their married dorms?"
No. A religious university is a for-profit enterprise, and, while it may carry the title of a religious institution, it is still subjected to that of what regular businesses are subjected to, as far as regulation goes. Now, a church (which is a non-profit entity) can refuse to allow a gay couple to attend, or to partake in said church.


Why should the government be allowed to tell them what to do with their business?

"Can a religious school expel students who participate in homosexual activity?"
Only if they also expel students who participate in heterosexual activity.

Once again, why?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 11:40:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"So? Why should the government be allowed to tell a business what it can do with its product?"

For the interests of the consumer. Government tells people what they can and cannot do with products all the time to protect consumer interests. Some of these regulations ensure safety, others ensure fairness, and other ensure both.

" Can a privately owned, but open to public, area refuse to allow a gay wedding on their premises? No.
Why?"

Because private property (assuming it isn't in the area of housing. The way the question was phrased, I assumed he was referring to a park) isn't a for-profit business. They aren't obligated to provide a service to people because people aren't paying them money. Assuming somebody owned a park, and a gay couple wanted to wed there, they'd need the permission of the park owner, just as somebody seeking to hold a parade in that park would need that owner's permission.

"Why should the government be allowed to tell them what to do with their business?"
See the first answer.

"Once again, why?"
So as not to be discriminatory.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 11:54:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 11:18:02 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 2/9/2013 10:36:10 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/9/2013 9:55:03 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/9/2013 9:44:04 PM, Double_R wrote:
Could someone please explain to me what part of the bible a photographer is going against by photographing a gay wedding?

Don't think anyone was arguing for that being a correct interpretation. We're sorta hashing out whether they *should* be allowed to do so regardless.

That's my point. If there is no place in the bible that suggests people should treat others differently because they do not fit with what the bible accepts then there is no infringement on ones religion, thus no violation of the first amendment.

So? The point is over more so the right to free speech I would say, and the right to do with what you want with your business.

Sorry, confusing the OP's argument with arguments made in another thread claiming that legalizing gay marriage infringes on religious liberty.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 11:55:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 11:40:11 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
"So? Why should the government be allowed to tell a business what it can do with its product?"

For the interests of the consumer. Government tells people what they can and cannot do with products all the time to protect consumer interests. Some of these regulations ensure safety, others ensure fairness, and other ensure both.

Many of them ensure that whoever keeps a strong lobby are protected from competition or given subsidies, either direct or indirectly. Safety is just a ruse; I work under safety regulation, and you know what the results are? An SOP for going to the bathroom (I'm serious). Signs that say 'don't stick your fingers in the centrifuge while it's running.' Bummer, I was TOTALLY going to caress a piece of machinery rotating at thousands of RPMs. Labels on quaternary ammonia which declare that it is not, in fact, edible. You need a bachelor's to work at my place of employment, and I'm sorry, but if you have four years of college education and lick a -70C freezer you deserve what's coming to you.

" Can a privately owned, but open to public, area refuse to allow a gay wedding on their premises? No.
Why?"

Because private property (assuming it isn't in the area of housing. The way the question was phrased, I assumed he was referring to a park) isn't a for-profit business. They aren't obligated to provide a service to people because people aren't paying them money. Assuming somebody owned a park, and a gay couple wanted to wed there, they'd need the permission of the park owner, just as somebody seeking to hold a parade in that park would need that owner's permission.

"Why should the government be allowed to tell them what to do with their business?"
See the first answer.

"Once again, why?"
So as not to be discriminatory.

Why should people be forced to not discriminate? I'm gay, and I'm offended at the idea of someone being forced into pretending to approve of me when they actually don't.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2013 12:01:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 11:55:38 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Many of them ensure that whoever keeps a strong lobby are protected from competition or given subsidies, either direct or indirectly. Safety is just a ruse; I work under safety regulation, and you know what the results are? An SOP for going to the bathroom (I'm serious). Signs that say 'don't stick your fingers in the centrifuge while it's running.' Bummer, I was TOTALLY going to caress a piece of machinery rotating at thousands of RPMs. Labels on quaternary ammonia which declare that it is not, in fact, edible. You need a bachelor's to work at my place of employment, and I'm sorry, but if you have four years of college education and lick a -70C freezer you deserve what's coming to you.

That's nice, but I wasn't referring solely to worker safety in that regard. These sorts of things exist to protect consumers too, such as non-lead based paints. The business may have to take a more costly road, but it's in the name of safety.


Why should people be forced to not discriminate? I'm gay, and I'm offended at the idea of someone being forced into pretending to approve of me when they actually don't.

Nobody's forced to approve of you on any basis. The idea is that they're forced to provide you equal treatment (although this obviously isn't a reality...yet).
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2013 12:02:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 11:40:11 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
"So? Why should the government be allowed to tell a business what it can do with its product?"

For the interests of the consumer. Government tells people what they can and cannot do with products all the time to protect consumer interests. Some of these regulations ensure safety, others ensure fairness, and other ensure both.


Why should we encourage fairness? A fair society would be one where everyone is assigned a job, given the food they need, and the house they require. "Fairness" isn't part of a capitalistic society.

I don't see how safety has anything to do with this.

" Can a privately owned, but open to public, area refuse to allow a gay wedding on their premises? No.
Why?"

Because private property (assuming it isn't in the area of housing. The way the question was phrased, I assumed he was referring to a park) isn't a for-profit business. They aren't obligated to provide a service to people because people aren't paying them money. Assuming somebody owned a park, and a gay couple wanted to wed there, they'd need the permission of the park owner, just as somebody seeking to hold a parade in that park would need that owner's permission.

But why, when fairness should be regulated, as you say, should we allow that? I agreed, but I don't get how you can say the above and still say this.

"Once again, why?"
So as not to be discriminatory.

Why is the government allowed to prevent discrimination? Why does it matter?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2013 12:04:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/10/2013 12:01:14 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 2/9/2013 11:55:38 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Many of them ensure that whoever keeps a strong lobby are protected from competition or given subsidies, either direct or indirectly. Safety is just a ruse; I work under safety regulation, and you know what the results are? An SOP for going to the bathroom (I'm serious). Signs that say 'don't stick your fingers in the centrifuge while it's running.' Bummer, I was TOTALLY going to caress a piece of machinery rotating at thousands of RPMs. Labels on quaternary ammonia which declare that it is not, in fact, edible. You need a bachelor's to work at my place of employment, and I'm sorry, but if you have four years of college education and lick a -70C freezer you deserve what's coming to you.

That's nice, but I wasn't referring solely to worker safety in that regard. These sorts of things exist to protect consumers too, such as non-lead based paints. The business may have to take a more costly road, but it's in the name of safety.


You can literally justify anything using that logic.


Why should people be forced to not discriminate? I'm gay, and I'm offended at the idea of someone being forced into pretending to approve of me when they actually don't.

Nobody's forced to approve of you on any basis. The idea is that they're forced to provide you equal treatment (although this obviously isn't a reality...yet).

Why? Why do I have to treat everyone equally? It's my business, my resources, why should I be forced to use them to someone else morals?

You can ignore responding to my discrimination post in my above post, we can just argue here.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-