Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide

Hard to set someone up for breaking discrimination laws if they're not breaking them.

originally posted by: Annee
Hard to set someone up for breaking discrimination laws if they're not breaking them.

Not hard at all.

Simply take gay employees of a 70 year old florist.
Ask the employees, what would she do if asked to make flowers for a gay wedding.
Then send someone in to ask for flowers for a gay wedding for the express purpose of getting her to say no.
Then following it up with destroying her business, sending her hate mail and death threats.
In the process throwing the gay people out of work, just to make a point that she discriminated against gays, when she had gay employees that she knew were gay. THIS HAPPENED!

It is now de rigueur behavior of the slaves to popular culture,
the socialists/liberals/progressives etc.
SCOTUS in their ruling said that popular culture is now to be
the standard by which new laws and rulings are made.



Simply take a reporter and tell her to go around to restaurants until they find one that won't cater a gay wedding.
Have the reporter go restaurant to restaurant interviewing owners until they find one who say they won't. The restaurant has never turned anyone down, nor has anyone ever asked them to cater a gay wedding, just ask a hypothetical question.
Make their answer public, for the express purpose of destroying the business and the family, sending them hate mail and death threats. Even when the people never actually discriminated against anyone at all. They were just asked a hypothetical question, they never discriminated. THIS HAPPENED!

a reply to: grandmakdw

Meh. It would be sooooo much more fun to trick the florist into thinking she was providing flowers for a straight wedding. Then after she has arranged all the flowers and delivered all the flowers to the wedding venue, and just as she is walking out the door, she finds out it was for a gay wedding after all. Bwha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

a reply to: grandmakdw

My dear, all I need point out is that the UK and New Zealand have had gay marriage for a while now. The same fears were brought up and none of them have come to be.

We're just normal people wanting to live normal, boring lives. Yes there are less than savoury characters in the gay community, but it's just a microcosm reflection of greater society IE on a percentage basis we're no better or worse than you straight folk

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Annee
Hard to set someone up for breaking discrimination laws if they're not breaking them.

Not hard at all.

Simply take gay employees of a 70 year old florist.
Ask the employees, what would she do if asked to make flowers for a gay wedding.
Then send someone in to ask for flowers for a gay wedding for the express purpose of getting her to say no.

If she says no in a state with discrimination laws, she's in violation.

It makes no difference if she was tricked or confronted Face to Face.

As far as hate mail, I don't know of any organized LGBT group on the SPLC hate list.

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: grandmakdw

My dear, all I need point out is that the UK and New Zealand have had gay marriage for a while now. The same fears were brought up and none of them have come to be.

We're just normal people wanting to live normal, boring lives. Yes there are less than savoury characters in the gay community, but it's just a microcosm reflection of greater society IE on a percentage basis we're no better or worse than you straight folk

I won't disagree that the less than savory characters are probably the minority,
however, their actions are celebrated,
endorsed by popular culture and the mass media
and held up as a standard of "courageous" behavior
that others should follow. It is the liberal progressives
who are endorsing and encouraging this less than
savory behavior.

Sweetie,
it is NOT gay marriage I disapprove of
nor do I disapprove of gay people
live and let live is my philosophy.

The part of the ruling I disagree with
has nothing to do with gay marriage,
it has to do with the redefining how
laws are made,
they have redefined the basis of law
as what is currently the most popular
stance in popular culture.

Popular culture changes regularly
and frequently,
basing laws on popular culture
is a dangerous precedent in my opinion
(leaving the gay part out entirely)

It could very easily happen,
with Christianity failing and losing members
at a rapid rate,
and with the dramatic decline in
birth rates of second generation
plus Americans,
and with the large families of
the Muslim community,
and with the dramatic increase
in the number of Muslims and
Muslim converts in the USA -
that Muslims could come to rule
popular culture.
At that point, if SCOTUS were to be
consistent with this ruling, that
popular culture should be the basis
for making new law,
at that point it is possible that
Muslim culture comes to rule
popular culture and then becomes
the law of the land as it rules the popular culture.

My concern has nothing to do with gay marriage per se:
I could care less and my philosophy is live and let live;
don't chase after anyone you disagree with;
just let them be and have their own ideas as long as
they don't harm anyone.

If a Muslim has a store and doesn't want to allow women
in the store because Muslim men are employees
and their religion forbids them from touching or
dealing with women, ok, I won't go in there, it's their business.
There are plenty of other stores that will serve me.
I actually did have a Muslim male refuse to serve me
in a mall kiosk once because my husband was with me,
he would only talk to and deal with my husband in his business,
and openly said it was because of his religion.
So, we didn't buy from him and walked away, live and let live.

My disagreement with the ruling
has to do with saying that
popular culture is to now be
the basis upon which SCOTUS decides national law.
That, my dearest, is the crux of my argument (leaving out gay marriage or gay people entirely)

originally posted by: grandmakdw
The part of the ruling I disagree with
has nothing to do with gay marriage,
it has to do with the redefining how
laws are made,
they have redefined the basis of law
as what is currently the most popular
stance in popular culture.

Being gay is not, nor ever will be popular culture. People have been burned at the stake in times past (well actually thrown among the faggot - bunches of sticks at witch burnings) They are still killed to this very day in some godforsaken parts for the 'crime' of being attracted to the same gender.

This is not a trendy thing that is the cause of the hour. Gay marriage was openly accepted in some ancient cultures such as the Romans. It was marauding invaders who brought dark times to Europe that stamped it out. Isis is trying to do the same in their controlled territory at this very moment - they are committing genocide on many levels, including gay people.

I genuinely believe that you don't mean it, but calling gay marriage a part of pop culture is deeply insulting to all those who have suffered for just being gay. There are so many people dying even today without ever having had the chance to just have a loving partner in their life. I could tell you how lonely and tragic my early years as a gay person were, but that would be self gratifying and trivialising toward the suffering of people who have had it much worse than me.

Gay marriage is about love, enlightenment personal freedom and happiness. It is also about showing solidarity to those dark parts of the world that are throwing gays off buildings or beating and killing them in angry lynch mobs.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Couldn't you just as easily say that they shouldn't be basing laws of Christianity being the Popular Culture too???

It seems that is no different as far as your argument goes except that it's not your chosen type of popular culture this time. It would seem that as long as the Supreme Court sides with Christian Culture everything is just roses and sunshine but change who the law caters to and then there is a problem.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: grandmakdw

Couldn't you just as easily say that they shouldn't be basing laws of Christianity being the Popular Culture too???

It seems that is no different as far as your argument goes except that it's not your chosen type of popular culture this time. It would seem that as long as the Supreme Court sides with Christian Culture everything is just roses and sunshine but change who the law caters to and then there is a problem.

No, we used to base national laws on the constitution.

The way our country is set up, states and local jurisdictions are in charge of issuing marriage licenses, not the federal government. The gay community was correct in going state by state to change laws, and I had no problem with that.

The ruling #1 interfered with states rights
#2 SCOTUS clearly stated that it was because of the current cultural climate that the ruling was being made and they felt they had to interfere with states rights
#3 SCOTUS did not use the constitution or any historical laws or previous laws to base their decision on, it was based on popular culture that they felt should be the law of the land

Once again, I do NOT disapprove of gay marriage, I disapprove of the reasoning behind the ruling and the future unintended consequences it may have for the future (not related in any way to LGBT or gay marriage)

One unintended consequence I linked to earlier, was by taking away states rights, some states are considering not issuing marriage licenses to anyone at all, to not discriminate. This would remove from everyone rights associated with marriage and everyone would have to have create civil contracts that replace marital rights. This would not be happening if SCOTUS did not interfere with states rights and encouraged the gay community to continue to change the laws state by state as they were doing, which was working, and eventually would have been changed in all 50 states.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Then why in that post did you make so many references to Christianity in decline and Muslims taking over and stuff like that???

To say that those things don't play a part in your reasoning seems dishonest to me. You many not realize the impact of those thoughts on your reasoning but to someone on the outside listening to your arguments throughout this thread it does seem quite obvious that they are influencing you to some degree.

But I suppose maybe I'm reading something in to what you're saying as well. Can anyone else verify what I'm saying as true or not??

I don't understand why we still culturally approve of discrimination based along religious cultural lines, but shame others. If a shop discriminates on racial cultural identifiers, it would cause outrage, with very, very few willing to defend the actions of the shop, but change that cultural identifier to a religious one, people are willing to defend the stance of discrimination based on religious freedom. I need my freedom to try and impede on others freedoms! (There are many in the western world who would still support the absolute criminalization of homosexuality)

originally posted by: grandmakdw
One unintended consequence I linked to earlier, was by taking away states rights, some states are considering not issuing marriage licenses to anyone at all, to not discriminate. This would remove from everyone rights associated with marriage and everyone would have to have create civil contracts that replace marital rights. This would not be happening if SCOTUS did not interfere with states rights and encouraged the gay community to continue to change the laws state by state as they were doing, which was working, and eventually would have been changed in all 50 states.

Ok, I can see what you're saying here. Although I do somewhat disagree with the term "taking away states rights". They aren't taking away the states rights on marriage, they are just extending that right to include other Americans who should have already had that right in the first place but were being kept from it. If equal under the law applies to everyone then it applies to everyone meaning each one of us has the right to marry.

The fact that some state is now saying they'll deny all marriages is a political stunt by the state as far as I'm concerned, not the SCOTUS. It's a stunt that the state is doing by their own design and one that is constitutionally invalid since now they are violating everyone's rights in that state, not just those who are wanting to marry someone of the same sex.

Point the SCOTUS is making.

States can't make laws that violate the Constitution, whether the people want it or not.

Here's a (probably) stupid question...

States now have to recognize gay marriage, great. I've always believed everyone should have the ability to as miserable as I was when my marriage went down the tubes.

But, what about gay divorce?

I know everyone will automatically believe it's "assumed" that one must be recognized along with the other, but is that really the case?

The ruling says lots about the traditions, reasons for marriage in the past and the joining aspect of marriage, but I saw nothing in it talking about the "other side" of it.

Do states now also have to legally recognize and deal with gay divorce? Can they legally avoid it?

originally posted by: Syyth007
I don't understand why we still culturally approve of discrimination based along religious cultural lines, but shame others.

That's easy to answer. It's because the majority of people are Religious and it's part of their culture. It's not easy for people to admit that their own culture that they themselves are a part of is in the wrong. That means being very honest with yourself and actually identifying the flaws within the ways you choose to live. Nobody wants to see themselves as being "the bad guy" when thinking about who they are deep down.

a reply to: gspat

Marriage is marriage.

Divorce is divorce.

(???)

After yesterday, there is no difference based on the sexes or sexual orientations of the partners in the marriage.

Marriage, as a legally binding covenant, is also dissolved via legal means.

Are you imagining that you have to have a special kind of divorce to break apart folks of the same sex that are married?

State and local laws have NEVER been superior to the Constitution or Federal law.

(COTUS Article VI, Section 2)

The supposed issue of "states rights" stems from a basic misreading of the Constitution as well as Amendment X.

We fought a war to settle this issue.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I thought my question was pretty clear as to what I was asking?

Can states that opposed gay marriage make an "end run" and refuse to deal with gay divorce?

a reply to: gspat

Of course there is divorce in gay marriage - it's often not nearly as complicated as heterosexual marriage, as there is usually no children involved, but they happen. In countries that keep statistics, gay women divorce rate floats around 20% while gay men float around 15% - heterosexual divorce rates are usually around 40-50%, albeit heterosexual marriage is much more common then homosexual marriage.

originally posted by: gspat
a reply to: Gryphon66

I thought my question was pretty clear as to what I was asking?

Can states that opposed gay marriage make an "end run" and refuse to deal with gay divorce?

My answer was equally clear.

Marriage is a legal construction.

There are laws about how marriages are dissolved.

The laws are blind to whether the divorce is "gay" or not.