Supreme Court strikes down same-sex marriage bans

[tinselwolverine]

Have you not been following the news? It's already happening.

Are you talking about wedding vendors?

No one has told them they can't voice their opposition to same sex marriage, as far as I know, if that's what you're talking about.

As far as complying with anti-discrimination laws and ordinances, to the best of my knowledge no vendor has gone to court to challenge the laws based on their first amendment rights; if any vendor had, I think I would know about it.

When all is said and done I'm pretty sure vendors who turn away business based on their religious beliefs will be found to have the right to under the first amendment.

Is this what you're talking about, or are you talking about something else?

 

[byco42]

I have, and have heard or read nothing that has been much worse than the outright and blatantly obvious bigoted discrimination and public/private scorn that most LBGTs have suffered through much of their entire lives.

So a person is now obligated to allow a wedding on their property regardless of the personal beliefs of the people who want to get married?

You post as if every single one of those who feel that their sexual preferences are a personal affront to their pious beliefs, and that is how all of them live their lives, virtually absent any sinning themselves. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This a flaming straw man argument. My objection to gay marriage has nothing to do with my personal opinion of homosexuality or with homosexuals.

 

[byco42]

Are you talking about wedding vendors?

No one has told them they can't voice their opposition to same sex marriage, as far as I know, if that's what you're talking about.

As far as complying with anti-discrimination laws and ordinances, to the best of my knowledge no vendor has gone to court to challenge the laws based on their first amendment rights; if any vendor had, I think I would know about it.

When all is said and done I'm pretty sure vendors who turn away business based on their religious beliefs will be found to have the right to under the first amendment.

Is this what you're talking about, or are you talking about something else?

I am sued -- and lose -- because I will not make a cake, take pictures or even rent my property for a wedding that I do not acknowledge as viable, or if I oppose the premise of the wedding then my (and theirs) first-amendment rights have already been proscribed. Vendors have been sued and have been forced to pay damages for refusing to accommodate same-sex marriages.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I am sued -- and lose -- because I will not make a cake, take pictures or even rent my property for a wedding that I do not acknowledge as viable, or if I oppose the premise of the wedding then my (and theirs) first-amendment rights have already been proscribed. Vendors have been sued and have been forced to pay damages for refusing to accommodate same-sex marriages.

There've been a handful of situations that I'm aware of.

But has any case actually gone to court based on the defendant's first amendment rights?

 

[Michchamp]

In my opinion this issue will mushroom into one that affects far more than whether or not two people of the same sex are allowed to marry. You, if you do, and I, will not be allowed, in time, to oppose this. The argument that "it does not affect me" is one of deliberate abdication of my morality. And the difference between my neighbor opposing my viewpoint and the government opposing it should be obvious. My responsibility is to inform that to change the definition of marriage is an offense to God and His will. Those who disagree do so out of either their ignorance, defiance or confusion over this truth.

this is absurd. If you want to discriminate against homosexuals, personally, you can go right ahead and continue to do so. this law will have no bearing on that, and your claims about this becoming a slippery slope are simply a lot of hand-waving and use of logical fallacy.

Have you not been following the news? It's already happening.

Are you talking about wedding vendors?

No one has told them they can't voice their opposition to same sex marriage, as far as I know, if that's what you're talking about.

As far as complying with anti-discrimination laws and ordinances, to the best of my knowledge no vendor has gone to court to challenge the laws based on their first amendment rights; if any vendor had, I think I would know about it.

When all is said and done I'm pretty sure vendors who turn away business based on their religious beliefs will be found to have the right to under the first amendment.

Is this what you're talking about, or are you talking about something else?

So a person is now obligated to allow a wedding on their property regardless of the personal beliefs of the people who want to get married? ...

how would that ever happen? no. the only conceivable way it could is if your property was used to offer public accommodations, i.e. it's a restaurant, bar, hotel, store, etc. This would be no different than the current way Federal laws like the ADA, Civil Rights Act, etc. burden private businesses. And this has all been upheld as constitutional for a while now.

By the way, those same laws all have exemptions for private clubs/premises, and religious institutions, so your slippery slope argument is more or less completely unfounded, at least from looking at other examples.

If you want to be a bigot, go right ahead. Just don't avail yourself of public utilities, rights of way, streets, sidewalks, etc. when doing so. The government has spoken that it won't be a party to this.

To me, your arguments here are no different than those used by a 1950's Southern restaurant owner attempting to deny a table to an African American family, and I think the future will show each to be morally bankrupt.

 

[byco42]

There've been a handful of situations that I'm aware of.

But has any case actually gone to court based on the defendant's first amendment rights?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.."

 

[Michchamp]

Conservatives, particularly religious ones, seem to have trouble distinguishing their rights, from the rights of others.

It takes a certain moral and mental blindness to consider your inability to base the laws and conventions that govern everyone on your own personal religious morals to be a infringement on your 1st Amendment rights.

Everytime I hear someone whining that their views are being censored, or their religion is "under attack" just because other publicly disagreed with them, refused to say "Merry Christmas," or met with a public backlash for refusing to bake a cake... I'm reminded of the immense chasm that stands between a peaceful, progressive future for America, and the racist, sexist, violent, oppressive past. There is a lot of enlightening that needs to be done.

 

[tinselwolverine]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.."

That's the beginning of the first amendment.

I already knew that.

It really isn't an answer to the question I asked.

 

[byco42]

How would that ever happen? no. the only conceivable way it could is if your property was used to offer public accommodations, i.e. it's a restaurant, bar, hotel, store, etc. This would be no different than the current way Federal laws like the ADA, Civil Rights Act, etc. burden private businesses. And this has all been upheld as constitutional for a while now.

http://nypost.com/2014/11/10/couple-fined-for-refusing-to-host-same-sex-wedding-on-their-farm/

If you want to be a bigot, go right ahead. Just don't avail yourself of public utilities, rights of way, streets, sidewalks, etc. when doing so. The government has spoken that it won't be a party to this.

It is not bigotry to oppose same-sex marriage. It not bigotry, either, to champion the disillusionment of the Catholic Church.

To me, your arguments here are no different than those used by a 1950's Southern restaurant owner attempting to deny a table to an African American family, and I think the future will show each to be morally bankrupt.

The crucial discriminating differences should be obvious to even you. I imagine that you will celebrate when a same-sex couple sues the Catholic Church to marry them. Even though you are atheist. Odd to the extreme.

 

[byco42]

That's the beginning of the first amendment.

I already knew that.

It really isn't an answer to the question I asked.

I'm a Catholic photographer. A same-sex couple approaches me to document their "wedding." I politely refuse, and I explain why, citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent."

I am sued for discrimination and I am fined. Have my first-amendment rights been violated or not?

 

[Michchamp]

http://nypost.com/2014/11/10/couple-fined-for-refusing-to-host-same-sex-wedding-on-their-farm/

Well, the NY Post has never been known to sensationalist their reporting, but I think the operative (and largely buried) part of the story is this one: "Fifteen years ago, Cynthia, 54, and Robert Gifford, 55, opened to the public their farm in upstate Schaghticoke..." Don't open your premises to the public, and you won't be forced to comply with the ADA, Civil Rights Act, gay marriage, etc. etc.

It is not bigotry to oppose same-sex marriage. It not bigotry, either, to champion the disillusionment of the Catholic Church.

Semantics...

The crucial discriminating differences should be obvious to even you. I imagine that you will celebrate when a same-sex couple sues the Catholic Church to marry them. Even though you are atheist. Odd to the extreme.

I will not! (Although a mere lawsuit is different than a court-ordered injunction. The lawsuit itself wouldn't matter.) I would celebrate if the Catholic Church (and all others) lost their tax exempt status, but would not look favorably on the government compelling them to act, or any other religious/private institution to act, in such a way.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I'm a Catholic photographer. A same-sex couple approaches me to document their "wedding." I politely refuse, and I explain why, citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent."

I am sued for discrimination and I am fined. Have my first-amendment rights been violated or not?

I don't think the photographer should be compelled by law to take their business.

Personally, I wouldn't want to give my business to someone who wanted to reject it, (except maybe when I've been 86'd at a bar but I want just one more drink)...generally speaking, whatever business I might happen to be in, I don't see myself turning down any normal business transaction, I don't care who they boink.

 

[byco42]

I don't think the photographer should be compelled by law to take their business.

But they are presently being compelled to pay fines for refusing.

 

[tinselwolverine]

But they are presently being compelled to pay fines for refusing.

Again, can you cite an instance when anyone sued whoever was fining them - I assume arm of the government - in court, for violating their first amendment rights?

I don't think anybody has yet.

 

[byco42]

Well, the NY Post has never been known to sensationalist their reporting, but I think the operative (and largely buried) part of the story is this one: "Fifteen years ago, Cynthia, 54, and Robert Gifford, 55, opened to the public their farm in upstate Schaghticoke..." Don't open your premises to the public, and you won't be forced to comply with the ADA, Civil Rights Act, gay marriage, etc. etc.

Your operative statement is the observation of the columnist?

I think this is the operative statement: "And this past August, an administrative law judge from The Bronx, Migdalia Pares, decreed that the farm was a ?public accommodation?? and ordered the penalties, after ruling that the Giffords had violated state law by discriminating against the two women. I claim ex-post-facto. And prevailing public opinion. If a man and a woman wanted a Black Mass wedding ceremony on the property and sued, do you think that the land owners would have lost?

 

[tinselwolverine]

Again, can you cite an instance when anyone sued whoever was fining them - I assume arm of the government - in court, for violating their first amendment rights?

I don't think anybody has yet.

I guess I was wrong, I found this myself.

The article is from a couple years ago; I don't know what the status of any appeal would be.

Also, since this legal battle is going back eleven years, 2006, this has nothing to do with the Supreme Court's decision of last Friday; just the discussion and implications of same sex marriage that have been in existence for some time now.

 

[Michchamp]

whatever a Black Mass is, sure. As long as their religion didn't violate some other law, yes, they have to accommodate. If they don't want to, they can become a private venue. Close theirselves to the public.

this isn't as arbitrary as you may think... the courts have laid down multi-part tests to determine when something is a public venue.

Say... maybe this could be a new area of practice for the legal profession: bigot law. Help bigots navigate the hostile waters of our new, tolerant, peaceful society.

 

[byco42]

whatever a Black Mass is, sure. As long as their religion didn't violate some other law, yes, they have to accommodate. If they don't want to, they can become a private venue. Close theirselves to the public.

A black mass is in inversion of the Catholic Mass. A satanic ceremony.

This isn't as arbitrary as you may think... the courts have laid down multi-part tests to determine when something is a public venue.

Is a Catholic Church a "public venue?"

Say... maybe this could be a new area of practice for the legal profession: bigot law. Help bigots navigate the hostile waters of our new, tolerant, peaceful society.

I reject the notion that someone peacefully adhering to their religious beliefs are bigots. It's a lazy epithet that illustrates one is not all that interested in learning more about those beliefs or their foundation for opposition to same-sex "marriages."

 

[Michchamp]

...

Is a Catholic Church a "public venue?"

...

No. Again, I said the exemptions to these laws are more or less clear that point. You could get into a gray area though if you got into aspects where the religion had a secular purpose, e.g. a religiously-affiliated hospital. I believe in those instances, they would not be allowed to discriminate. Not sure. I need to brush up on my First Amendment case law

 

[byco42]

No. Again, I said the exemptions to these laws are more or less clear that point. You could get into a gray area though if you got into aspects where the religion had a secular purpose, e.g. a religiously-affiliated hospital. I believe in those instances, they would not be allowed to discriminate. Not sure. I need to brush up on my First Amendment case law

Well, I predict that in the near future that we will not be allowed to even express our opposition to same-sex "marriage" without being sued, deprived of employment or even jailed. Orwellian, to be sure, but nothing in the way of prevailing public opinion indicates that we are heading on any other path.

And what you consider as discrimination, I consider, in these circumstances, as religious expression muted or compromised.