Author Topic: The Supreme Court on gay marriage. (Read 19217 times)

JesseL · « **Reply #75 on:** June 30, 2013, 08:53:28 pm »

Quote from: Arktos on June 30, 2013, 08:43:20 pm

No, I figured you would object to people baring firearms from their property. Or at perhaps support legislation prohibiting such thing.
What I'm getting to is that there are very, few anarchists.

Most folks here are inclined to support the right of property owners to manage their property as they see fit, and if it means they don't want people carrying guns there we'll generally oblige them by staying away.

Idealistically I consider myself an anarchocapitalist (tempered with enough recognition of reality to get by in the world as it is).

Sent from my galvanically fueled binary aether modulator.

WeTheArmed.com

Lupinus · « **Reply #76 on:** June 30, 2013, 08:58:04 pm »

Quote from: Arktos on June 30, 2013, 08:47:43 pm

I can say with reasonable confidence that most people, including you, will eventually want government to do something for them.

Yeah, like leave me the hell alone and not keep a database of my phone calls.

But I really don't see what that has to do with the topic at hand.

Kaso · « **Reply #77 on:** June 30, 2013, 09:10:47 pm »

Quote from: Arktos on June 30, 2013, 08:47:43 pm

I can say with reasonable confidence that most people, including you, will eventually want government to do something for them.

Indeed. I want the government to protect our nation from foreign threats, keep the roads paved, keep the mail running, and provide an impartial justice system. Beyond that, I want them to leave me alone, so long as I respect the rights of others. I do not want them to try to force the view of others upon me, and I do not expect them to force my views upon others. (which I'm sure you can appreciate)

Kaso

Arktos · « **Reply #78 on:** June 30, 2013, 09:13:15 pm »

So are you saying that discrimination is perfectly alright as long as government has nothing to do with it?

Lupinus · « **Reply #79 on:** June 30, 2013, 09:17:56 pm »

Quote from: Arktos on June 30, 2013, 09:13:15 pm

So are you saying that discrimination is perfectly alright as long as government has nothing to do with it?

I'm saying that freedom of choice goes both ways

Arktos · « **Reply #80 on:** June 30, 2013, 09:25:28 pm »

There was no choice on my side.

JesseL · « **Reply #81 on:** June 30, 2013, 09:28:04 pm »

Quote from: Arktos on June 30, 2013, 09:13:15 pm

So are you saying that discrimination is perfectly alright as long as government has nothing to do with it?

Are you saying the government should be forcing people to violate their principles?

I think that most businesses that would choose to discriminate on any basis that most people don't agree with would find themselves smacked upside the head by the invisible hand far more effectively than any legislation.

Quote from: Arktos on June 30, 2013, 09:25:28 pm

There was no choice on my side.

I think that was a reference to your choices in what businesses you patronize, not your sexuality.

ZeroTA · « **Reply #82 on:** June 30, 2013, 09:33:26 pm »

Quote from: Arktos on June 30, 2013, 09:13:15 pm

So are you saying that discrimination is perfectly alright as long as government has nothing to do with it?

Yes, I would say that. I don't think the government should discriminate or grant special privileges to any group, but individuals and businesses should be free to do as they please. I'm not saying it would be a good thing to do, but that's freedom for ya.

Lupinus · « **Reply #83 on:** June 30, 2013, 09:35:36 pm »

Quote from: Arktos on June 30, 2013, 09:25:28 pm

There was no choice on my side.

You don't have a choice to pick which company you do or don't do business with? What gives you the right to compel a business to do business with you on your terms? Should a Christian health insurance network be compelled to cover you and your husband? How about when we toss polygamy in to the mix. How many wives should the insurance company be compelled to cover, since they apparently shouldn't have the right to decide for themselves who they want to cover?

Arktos · « **Reply #84 on:** June 30, 2013, 09:36:10 pm »

I'm saying that discrimination is wrong in the same way as robbery or flagrant breech of contract. Few object to laws against such things and courts to settle related disputes in. Indeed many use them as one of few justifications for the existence of government.

As for choices of what businesses I patronize, I live in a sparsely populated area. Monopolies form, and persist, on a local because the local market simply is not big enough to support more than one company in the same niche. Nothing can change that.

ZeroTA and Lupinus, would you say the same if you found yourself on the receiving end of your models?

ZeroTA · « **Reply #85 on:** June 30, 2013, 09:46:59 pm »

Arktos, that's hard to say. The only real experience I've had is with carrying concealed. If a private business says No Guns Allowed I might not like it but I can just not go there. If enough people boycott it, they'll change their tune or go out of business.

I realize that's not a great example because I still have the option to not carry and go there anyway. And it's an inconvenience at worst.

Kaso · « **Reply #86 on:** June 30, 2013, 09:48:19 pm »

Quote from: Arktos on June 30, 2013, 09:25:28 pm

There was no choice on my side.

Okay, since this thread has gone on for a while, I'm going to say what I think of that: Who cares!? I certainly don't.

Whether you were 'born that way,' or you chose it, you're gay. And we are okay with that. (And I am glad that you're comfortable letting us be aware of it.) But even if we were not okay with it... this is a gun board... We do frequently have threads about all manner of civil rights issues, but we are very much, primarily, a gun board. So while no one is going to tell you to stay in the closet, (pun Not intended) I'm pretty sure no one really cares what you are, or why you are. Any more than they care that I am a heterosexual, that is practicing celibacy prior to marriage. (Actually, they didn't know that)

I'm not trying to shut you up, so much, it's just that I think we all would rather be discussing guns.

Kaso

Lupinus · « **Reply #87 on:** June 30, 2013, 09:49:26 pm »

Quote from: Arktos on June 30, 2013, 09:36:10 pm

I'm saying that discrimination is wrong in the same way as robbery or flagrant breech of contract. Few object to laws against such things and courts to settle related disputes in. Indeed many use them as one of few justifications for the existence of government.

As for choices of what businesses I patronize, I live in a sparsely populated area. Monopolies form, and persist, on a local because the local market simply is not big enough to support more than one company in the same niche. Nothing can change that.

ZeroTA and Lupinus, would you say the same if you found yourself on the receiving end of your models?

Wait a minute. You're seriously comparing a privately owned insurance company opting to not cover homosexual partners as married, to robbing someone?

You're life choices don't give you the right to compel others who own an operate a business how they should operate it. Don't like it, move to a local with more local choices or find a larger chain. Shop around online. I'll be blunt, you have no right to compel others to accept your choices any more than they have a right to compel you to accept theirs. If you and the business don't agree, find someone else to do business with and give your money to.

And no, you wont find me crying "Help, help! I'm being oppressed! Government make the big meanies accept me and my lifestyle!"

JesseL · « **Reply #88 on:** June 30, 2013, 09:50:21 pm »

Quote from: Arktos on June 30, 2013, 09:36:10 pm

I'm saying that discrimination is wrong in the same way as robbery or flagrant breech of contract.

First of all, "discrimination" just means that there are some people you wouldn't choose to do business with. Any business owner who doesn't discriminate against arsonists, shop lifters, etc. is an idiot.

What you're talking about is "discrimination against protected classes". I do think that most people who would choose to refuse to do business with anyone solely on the basis of the race, religion, sex, national origin, or sexual orientation is probably the sort of scumbag who deserves to go out of business. As a matter of fact I'd very much appreciate knowing exactly who those people are so that I can avoid them, rather than having them gagged by the state so that I won't know what scumbags they are.

Quote

As for choices of what businesses I patronize, I live in a sparsely populated area. Monopolies form, and persist, on a local because the local market simply is not big enough to support more than one company in the same niche. Nothing can change that.

Plenty can change that.

You can move.
You can petition the business owners if you disagree with their policies (of course they don't have to listen).
You can establish a competing business.
You can suck up the cost of dealing with a business elsewhere.

Arktos · « **Reply #89 on:** June 30, 2013, 10:04:48 pm »

Lupinis: I am not saying that the crimes are of comparable severity. I am saying that something undesirable is being done to a non-consenting person.

JesseL: most would agree that discriminating against arsonists and shop lifters is perfectly justifiable. Because not doing so is very likely to cause significant harm to them or their business. Discrimination against people who have done nothing wrong often harms two, the one being discriminated against and the lost opportunity costs of the one doing the discrimination. And yet discrimination persists in every imaginable way.

Moving is an interesting suggestion. Are you saying I should flee the land I have called my home for my entire life? Flee the land that my entire family is on?

Petitions against business owners are of little use. In a small community, such as mine, they can be quite counterproductive.

Establishing a competing business is not viable. Local monopolies often result from the amount of local demand barley exceeding the cost of providing the supply. In such cases, competition is simply impossible.

The cost of dealing with business elsewhere may not even be an option. Back to the local monopolies, remember that some services are, by law or practical effects, limited to specific areas only.

JesseL · « **Reply #90 on:** June 30, 2013, 10:17:51 pm »

I'm very sorry for your unfortunate situation Arktos.

I still say that asking the government to step in and force people to do business with you when they don't want to is a scorched earth approach that ultimately does more harm than good.

I happen to believe that all crime is essentially based on theft, coercion, or misrepresentation. Someone refusing to do business with you is none of those things. Conversely, using the power of government to force them to do business with you is coercion at the very least.

All human interactions should be based on mutual consent.

StevenTing · « **Reply #91 on:** June 30, 2013, 10:18:31 pm »

You have options. Just sounds like you don't want to exercise them.

--
Sent using Tapatalk

Lupinus · « **Reply #92 on:** June 30, 2013, 10:23:48 pm »

Then choose to do business with someone else. "Other's shouldn't be able to compel me to live a certain way....therefor I should be able to compel them to do certain things." Does not and never will hold water.

There is ALWAYS an option, and what you do boils down to the choices you make. If insurance company A wont cover your husband as a spouse, give company B your money. If bank A wont consider your husband as a spouse, do business with a different bank. I'd love to know just what so called local monopoly is depriving you of a vital service.

They don't have a right to keep your from being a homosexual and living as you see fit. That freedom goes both ways, you don't have any right to compel them to do business with you on your terms. It's just like not coming to terms for any other reason, if you can't come to terms you give your money to someone else and they operate as they see fit.

Why should you have the right to tell the Christian health insurance company or bank or whatever that they MUST consider your husband as a spouse when it goes against their core beliefs, the type of business they wish the engage in, and the terms they wish to operate by? This is why you're catching flack. Your argument isn't about being able to live your life in peace and as you choose, you want to use government coercion to force others to accept your lifestyle and to do so on your terms, regardless on their beliefs and if they want to. And that is pure and utter bovine excrement.

Thernlund · « **Reply #93 on:** July 01, 2013, 04:11:41 am »

Quote from: Arktos on June 30, 2013, 10:04:48 pm

Lupinis: I am not saying that the crimes are of comparable severity. I am saying that something undesirable is being done to a non-consenting person.

JesseL: most would agree that discriminating against arsonists and shop lifters is perfectly justifiable. Because not doing so is very likely to cause significant harm to them or their business. Discrimination against people who have done nothing wrong often harms two, the one being discriminated against and the lost opportunity costs of the one doing the discrimination. And yet discrimination persists in every imaginable way.

Moving is an interesting suggestion. Are you saying I should flee the land I have called my home for my entire life? Flee the land that my entire family is on?

Petitions against business owners are of little use. In a small community, such as mine, they can be quite counterproductive.

Establishing a competing business is not viable. Local monopolies often result from the amount of local demand barley exceeding the cost of providing the supply. In such cases, competition is simply impossible.

The cost of dealing with business elsewhere may not even be an option. Back to the local monopolies, remember that some services are, by law or practical effects, limited to specific areas only.

Let me get this straight...

You want the government to step in and force private businesses and private organizations to cater to you even if it is against their principles because it will be inconvenient for you otherwise?

This my friend is what we commonly refer to as an entitlement attitude.

Sorry brother... You're not entitled to force businesses to accept your homosexuality, just like I am not entitled to force them to allow me to carry a gun. Whether or not we like that or think it's fair is not relevant.

The only thing any party is actually entitled to is to be left alone. You by them and them by you. I refer you to the definition of liberty...

Quote

lib·er·ty
Noun
The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.

That goes both ways. Not just your way.

-T.

RetroGrouch · « **Reply #94 on:** July 01, 2013, 04:24:16 pm »

This relates to an earlier question about how this could lead to a church being forced to perform a marriage against its core beliefs. Say a gay couple lives in a remote locale with only one church (not unlike the town where I lived as a small child). Let's also stipulate that said church does not believe in gay marriage (not uncommon). And the next nearest church that would marry gays is many hours away by car. Does anyone seriously believe the current administration would not use its power through the offices of the IRS or so-called Justice Department to try and force said church to perform a marriage ceremony against its beliefs?

The government should get out of marriage. At all levels. Everything can be handled through fair, level taxes, contract & tort law and DNA testing.

Arktos · « **Reply #95 on:** July 01, 2013, 04:27:17 pm »

If marriage was just a contract there would be no need for a church. Even now it is possible to get married in a courtroom or anywhere by a minister. There are organizations that certify atheist ministers as well.

booksmart · « **Reply #96 on:** July 01, 2013, 04:46:43 pm »

Quote from: RetroGrouch on July 01, 2013, 04:24:16 pm

This relates to an earlier question about how this could lead to a church being forced to perform a marriage against its core beliefs. Say a gay couple lives in a remote locale with only one church (not unlike the town where I lived as a small child). Let's also stipulate that said church does not believe in gay marriage (not uncommon). And the next nearest church that would marry gays is many hours away by car. Does anyone seriously believe the current administration would not use its power through the offices of the IRS or so-called Justice Department to try and force said church to perform a marriage ceremony against its beliefs?

I don't think you understand that a gay couple is willing to travel across the country to get legally married.

A few hours to do so in a place where they're welcome is nothing.

Besides, we've already covered that : 1st Amendment issue.

onesmack4u · « **Reply #97 on:** July 01, 2013, 05:22:33 pm »

I am an atheist and I am an ordained (internet) minister. Depending on state law, that permits me to conduct weddings. There are all kinds of different ways to get married. I would have no problem conducting a ceremony for a gay friend, but I would never expect the govt to force anyone else to be involved who did not want to be (church, caterer, florist, etc).

RetroGrouch · « **Reply #98 on:** July 02, 2013, 09:55:55 pm »

Quote from: booksmart on July 01, 2013, 04:46:43 pm

I don't think you understand that a gay couple is willing to travel across the country to get legally married.

A few hours to do so in a place where they're welcome is nothing.

Besides, we've already covered that : 1st Amendment issue.

If gay couples were willing to travel across country to get legally married, then the law in CA would never have been challenged, as gay marriage was legal in another state at the time.

And the 1st Amendment has done such a great job of protecting the various religious organizations from Obamacare, the AP & Fox reporters from the Justice Department and conservative organizations from the IRS.

booksmart · « **Reply #99 on:** July 02, 2013, 09:59:06 pm »

Well, there's still that little problem of a marriage not being recognized by the state they live in...