SCOTUS rules same sex marriage is constitutional right

[forummm]

One of the things that has long puzzled me in the debate over same-sex marriage (SSM) is the idea that somehow granting marriage licenses would redefine marriage. The license is secular, and doesn't really change what the ceremony an individual couple would choose to do or how they would lead their shared lives. This has long struck me as one of the many instances of code language or use of phrasing to invoke another set of concepts discussed in social circles I am not actively involved in. A friend passed this article around earlier today, and while I do not think the thesis of the piece is universally applicable across those who oppose SSM, I think it illuminates a strong thread in the fabric of the debate and is worth a read. It makes a reasonable case for what is invoked the "redefinition" language beyond just face value text of the language.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/gay-marriage-scotus-ross-douthat-oppression-vs-love

Edit: I would really like to hear the feedback on this from those who oppose SSM. While the language of the article may be seen as confrontational, the concept of redefining roles within a marriage seems worthy of feedback.

I don't oppose SSM. But I think the article is interesting. I think that marriage isn't for everyone. And that it should be a relationship of equals. And I'm glad it's moving in that direction. But as long as the government grants special status, rights, privileges, and obligations to a group of people (for whatever public policy purpose), there should not be descrimination with respect to who can be in that group of people. If marriage becomes passe and almost no one has one, but there's no discrimination that prohibits people from getting married to any consenting adult they want to, great.

People in the South "benefitted" from slavery, even if they did not own slaves, because it made goods cheaper for them. And they may have had jobs overseeing slaves. And it gave them a class of people to feel superior to. When you're a poor, backwater, uneducated white person, you still have the slaves to look down on.

Plus, it's not the common person who sets policy in our country. It's the rich and powerful. The plantation owners in those days. Back then we didn't even have direct election of senators or the right for women to vote.

I think it is so interesting that in this discussion that gays are compared to blacks -- when the black population at large is like 80-90% opposed to gays and given the opportunity would vote them out of the country.   Makes for an interesting juxtaposition.   It is also interesting that a high percentage of blacks self identify as Baptist Christians.   

I also find the word "gay" to be a brilliant rebranding strategy.   

The numbers you cite are either really old or not accurate. The numbers used to be high but have declined dramatically (like the nation as a whole). You've identified why the African American community was so overwhelmingly opposed to SSM--high rates of strong fundamentalist-leaning Christian beliefs, and strong vocal condemnation of homosexuality from black church leaders. Once Obama "evolved" on the issue and announced his support, those numbers plummeted almost overnight. I recall something like a 20% drop after his announcement. I think it was around 50% the last I saw.

But I thought the constitution was written by God.  Didn't he speak through the founders like he did through the prophets?  We are a Christian Nation, aren't we?

Maybe this is sarcasm...?   

Yes, it was.

[I'm a red panda]

Wait... what? You can be gay and you can get married, but the the moment you make love it's wrong? Christians have no right whatsoever to "protest" what other non-believers do in the privacy of their own home at all. Your line of reasoning seems like you're trying to reconcile what the supreme court has ruled, but still hold onto intolerance with both hands.

I think the idea behind what you quoted (which I hope was somewhat facetious) was not that gay married people shouldn't have sex; but that if Christians truly believe they are protecting the sinner by not allowing them to sin; they really need to focus earlier.  It isn't marriage that is introducing the act of homosexual sex (what the Bible actually says is a sin, since homosexual marriage is not mentioned).  So it shouldn't be marriage they are against, specifically.   Because with or without marriage, sex is occurring. 


Or maybe Christians think this is already covered by the force towards abstinence only education.  If you can't get married, you can't have sex?

[tele25]

I have seen an argument based on state rights. It was not a well thought out argument, but it wasn't based on religion.

States' rights is just a euphemism for thinly veiled bigotry.

The South tried to use states' rights as their justification for the civil war, in an attempt to say it wasn't really about slavery. But the only right they wanted was the right to keep slaves.

This is not true, is it. After all most people in the South didn't have slaves, did they?

And didn't the South pay more than their fair share in taxation? Hence, it really is about States rights not to be overtaxed.

Look, I'm not american but most of you lot are, don't you lot actually know this?

It's the same thing with gay marriage.  The only right they want the state to have today is the right to ban gay marriage, which they want for religious reasons.  It's just an attempt to rephrase their desire to discriminate in patriotic language. 

Perhaps not.

Consider this, what happened before the govt/religion stuck its nose in.

People formed monoganous pair bonds because it is better for bringing up children.

Homosexuals didn't have children so no point the wider society celebtationg their union. Also consider that homosexuals are much more promiscuous than other pair bondings.

Also consider that if the govt can legislate for homosexual marriage what else can they do. Legalise marriage to your pet goat, a housebrick?

None of that is actually true.  And if you look at evolutionary psychology there is a benefit to villages in which there are adults without children. 
Also, you don't seem to understand the requirement for consent in marriage do you?
And btw, just because the majority did not have slave did not mean the majority was not pro-slavery.  I understand that if you are not from our country, you might not have a full breath of education in regards to our civil war but then you might not want to tell an American that their understand is incorrect.  Unless of course you have studied this academically and have citations to support your hypothesis that the civil war was not about slavery other than the absurd idea that because someone could not afford a slave means that they were not pro-slavery.

Is it true that most people in the south did not have slaves? Yes.

What perceentage didn't have slaves? 75% to 80% Does anybody know this.

Were tarriffs enacted after the 1860 election that affected southerners more than notherners. Yes.

Did some union states still have slavery. Yes.

Were the majority of non slave owners subsistance farmers. Yes.

Its a hard life being a subsistance farmer and whilst they would have looked down upon the blacks due to human ingroup preference, the subsistance farmers would also not give a flying fuck about the gentry who owned all the slaves.

Given that only about 12% of the Confederate Army were conscripted the rest were willing volunteers. If you are a subsistence farmer who is never going to be able to afford slaves why bother to join up and fight over something that is never going to affect you.

Southerners without slaves would only benefit from slavery by being able to buy cheaper cotton goods. Northerners would also benefit from cheaper cotton goods because of interstate trade. the slave owners benefitted from slavery but most people in the south did not own slaves.

I'm not saying that slavery was not a major factor.

However, the evidence does clearly indicate it is more complex than just about slavery.

If this is wrong explain why.

[TrulyStashin]

I have seen an argument based on state rights. It was not a well thought out argument, but it wasn't based on religion.

States' rights is just a euphemism for thinly veiled bigotry.

The South tried to use states' rights as their justification for the civil war, in an attempt to say it wasn't really about slavery.  But the only right they wanted was the right to keep slaves.

It's the same thing with gay marriage.  The only right they want the state to have today is the right to ban gay marriage, which they want for religious reasons.  It's just an attempt to rephrase their desire to discriminate in patriotic language. 

Arguments are not improved or strengthened by using code words for what you really mean.  If what you really want is for everyone to follow your interpretation of an ancient spiritual text, just come out and say it.  Don't lie to us about your desire to uphold the Constitution.

But I thought the constitution was written by God.  Didn't he speak through the founders like he did through the prophets?  We are a Christian Nation, aren't we?

Maybe this is sarcasm...?   

No, legally speaking vis-a-vis the Constitution, we are NOT a Christian nation.  James Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention (available here:  http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp) contain almost no reference to God, religion or Christianity.  The only time the Founders discussed the topic was when they agreed to include Article VI which bans religious tests for those who might hold office.

Culturally, we may be a Christian nation, but legally we are secular.  That's a key distinction.

What was that treaty where a founding father specifically said that as the US was not a Christian nation they could be allied with a Muslim nation.  Ach, this is going to drive me nuts until I remember or someone takes pity on me.  :)

The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816, Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796.   

"ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Available at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp

[Tyson]

But I thought the constitution was written by God.  Didn't he speak through the founders like he did through the prophets?  We are a Christian Nation, aren't we?

Maybe this is sarcasm...?   

Yes, it was.

Yes, very much so.  Apologies for not indicating that.  I forgot about Poe's Law - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law - Poe's law is an internet adage which states that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, parodies of extremism are indistinguishable from sincere expressions of extremism.

[tele25]

I have seen an argument based on state rights. It was not a well thought out argument, but it wasn't based on religion.

States' rights is just a euphemism for thinly veiled bigotry.

The South tried to use states' rights as their justification for the civil war, in an attempt to say it wasn't really about slavery. But the only right they wanted was the right to keep slaves.

This is not true, is it. After all most people in the South didn't have slaves, did they?

And didn't the South pay more than their fair share in taxation? Hence, it really is about States rights not to be overtaxed.

Look, I'm not american but most of you lot are, don't you lot actually know this?

No, it's pretty much true (they wanted some other slave-related rights too, like the ability to take their slaves with them when they traveled to states that outlawed slavery).  You should learn more history before lecturing people who have their facts correct.  Here's a good start: http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/07/01/why-do-people-believe-myths-about-the-confederacy-because-our-textbooks-and-monuments-are-wrong/?hpid=z3

Thanks for the link.

However, I am somewhat perturbed that it is written by a professor of sociology instead of a professor of history who would actually be informed about their specialist subject and can be expected to know more than a layman.  After all, this is a rather important part of american history.

Most southerners didn't own slaves and would never be in the position to own slaves, why would they give a fuck about moving to states which outlawed slavery?

[johnny847]

But I thought the constitution was written by God.  Didn't he speak through the founders like he did through the prophets?  We are a Christian Nation, aren't we?

Maybe this is sarcasm...?   

Yes, it was.

Yes, very much so.  Apologies for not indicating that.  I forgot about Poe's Law - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law - Poe's law is an internet adage which states that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, parodies of extremism are indistinguishable from sincere expressions of extremism.

It's incredible how many times on this thread your sarcasm has been interpreted otherwise (or at the very least, been possibly confused)

[beltim]

However, I am somewhat perturbed that it is written by a professor of sociology instead of a professor of history who would actually be informed about their specialist subject and can be expected to know more than a layman.  After all, this is a rather important part of american history.

Most southerners didn't own slaves and would never be in the position to own slaves, why would they give a fuck about moving to states which outlawed slavery?

Sigh.. you're not going to be happy until you get primary sources, are you.  Well, here you go: the letters of secession of Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.  Read the words of the people who actually tried to secede and see that the major reason is slavery.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

[Glenstache]

Most southerners didn't own slaves and would never be in the position to own slaves, why would they give a fuck about moving to states which outlawed slavery?

Look at all the economically disadvantaged persons in the south who vote Republican despite the fact that it is manifestly not in their own financial best interest. The same people who are getting welfare and public assistance voting into office those that would take the safety net out from under them and also complaining about freeloaders at the same time (I'm not making a value judgement about them here). Those types of mental gymnastics are entirely consistent with what you say above. Americans have an ability to align themselves with the place they would like to be, or aspire to be, rather than with the position they are actually in. Those subsistence farmers may not have owned slaves, but they may have wanted the option to.

[TrulyStashin]

I'm a big fan of understanding history by reading what people at the time wrote about why they did what they did.

The Civil War was fought because the Confederate states wanted to protect their "right" to hold slaves.  Don't believe me?  Read it in their own words from the official articles of secession passed by each Confederate state as a public declaration of why they seceded:

Georgia:  The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property . . . .

Mississippi: In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.  Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

South Carolina: We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

Texas: We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

Available at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/csapage.asp.  We need to end the myth that the Confederate cause was noble and that it was about anything other than white supremacy and the preservation of slavery -- that myth is destructive to the needs of our pluralistic nation.  Time to let it go.

I am a Southerner born in Georgia and reared in Virginia.  My great-great-grandfather, Franklin Lafayette Riley (a poor, dirt farmer) fought for the 16th Mississippi from Bull Run in 1861 to his capture at Five Forks in 1865.  He did what he thought was right at that time.  In each generation, we have to answer that question anew.  I'm glad the Confederacy failed and I shudder to think of what our modern world would be like had it succeeded.  /rant

[Midwest]

Most southerners didn't own slaves and would never be in the position to own slaves, why would they give a fuck about moving to states which outlawed slavery?

Look at all the economically disadvantaged persons in the south who vote Republican despite the fact that it is manifestly not in their own financial best interest. The same people who are getting welfare and public assistance voting into office those that would take the safety net out from under them and also complaining about freeloaders at the same time (I'm not making a value judgement about them here). Those types of mental gymnastics are entirely consistent with what you say above. Americans have an ability to align themselves with the place they would like to be, or aspire to be, rather than with the position they are actually in. Those subsistence farmers may not have owned slaves, but they may have wanted the option to.

NOT JUSTIFYING THE MORALITY OF SLAVERY -
If you are in an openly racist society of which slavery is helpful to being upwardly mobile, wouldn't it be logical to want to continue and expand slavery.  Limiting slavery to then current south and/or eliminating slavery wasn't helpful to their upward aspirations.

[TrulyStashin]

^^^   +1

In the antebellum South, non-slaveholding whites aspired to own slaves the same way we aspire to FIRE.   Abolitionists were threatening to move their cheese.

[Kris]

However, I am somewhat perturbed that it is written by a professor of sociology instead of a professor of history who would actually be informed about their specialist subject and can be expected to know more than a layman.  After all, this is a rather important part of american history.

Most southerners didn't own slaves and would never be in the position to own slaves, why would they give a fuck about moving to states which outlawed slavery?

I don't have any primary sources for you on this (and I think it would be pretty hard to find primary sources to "prove" an attitude), but is it really so hard to figure out why?

Imagine that you are a poor white southerner. Maybe you're a sharecropper.  You have very little -- almost nothing, in fact.  You certainly could never own a slave, and you certainly aren't benefiting, directly or indirectly, from slavery. Your existence is really hard.  But you know what?  You are at least white.  You're better than a common slave.  And some people think that (I'm not going to use the derogatory word here, but you know what it is) "they" shouldn't be slaves any more.  That "they" deserve the same rights as you, a good, God-fearing white person.  That's against the natural order of things! It's in the Bible, after all!  By God, if we let them free, pretty soon they'd be (and here, we could insert Dylann Roof's diatribe), taking our jobs, raping our women... That will never happen as long as I'm alive! 

...

Is it really that hard to understand why someone who is not at all benefiting from a system, and arguably being hurt by it, could be convinced that it's exactly otherwise?  And with that, we're right back where we started with the "Christian" opposition to gay marriage in this country.  It affects them not one iota.  But it offends their sensibilities, "cheapens" "traditional" marriage, and it's "against God's word."  Very similar arguments for very different situations. 

[forummm]

What was that treaty where a founding father specifically said that as the US was not a Christian nation they could be allied with a Muslim nation.  Ach, this is going to drive me nuts until I remember or someone takes pity on me.  :)

The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816, Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796.   

"ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Available at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp

I'd heard about this. Since this was approved of by 2/3 of the Senate and ratified, it's United States law.

[enigmaT120]

I think the idea behind what you quoted (which I hope was somewhat facetious) was not that gay married people shouldn't have sex; but that if Christians truly believe they are protecting the sinner by not allowing them to sin; they really need to focus earlier. 

I don't fully understand why so many of my fellow Christians are so concerned with the behavior of unbelievers.  If somebody isn't saved in the Christian sense, then what difference do his actions make?  Is it just to try to keep the general culture more in line with Christian ideals?  I don't think that is sufficient reason to try to control other people.  I believe that instead of trying to use laws to force non-believers to conform to Christian ideals of behavior, we should be trying to introduce them to Jesus and let Him change them. 

[Gin1984]

I think the idea behind what you quoted (which I hope was somewhat facetious) was not that gay married people shouldn't have sex; but that if Christians truly believe they are protecting the sinner by not allowing them to sin; they really need to focus earlier. 

I don't fully understand why so many of my fellow Christians are so concerned with the behavior of unbelievers.  If somebody isn't saved in the Christian sense, then what difference do his actions make?  Is it just to try to keep the general culture more in line with Christian ideals?  I don't think that is sufficient reason to try to control other people.  I believe that instead of trying to use laws to force non-believers to conform to Christian ideals of behavior, we should be trying to introduce them to Jesus and let Him change them.

I like you. If you think I am going to hell, can I at least have some fun until I get there?  :D

[Cookie78]

I think the idea behind what you quoted (which I hope was somewhat facetious) was not that gay married people shouldn't have sex; but that if Christians truly believe they are protecting the sinner by not allowing them to sin; they really need to focus earlier. 

I don't fully understand why so many of my fellow Christians are so concerned with the behavior of unbelievers.  If somebody isn't saved in the Christian sense, then what difference do his actions make?  Is it just to try to keep the general culture more in line with Christian ideals?  I don't think that is sufficient reason to try to control other people.  I believe that instead of trying to use laws to force non-believers to conform to Christian ideals of behavior, we should be trying to introduce them to Jesus and let Him change them.

Ironically, I bet you'd have a lot more success recruiting and maintaining membership with your method compared to the control/laws/hate method.

[Gin1984]

I have seen an argument based on state rights. It was not a well thought out argument, but it wasn't based on religion.

States' rights is just a euphemism for thinly veiled bigotry.

The South tried to use states' rights as their justification for the civil war, in an attempt to say it wasn't really about slavery. But the only right they wanted was the right to keep slaves.

This is not true, is it. After all most people in the South didn't have slaves, did they?

And didn't the South pay more than their fair share in taxation? Hence, it really is about States rights not to be overtaxed.

Look, I'm not american but most of you lot are, don't you lot actually know this?

It's the same thing with gay marriage.  The only right they want the state to have today is the right to ban gay marriage, which they want for religious reasons.  It's just an attempt to rephrase their desire to discriminate in patriotic language. 

Perhaps not.

Consider this, what happened before the govt/religion stuck its nose in.

People formed monoganous pair bonds because it is better for bringing up children.

Homosexuals didn't have children so no point the wider society celebtationg their union. Also consider that homosexuals are much more promiscuous than other pair bondings.

Also consider that if the govt can legislate for homosexual marriage what else can they do. Legalise marriage to your pet goat, a housebrick?

None of that is actually true.  And if you look at evolutionary psychology there is a benefit to villages in which there are adults without children. 
Also, you don't seem to understand the requirement for consent in marriage do you?
And btw, just because the majority did not have slave did not mean the majority was not pro-slavery.  I understand that if you are not from our country, you might not have a full breath of education in regards to our civil war but then you might not want to tell an American that their understand is incorrect.  Unless of course you have studied this academically and have citations to support your hypothesis that the civil war was not about slavery other than the absurd idea that because someone could not afford a slave means that they were not pro-slavery.

Is it true that most people in the south did not have slaves? Yes.

What perceentage didn't have slaves? 75% to 80% Does anybody know this.

Were tarriffs enacted after the 1860 election that affected southerners more than notherners. Yes.

Did some union states still have slavery. Yes.

Were the majority of non slave owners subsistance farmers. Yes.

Its a hard life being a subsistance farmer and whilst they would have looked down upon the blacks due to human ingroup preference, the subsistance farmers would also not give a flying fuck about the gentry who owned all the slaves.

Given that only about 12% of the Confederate Army were conscripted the rest were willing volunteers. If you are a subsistence farmer who is never going to be able to afford slaves why bother to join up and fight over something that is never going to affect you.

Southerners without slaves would only benefit from slavery by being able to buy cheaper cotton goods. Northerners would also benefit from cheaper cotton goods because of interstate trade. the slave owners benefitted from slavery but most people in the south did not own slaves.

I'm not saying that slavery was not a major factor.

However, the evidence does clearly indicate it is more complex than just about slavery.

If this is wrong explain why.

Normally when someone bolds something, that is what they are referencing.  So, to be even more clear, your statement of "People formed monoganous pair bonds because it is better for bringing up children.

Homosexuals didn't have children so no point the wider society celebtationg their union. Also consider that homosexuals are much more promiscuous than other pair bondings" is complete is completely and utterly false,if you actually look at the research done by people that consider this their field. 
I'm not going to address the rest, because everyone else already has.  But if you want, you can, again, go actual look at what the experts in the field are saying instead of making wild ass guesses and tell people whose actual country it is, that they are wrong, without any anything to back you up other than, but but there has to be something else there.

[Kris]

^^^ And on the subject of "wild ass guesses" masquerading as "research by experts," I came across this gem by the Heritage Foundation today:

http://samuel-warde.com/2015/04/heritage-foundation-same-sex-marriage-will-900000/

Apparently, same-sex marriage will result in 900,000 abortions. 

Let that one sink in for a bit.

I particularly love that their "researchers" were able to come up with such a precise estimate. 

SMDH. 

[Annamal]

Homosexuals didn't have children so no point the wider society celebtationg their union. Also consider that homosexuals are much more promiscuous than other pair bondings.

I just wanted to chime in and point out that if we're going by widely believed stereotypes (which you apparently are) then lesbians are legendary for forming long lasting stable bonds i.e. this terrible old joke:

    Question: What does a lesbian bring on a second date?

    Answer: A U-Haul.

Of course those stereotypes have been formed at a time when gay relationships could never have recognition and being gay was something to hide so it will be interesting to see how gay society changes over time (I suspect it will just become society with all the width and breadth of attitudes which can accompany that which means some gay people will be promiscuous and some will be very monogamous and the majority will be somewhere in between).

[Glenstache]

^^^ And on the subject of "wild ass guesses" masquerading as "research by experts," I came across this gem by the Heritage Foundation today:

http://samuel-warde.com/2015/04/heritage-foundation-same-sex-marriage-will-900000/

Apparently, same-sex marriage will result in 900,000 abortions. 

Let that one sink in for a bit.

I particularly love that their "researchers" were able to come up with such a precise estimate. 

SMDH.

This makes my brain hurt. So much terrible logic and dog-whistling.

[forummm]

^^^ And on the subject of "wild ass guesses" masquerading as "research by experts," I came across this gem by the Heritage Foundation today:

http://samuel-warde.com/2015/04/heritage-foundation-same-sex-marriage-will-900000/

Apparently, same-sex marriage will result in 900,000 abortions. 

Let that one sink in for a bit.

I particularly love that their "researchers" were able to come up with such a precise estimate. 

SMDH. 

HAHAHAHAHA!! That's so absurd! I had to click on it because I couldn't even guess how they could possibly have thought that.

My prediction is that for abortions in the US, 2014 > 2015 > 2016.

Actually I can prove* that gay marriage decreases abortion. Gay marriage was legalized in some of the provinces starting in 2003 and nationwide in Canada in 2005. Look at how the number of abortions has decreased every year since 2003:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-canada.html

Spoiler: show

*obvious sarcasm, but felt necessary to clarify

[KodeBlue]

^^^ And on the subject of "wild ass guesses" masquerading as "research by experts," I came across this gem by the Heritage Foundation today:

http://samuel-warde.com/2015/04/heritage-foundation-same-sex-marriage-will-900000/

Apparently, same-sex marriage will result in 900,000 abortions. 

Let that one sink in for a bit.

I particularly love that their "researchers" were able to come up with such a precise estimate. 

SMDH.

Baloney. My own research shows that same sex marriage will only result in 899,997 abortions. They added the other 3 just to inflate the figure and make gays look bad.

[forummm]

Some conservatives are talking about banning the issuance of marriage licenses altogether. When they said that allowing gays to marry would "destroy the Institution of Marriage" (always capitalized for some reason), I had no idea that they meant that *they* would destroy it themselves out of spite.

http://www.newsweek.com/following-supreme-court-decision-mississippi-may-stop-issuing-any-marriage-347740

Looks like at least a handful of officials in at least 5 states have stopped issuing licenses.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33352734

[TrulyStashin]

Some conservatives are talking about banning the issuance of marriage licenses altogether. When they said that allowing gays to marry would "destroy the Institution of Marriage" (always capitalized for some reason), I had no idea that they meant that *they* would destroy it themselves out of spite.

http://www.newsweek.com/following-supreme-court-decision-mississippi-may-stop-issuing-any-marriage-347740

Looks like at least a handful of officials in at least 5 states have stopped issuing licenses.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33352734

It's a mirror image of Massive Resistance which was the segregationist's answer to integrated schools.  Make us integrate?  No way, we'll just shut down all the public schools.  Problem solved.    [sarcasm]  http://www.vahistorical.org/collections-and-resources/virginia-history-explorer/civil-rights-movement-virginia/massive

[Tyson]

From the article, it's Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Texas and Louisiana refusing to obey the law (and thumbing their nose at the constitution).  The South.  Of course.  These people are an albatross around our neck.  We should just let them secede already.  The rest of us would be better off.

[johnny847]

From the article, it's Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Texas and Louisiana refusing to obey the law (and thumbing their nose at the constitution).  The South.  Of course.  These people are an albatross around our neck.  We should just let them secede already.  The rest of us would be better off.

http://www.amazon.com/Better-Off-Without-Manifesto-Secession/dp/145161666X

[GuitarStv]

From the article, it's Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Texas and Louisiana refusing to obey the law (and thumbing their nose at the constitution).  The South.  Of course.  These people are an albatross around our neck.  We should just let them secede already.  The rest of us would be better off.

Hmm.  Interesting that (excepting Texas which is middling) they're all poor states.  By per capita income:  Texas (30), Louisiana(39) Alabama (45), Kentucky (46), Mississippi (50).

[forummm]

I think we'd be worse off splitting up. But it's hard to make a data-based case for this belief.

Yes, the south is a tax on the rest of the states. They are always paying in much less in tax than they receive in federal spending. And yes they pursue economically suboptimal policies that cause their economies to continually lag the other states. And yes their votes help shift the Congress (the Senate in particular) and presidential elections towards backwards policies.

But I think Lincoln was right that we're better together. And things in the south have improved a lot. Maybe dragging their heels kicking and screaming and over many generations. But still improving.

It would also be costly in many ways to split up:

I think it should be really hard. Just think how costly that would be now. Using the Texas example, all those citizens would now be stripped of their citizenship, their SS, their Medicare, etc. We'd have to spend money building a border around the state and monitoring it. Texas itself would be decimated by the huge stream of people moving out before the change happened. The rest of the US would be overrun by ten million people suddenly looking for new homes. The military installations and other federal facilities would be lost. The ports we've built there would have to be replicated in Mississippi. We'd have to start monitoring the gas and oil that comes through the pipelines crossing the border and assessing import duties. I'm kind of assuming Texas would still be friendly (like Canada), and we wouldn't need to build up military installations all along the border. But if they were willing to secede, maybe things would have gotten really ugly.

The economies of both countries would suffer due to new difficulties on trade, tourism, etc.

I'm probably not scratching the surface of the costs here.

[Sparafusile]

I take back all the nice things I said about Catholics earlier:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-coffin/bigots-tear-up-in-antigay_b_7707708.html

[forummm]

I take back all the nice things I said about Catholics earlier:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-coffin/bigots-tear-up-in-antigay_b_7707708.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFkAAvDkj9k

[Tyson]

I think we'd be worse off splitting up. But it's hard to make a data-based case for this belief.

Yes, the south is a tax on the rest of the states. They are always paying in much less in tax than they receive in federal spending. And yes they pursue economically suboptimal policies that cause their economies to continually lag the other states. And yes their votes help shift the Congress (the Senate in particular) and presidential elections towards backwards policies.

But I think Lincoln was right that we're better together. And things in the south have improved a lot. Maybe dragging their heels kicking and screaming and over many generations. But still improving.

It would also be costly in many ways to split up:

I think it should be really hard. Just think how costly that would be now. Using the Texas example, all those citizens would now be stripped of their citizenship, their SS, their Medicare, etc. We'd have to spend money building a border around the state and monitoring it. Texas itself would be decimated by the huge stream of people moving out before the change happened. The rest of the US would be overrun by ten million people suddenly looking for new homes. The military installations and other federal facilities would be lost. The ports we've built there would have to be replicated in Mississippi. We'd have to start monitoring the gas and oil that comes through the pipelines crossing the border and assessing import duties. I'm kind of assuming Texas would still be friendly (like Canada), and we wouldn't need to build up military installations all along the border. But if they were willing to secede, maybe things would have gotten really ugly.

The economies of both countries would suffer due to new difficulties on trade, tourism, etc.

I'm probably not scratching the surface of the costs here.

Oh I know.  And I agree.  But I was born in Texas and most of my family is still in Texas.  And unless you are in the Austin area, it's pretty much a cultural wasteland.  Glad we ended up in Denver, where people are sane.

[tele25]

However, I am somewhat perturbed that it is written by a professor of sociology instead of a professor of history who would actually be informed about their specialist subject and can be expected to know more than a layman.  After all, this is a rather important part of american history.

Most southerners didn't own slaves and would never be in the position to own slaves, why would they give a fuck about moving to states which outlawed slavery?

I don't have any primary sources for you on this (and I think it would be pretty hard to find primary sources to "prove" an attitude), but is it really so hard to figure out why?

Imagine that you are a poor white southerner. Maybe you're a sharecropper.  You have very little -- almost nothing, in fact.  You certainly could never own a slave, and you certainly aren't benefiting, directly or indirectly, from slavery. Your existence is really hard.  But you know what?  You are at least white.  You're better than a common slave.  And some people think that (I'm not going to use the derogatory word here, but you know what it is) "they" shouldn't be slaves any more.  That "they" deserve the same rights as you, a good, God-fearing white person.  That's against the natural order of things! It's in the Bible, after all!  By God, if we let them free, pretty soon they'd be (and here, we could insert Dylann Roof's diatribe), taking our jobs, raping our women... That will never happen as long as I'm alive! 

...



This is a good arguement.

However, consider this. 88% of southern troops volunteered. Would they have really left their farms to ruin and faced the prospect of a rather nasty death just to look down on the slaves. The plantation owners were only about 5% of the population and the white sharecroppers weren't going to join up just so the elite could keep all their wealth and privilage. So use propaganda about states rights and taxes/tariffs etc. And all good propaganda that works is at least moderately based on the truth which is why states rights/ tariffs were also a factor and it wasn't just about slavery.

As an aside, I don't see why you need to self censor yourself about using the word "nigger". If its good enough for your  president to use then surely its also good enough for you. Doesn't your constitution mention something about all being equal?

As a further aside, I'm pretty sure the bible doesn't mention that blacks should be slaves. But does say that having sex slaves is OK.

Is it really that hard to understand why someone who is not at all benefiting from a system, and arguably being hurt by it, could be convinced that it's exactly otherwise?  And with that, we're right back where we started with the "Christian" opposition to gay marriage in this country. It affects them not one iota.  But it offends their sensibilities, "cheapens" "traditional" marriage, and it's "against God's word."  Very similar arguments for very different situations.

Coming back to same sex marriage, unfortunately it can and will affect them.

There is a clear difference between the govt treating everybody the same and the govt forcing ordinary people to do likewise. Churches might not have to marry homosexuals because of your first amendment but ordinary people engaged in the wedding business such as photographers and bakers will be forced to pander to homosexual demands.

It would be far better for the govt to remove itself entirely from human monogamous pair bonding. And if homosexuals want to get married in church they can set up their own religion, it must be easy enough, L. Ron Hubbard did it.

As an analogy, consider this. The former American athlete Bruce Jenner is taking hormone theraphy, has chaged his first name and wears dresses. Fair enough if thats what he wants to do, fuck all to do with me, no skin off my nose etc. However, so long as Mr Jenner has a penis and a y chromosome I shall refer to him as Mr Jenner and the law should not demand otherwise.

[matchewed]

Is it really that hard to understand why someone who is not at all benefiting from a system, and arguably being hurt by it, could be convinced that it's exactly otherwise?  And with that, we're right back where we started with the "Christian" opposition to gay marriage in this country. It affects them not one iota.  But it offends their sensibilities, "cheapens" "traditional" marriage, and it's "against God's word."  Very similar arguments for very different situations.

Coming back to same sex marriage, unfortunately it can and will affect them.

There is a clear difference between the govt treating everybody the same and the govt forcing ordinary people to do likewise. Churches might not have to marry homosexuals because of your first amendment but ordinary people engaged in the wedding business such as photographers and bakers will be forced to pander to homosexual demands.

It would be far better for the govt to remove itself entirely from human monogamous pair bonding. And if homosexuals want to get married in church they can set up their own religion, it must be easy enough, L. Ron Hubbard did it.

As an analogy, consider this. The former American athlete Bruce Jenner is taking hormone theraphy, has chaged his first name and wears dresses. Fair enough if thats what he wants to do, fuck all to do with me, no skin off my nose etc. However, so long as Mr Jenner has a penis and a y chromosome I shall refer to him as Mr Jenner and the law should not demand otherwise.

You say it affects them but don't say how. How is a wedding photographer affected by the SCOTUS decision? The definition of marriage doesn't force people to provide services to homosexual couples.

Religions aren't the authority behind marriages anymore. Governments took that power a long time ago. You may disagree on whether they should but that doesn't change that they do.

That analogy fails on close inspection. Sex != gender first of all. Secondly it tries to create a binary system of people when the reality of people is much more complex. How about people with two x chromosomes and a y? Or XX male syndrome? How does your worldview categorize them? Frankly the law doesn't demand that you call Caitlyn Jenner a Mr. or Ms. What the law is asking people to do is well nothing... the law in this case is just formally stating that a union between two consenting adults is acceptable between any combination of the man/woman categorization. At most it is saying that government cannot discriminate. It's closer to the ideal that you are asking for; namely that government get out of the way of marriage.

[arebelspy]

You say it affects them but don't say how. How is a wedding photographer affected by the SCOTUS decision? The definition of marriage doesn't force people to provide services to homosexual couples.

Equal protection under the law says you can't discriminate against them, essentially saying yes, you must provide services to them.

Oregon, for example, two days ago fined a bakery $135k for refusing to make a cake for a homosexual couple.

http://www.katu.com/news/local/Final-order-Oregon-Bureau-of-Labor-and-Industries-BOLI-Gresham-Sweet-Cakes-Melissa-bakery-must-pay-135000-to-lesbian-couple-311494301.html

That's a good thing, IMO.  Discrimination based on sexual orientation ought to be illegal.

But your question was asking how people are affected, and that they aren't forced to provide services to homosexual couples.  They are if they want to provide services to anyone.

[matchewed]

You say it affects them but don't say how. How is a wedding photographer affected by the SCOTUS decision? The definition of marriage doesn't force people to provide services to homosexual couples.

Equal protection under the law says you can't discriminate against them, essentially saying yes, you must provide services to them.

Oregon, for example, two days ago fined a bakery $135k for refusing to make a cake for a homosexual couple.

http://www.katu.com/news/local/Final-order-Oregon-Bureau-of-Labor-and-Industries-BOLI-Gresham-Sweet-Cakes-Melissa-bakery-must-pay-135000-to-lesbian-couple-311494301.html

That's a good thing, IMO.  Discrimination based on sexual orientation ought to be illegal.

But your question was asking how people are affected, and that they aren't forced to provide services to homosexual couples.  They are if they want to provide services to anyone.

Fair enough but even with that law individuals frequently don't provide equal treatment under the law...

In theory individuals feel it's their right to discriminate and the government should stay out of it. In practice they (some) do discriminate (sometimes) and it's hard to prove it.

[johnny847]

You say it affects them but don't say how. How is a wedding photographer affected by the SCOTUS decision? The definition of marriage doesn't force people to provide services to homosexual couples.

Equal protection under the law says you can't discriminate against them, essentially saying yes, you must provide services to them.

Oregon, for example, two days ago fined a bakery $135k for refusing to make a cake for a homosexual couple.

http://www.katu.com/news/local/Final-order-Oregon-Bureau-of-Labor-and-Industries-BOLI-Gresham-Sweet-Cakes-Melissa-bakery-must-pay-135000-to-lesbian-couple-311494301.html

That's a good thing, IMO.  Discrimination based on sexual orientation ought to be illegal.

But your question was asking how people are affected, and that they aren't forced to provide services to homosexual couples.  They are if they want to provide services to anyone.

Now I'm just ranting and (for the most part) preaching to the choir, but it really bothers me when somebody counters that with well why didn't the homosexual couple just ask somebody else to make the cake? Why would you want to buy services from someone who doesn't want to serve you?
That's not the point. If there was literally only one baker that did this, then maybe that proposed solution isn't so bad (though I still don't like it). But if you allow one baker to do that then you allow all bakers to do that. Obviously not all bakers will refuse service to homosexuals. But it allows for a discriminatory environment where homosexuals may not get the service they want because those who provide the desired service do not serve homosexuals.  And now you have a serious problem.

[Kris]

However, I am somewhat perturbed that it is written by a professor of sociology instead of a professor of history who would actually be informed about their specialist subject and can be expected to know more than a layman.  After all, this is a rather important part of american history.

Most southerners didn't own slaves and would never be in the position to own slaves, why would they give a fuck about moving to states which outlawed slavery?

I don't have any primary sources for you on this (and I think it would be pretty hard to find primary sources to "prove" an attitude), but is it really so hard to figure out why?

Imagine that you are a poor white southerner. Maybe you're a sharecropper.  You have very little -- almost nothing, in fact.  You certainly could never own a slave, and you certainly aren't benefiting, directly or indirectly, from slavery. Your existence is really hard.  But you know what?  You are at least white.  You're better than a common slave.  And some people think that (I'm not going to use the derogatory word here, but you know what it is) "they" shouldn't be slaves any more.  That "they" deserve the same rights as you, a good, God-fearing white person.  That's against the natural order of things! It's in the Bible, after all!  By God, if we let them free, pretty soon they'd be (and here, we could insert Dylann Roof's diatribe), taking our jobs, raping our women... That will never happen as long as I'm alive! 

...



This is a good arguement.

However, consider this. 88% of southern troops volunteered. Would they have really left their farms to ruin and faced the prospect of a rather nasty death just to look down on the slaves. The plantation owners were only about 5% of the population and the white sharecroppers weren't going to join up just so the elite could keep all their wealth and privilage. So use propaganda about states rights and taxes/tariffs etc. And all good propaganda that works is at least moderately based on the truth which is why states rights/ tariffs were also a factor and it wasn't just about slavery.

As an aside, I don't see why you need to self censor yourself about using the word "nigger". If its good enough for your  president to use then surely its also good enough for you. Doesn't your constitution mention something about all being equal?

As a further aside, I'm pretty sure the bible doesn't mention that blacks should be slaves. But does say that having sex slaves is OK.

Is it really that hard to understand why someone who is not at all benefiting from a system, and arguably being hurt by it, could be convinced that it's exactly otherwise?  And with that, we're right back where we started with the "Christian" opposition to gay marriage in this country. It affects them not one iota.  But it offends their sensibilities, "cheapens" "traditional" marriage, and it's "against God's word."  Very similar arguments for very different situations.

Coming back to same sex marriage, unfortunately it can and will affect them.

There is a clear difference between the govt treating everybody the same and the govt forcing ordinary people to do likewise. Churches might not have to marry homosexuals because of your first amendment but ordinary people engaged in the wedding business such as photographers and bakers will be forced to pander to homosexual demands.

It would be far better for the govt to remove itself entirely from human monogamous pair bonding. And if homosexuals want to get married in church they can set up their own religion, it must be easy enough, L. Ron Hubbard did it.

As an analogy, consider this. The former American athlete Bruce Jenner is taking hormone theraphy, has chaged his first name and wears dresses. Fair enough if thats what he wants to do, fuck all to do with me, no skin off my nose etc. However, so long as Mr Jenner has a penis and a y chromosome I shall refer to him as Mr Jenner and the law should not demand otherwise.

Troll.

[forummm]

You have to be a pretty hateful and illogical person to not sell someone a cake or a pizza or a balloon because of who they are. Their money is green, the transaction makes you better off. Take it. Stamping your feet and not taking a gay couple's $2000 for your overpriced glob of sugary flour because of the ceremony that proceeded the eating of that cake is just childish. They're not going to call off the marriage because they couldn't get a cake from you. They're going to find another baker, or go without a cake altogether. You aren't enabling their marriage to occur.

[davisgang90]

Speaking of hateful:

http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/02/state-silences-bakers-who-refused-to-make-cake-for-lesbian-couple-fines-them-135k/

[sol]

Speaking of hateful:

http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/02/state-silences-bakers-who-refused-to-make-cake-for-lesbian-couple-fines-them-135k/

Had this been 1960 Greensboro, things might have gone differently.  I still don't see the difference between a bakery refusing to sell a cake to couple because they are women and a Woolworth refusing to sell lunch to four college students because they are black.

So let me repeat myself.  Business owners are legally prohibited from discriminating against people because they are black, or gay, or fat, or wearing a confederate flag.  We had a whole civil rights movement spanning decades, in which hundreds of people gave their lives, to establish these protections.

As to all of the folks here saying "start your own religion" or "you can use a gays-only bakery" let me remind you that "Separate Is Not Equal."

[Glenstache]

Now I'm just ranting and (for the most part) preaching to the choir, but it really bothers me when somebody counters that with well why didn't the homosexual couple just ask somebody else to make the cake? Why would you want to buy services from someone who doesn't want to serve you?
That's not the point. If there was literally only one baker that did this, then maybe that proposed solution isn't so bad (though I still don't like it). But if you allow one baker to do that then you allow all bakers to do that. Obviously not all bakers will refuse service to homosexuals. But it allows for a discriminatory environment where homosexuals may not get the service they want because those who provide the desired service do not serve homosexuals.  And now you have a serious problem.

Yes, this. As a side note, this argument structure is also why states/cities are not allowed to use things like restrictive zoning to preclude a business they don't like. If it is to be illegal, it has to actually be made illegal instead of trying to do it through the back door through outright restriction of availability.

I think it is also interesting to consider different ways that a hypothetical baker could deny service. If someone came in and asked the baker to make a cake that would reasonably be considered to be grotesquely explicit, offensive, violent and hateful, the baker (in my opinion) should be allowed to decline to make that specific cake because the cake itself and the act of making it is an undue burden. On the other hand, if the content of the cake is not in question and the reason to decline is the class of person buying the cake, that is slam-dunk discrimination and should be verboten. The baker may reserve the right to have a sign up saying that they believe marriage is for heterosexual couples only, or that anything living in water that has no fins or scales shall be an abomination to you (ie, shellfish), or that miscegnation is some sort of sin, but still has to provide service. Equally.

[MDM]

Speaking of hateful:
http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/02/state-silences-bakers-who-refused-to-make-cake-for-lesbian-couple-fines-them-135k/

davisgang90 can comment on intent, but I read "speaking of hateful" as applied to the Oregon official who (perhaps) is attempting to limit the bakery owners' free speech rights about their court case.  It isn't clear from the various quotes whether the issue is about discriminatory statements themselves (that seem properly subject to a "cease and desist" order), or about statements that the bakery owners intend to appeal the ruling through legal channels (which they should have every right to do and talk about).

It's still true that two wrongs don't make a right...

...and speaking of which:

In order to reach the total amount, $135,000, Rachel and Laurel submitted a long list of alleged physical, emotional and mental damages they claim to have experienced as a result of the Kleins’ unlawful conduct.

Examples of symptoms included “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “excessive sleep,” “felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “pale and sick at home after work,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.”

Again, there seems no doubt that Oregon law prohibited the bakery from refusing service, and whatever criminal penalty applies is defensible, but that list seems, shall we say, somewhere between an overreach and complainypants....

[Cathy]

As you would expect from the popular news media, the articles almost certainly grossly misstate the actual order that the bakers are subject to.

First, the Oregon Labor Commissioner had no discretion about whether to order injunctive relief. This was not an act of malice but was mandated by law. According to 2013 ORS § 659A.850(4), the commissioner "shall order" injunctive relief "against any respondent found to have engaged in any unlawful practice alleged in the complaint". The purpose of the relief is to "[e]liminate the effects of the unlawful practice that the respondent is found to have engaged in": 2013 ORS § 659A.850(4)(a)(B).

In this case, one unlawful practice was the bakers announcing that their place of business would be engaging in illegal discrimination, contrary to 2013 ORS § 659A.409, which prohibits such announcements. The commissioner was required by law to enjoin the bakers from further violating 2013 ORS § 659A.409. Requiring them to refrain from announcing their discriminatory policy is just requiring them to do what is already required by Oregon statutes (and the statutes of most or all jurisdictions in US and Canada). In Canada, the constitutionality of these laws has been extensively litigated and consistently upheld. In the US, it's not quite as settled, but I don't feel like writing too much about that right now.

Not all jurisdictions in the US include sexual orientation as a ground in these laws. In a famous case, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the exclusion of sexual orientation from anti-discrimination laws is unconstitutional: Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 SCR 493, 1998 CanLII 816. I'd expect this to be litigated in the US in due course.

P.S. Thanks for MDM for locating the relevant section of the Oregon statutes so I didn't have to find it myself.

[PeteD01]

396 posts and only 6796 views.
I guess we have moved on to the next contentious subject and we can all go home now.

[forummm]

396 posts and only 6796 views.
I guess we have moved on to the next contentious subject and we can all go home now.

I don't know how the view tally works. Does it count each unique person only once? Or each time they view separately?

[Cressida]

Not all jurisdictions in the US include sexual orientation as a ground in these laws.

I think this is one part of this issue that a lot of people are missing. If your jurisdiction (might be city, state, etc.) has a law on the books outlawing discrimination by businesses against customers, it will explicitly list all of the bases for discrimination that the law covers. The list is getting longer as time goes on: it typically includes race, religion, etc, but not always sexual orientation as Cathy states.

That means that if, say, I'm in Seattle and I have a taco truck, if Dick Cheney walks up and orders a taco, I can say, "fuck you Dick Cheney, buy a taco somewhere else," and that's not discrimination illegal because neither Seattle nor Washington State nor the U.S. has a law on the books that outlaws discrimination against assholes. Even if Dick Cheney were gay, if my discrimination isn't based on that, it's lawful.

That's my understanding, anyway. I'm sure Cathy will correct me if I've misstated anything. :)

[forummm]

Not all jurisdictions in the US include sexual orientation as a ground in these laws.

I think this is one part of this issue that a lot of people are missing. If your jurisdiction (might be city, state, etc.) has a law on the books outlawing discrimination by businesses against customers, it will explicitly list all of the bases for discrimination that the law covers. The list is getting longer as time goes on: it typically includes race, religion, etc, but not always sexual orientation as Cathy states.

That means that if, say, I'm in Seattle and I have a taco truck, if Dick Cheney walks up and orders a taco, I can say, "fuck you Dick Cheney, buy a taco somewhere else," and that's not discrimination because neither Seattle nor Washington State nor the U.S. has a law on the books that outlaws discrimination against assholes. Even if Dick Cheney were gay, if my discrimination isn't based on that, it's lawful.

That's my understanding, anyway. I'm sure Cathy will correct me if I've misstated anything. :)

Apparently you can be arrested for having a policy disagreement with Dick Cheney, either making that expression verbally, or via t-shirt or bumper sticker.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/04/washington/04cheney.html
http://www.npr.org/2012/03/21/148606249/confronting-the-vp-may-be-impolite-is-it-a-crime

[Erica/NWEdible]

That means that if, say, I'm in Seattle and I have a taco truck, if Dick Cheney walks up and orders a taco, I can say, "fuck you Dick Cheney, buy a taco somewhere else," and that's not discrimination because neither Seattle nor Washington State nor the U.S. has a law on the books that outlaws discrimination against assholes. Even if Dick Cheney were gay, if my discrimination isn't based on that, it's lawful.

Can confirm: Any random Seattleite aspires both to own a taco truck and to tell Dick Cheney to go fuck off. Very realistic scenario.

[Glenstache]

That means that if, say, I'm in Seattle and I have a taco truck, if Dick Cheney walks up and orders a taco, I can say, "fuck you Dick Cheney, buy a taco somewhere else," and that's not discrimination because neither Seattle nor Washington State nor the U.S. has a law on the books that outlaws discrimination against assholes. Even if Dick Cheney were gay, if my discrimination isn't based on that, it's lawful.

Can confirm: Any random Seattleite aspires both to own a taco truck and to tell Dick Cheney to go fuck off. Very realistic scenario.

I'll second that as a Seattle-ite who loves tacos (though maybe wouldn't want to work in a taco truck) and would love to tell Cheney off.