Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If marriage is a legal contract, then society has establish requirements to engage in that contract, including the age of the individuals engaging in the contract, the consanguinity of the individuals engaging in the contract, the sex of the individuals engaging in the contract, the mental capacity of the individuals to the contract.
Agreed?
If that is the case, then if one group wants to change the requirements needed to engage in that contractual agreement, why should any other group be denied the same rights to change other requirements to enter into a marital contract?
If the requirement that the individuals must be of the opposite sex to enter into a marital contract can change, why can't the consanguinity requirements change? Why are two adult family members denied the same rights to change the requirements for individuals to enter marital contracts? Why can't the mental competence requirement by changed? Age requirements...if a coalition of 10-12 year olds got together and argued that their civil rights were being trampled because they were not allowed the right to marry like everyone else is, and it was a matter of marriage equality...how could their argument be denied if it is merely a matter of changing the requirements to enter into a marital contract?
If the argument by gays is to change certain requirements established by society for individuals to enter into a marital contract, how can arguments to change other requirements not be just as valid?
People who are mentally incompetent are not allowed to enter into contracts in order to protect them from being taken advantage of. They are unable to make an informed decision.
The same is true of minors. Eventually, most minors will become adults and then are free to enter into contracts as they choose.
Incestuous marriages I would guess were initially not allowed because of the high risk of deformity in offspring. Beyond that, familial relationships often begin when at least one party is an infant. If people view their family members as available for sexual relationships, does that not leave children at a considerable disadvantage? It does. Most victims of childhood sexual abuse are victimized by a family member. Do we really want to break down that cultural taboo, so that more children are sexually abused? Of course not.
If marriage is a legal contract, then society has establish requirements to engage in that contract, including the age of the individuals engaging in the contract, the consanguinity of the individuals engaging in the contract, the sex of the individuals engaging in the contract, the mental capacity of the individuals to the contract.
Agreed?
If that is the case, then if one group wants to change the requirements needed to engage in that contractual agreement, why should any other group be denied the same rights to change other requirements to enter into a marital contract?
If the requirement that the individuals must be of the opposite sex to enter into a marital contract can change, why can't the consanguinity requirements change? Why are two adult family members denied the same rights to change the requirements for individuals to enter marital contracts? Why can't the mental competence requirement by changed? Age requirements...if a coalition of 10-12 year olds got together and argued that their civil rights were being trampled because they were not allowed the right to marry like everyone else is, and it was a matter of marriage equality...how could their argument be denied if it is merely a matter of changing the requirements to enter into a marital contract?
If the argument by gays is to change certain requirements established by society for individuals to enter into a marital contract, how can arguments to change other requirements not be just as valid?
Age requirements have changed over time in the US. An argument has to be valid on its own merit. You cannot argue successfully that because gays can marry all other requirements must be changed. Sex between same sex adults is legal now, that does not mean you can now go have sex with a 5 year old.
If you want to go to extremes then your bringing in the Torah as rationale to ban same sex marriage you must also be pushing for your right to stone adulterers to death. That of course sounds silly but no sillier than your pedophile argument.
In most states, anti-discrimination laws don't apply to sexual orientation in public accommodations.
Besides, using the word 'rights' is trickery. You refer to not serving a ssm as a 'belief' and the purchase of flowers as a 'right.' The 'right' to buy flowers or a cake for a wedding is as far down a list of 'rights' as you can go. The real 'right' should be for an individual to refrain from an act that violates their free exercise of religion.
Yes, at the present time, anti-discrimination laws do not apply to sexual orientation in most states. I believe there are 21 states which recognize sexual orientation as a protected class in general, another 9 which prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in the hiring of public employees.
This is an area of the law still evolving. IMO, the day is not far off when sexual orientation will be a protected class in the entire country.
We aren't talking about "the right to buy flowers", we are talking about the right to not be discriminated against.
I think it is possible to respect someone's beliefs without believing it extends to violating the rights of others. IMO, that is the line separating "OK" from "not OK".
Who decides which rights are more important? The florist has a RIGHT to religious freedom. You say that gay people have a RIGHT to a protected relationship. So who's right trumps the others?
The Constitution ensures religious freedom. It does not ensure protection of relationships.
Why should a minor inconvenience of finding a "gay wedding" friendly vendor be elevated to the same level as forcing someone to defy their religious conscience or face prosecution by the state or loss of livelihood?
She should have provided the flowers. That would have been the Christian thing to do. The book says love they neighbor as thyself, not love they neighbor as thyself as long as they are not gay or love thy neighbor as thyself as long as you agree with everything they do or say.
When she refused, the gays should have moved on and found another florist. Certainly there are plenty of other florists in the area.
We used to have a tradition in this country of reasonable accommodation of our differences. It was part of what made this country great. Sadly, we seem to have lost that as we turn to the power of the government to threaten and inflict violence on others to get our way.
To you relgious belief is not an excuse to discriminate. To people with a religion, they arent discriminating, and just following their beliefs. You would have a point if she refused to sell them anything from the get go, but she didnt. Her religion became an issue when it came to a marriage.A word whose root refers to a 'young woman' and a process instituted for the point of procreation.
.
MUCH snippage required from someone who thinks *I* am the one busting a vein, LOL!
You are absolutely right - I DON'T care how hard someone tries to use their religion to justify hatred, bigotry, and discrimination. Your belief in mythical sky wizards does not give you the right to discriminate against people your religion is telling you to hate - or, rather, for which you dig hard and cherry pick religious texts to come up with reasons why you THINK your religion excuses your bad behavior.
So according to your statement above, anyone who isn't intending to have children should not be allowed to get married. Just when was she intending to institute fertility tests and demand affidavits of intent to have children from her heterosexual customers? No flowers for little old ladies who have finally found a life partner, because they're not capable of bearing children any more? Oh, I forgot - if you can't bear children, you can't get married anyway.
It doesn't matter WHAT the flowers are for. If they're to decorate the altar at a pagan Saturnalia, or for witches to weave into their hair before dancing sky-clad beneath the horned moon, its none of her business. Her BUSINESS is selling flowers. Who is buying them and what they are using them for is totally immaterial.
Who decides which rights are more important? The florist has a RIGHT to religious freedom. You say that gay people have a RIGHT to a protected relationship. So who's right trumps the others?
The Constitution ensures religious freedom. It does not ensure protection of relationships.
Why should a minor inconvenience of finding a "gay wedding" friendly vendor be elevated to the same level as forcing someone to defy their religious conscience or face prosecution by the state or loss of livelihood?
Selling flowers is a commercial, not a religious, endeavor. She still has religious freedom - what she does not, and must not ever, have is the right to impose her religious beliefs on other people. And refusing to sell flowers to someone because you think you have a god-given right to hate them is imposing her religious beliefs on other people. She can believe whatever she chooses - she just can't act on that against another individual.
If she cannot or will not comply with the law, she needs to sell up and get out of business.
It is part of some people's religious beliefs that women should always be subjected to female circumcision. So a doctor from such a background should be allowed to perform circumcisions on unwilling women because that is part of his beliefs?
EVERYONE has a right to "protected relationships" - if by that, you mean the right of unrelated adults to marry as they choose.
This is not a question of whose rights trump whose - because the florist does NOT have the "right", regardless of her religious beliefs, to discriminate against people she thinks her religion allows her to hate. She does NOT have that right. You can't lose something you never had.
There isn't any trumping of rights here. The florist may believe as she wishes - but she has no right to ACT on a belief that impinges on the rights of others.
There are people out there who firmly believe that they have religious justification for enslaving others. The Bible is FULL of rules about how you should treat your slaves, and the rules for allowable rape as well. That doesn't give people the right to use that as justification to run out and enslave their neighbors or rape the neighbor's daughters and take them as "handmaidens".
Law and human decency trumps "religion" every time. And neither the law nor human decency are supportive of discriminating against other human beings for the color of their skin, their accents, the shape of their eyes, the color of their hair, or who they prefer to kiss.
Who decides which rights are more important? The florist has a RIGHT to religious freedom. You say that gay people have a RIGHT to a protected relationship. So who's right trumps the others?
The Constitution ensures religious freedom. It does not ensure protection of relationships.
Why should a minor inconvenience of finding a "gay wedding" friendly vendor be elevated to the same level as forcing someone to defy their religious conscience or face prosecution by the state or loss of livelihood?
I say that ALL people have the right to not be discriminated against.
When I was in the 8th grade, I took a state required Civics class. We learned about our government, our Constitution, etc. One of the main principals taught, which I remember to this day, is that one person's rights end where another person's rights begin. Surely my particular 8th grade class was not the only one teaching this principal?
She should have provided the flowers. That would have been the Christian thing to do. The book says love they neighbor as thyself, not love they neighbor as thyself as long as they are not gay or love thy neighbor as thyself as long as you agree with everything they do or say.
When she refused, the gays should have moved on and found another florist. Certainly there are plenty of other florists in the area.
We used to have a tradition in this country of reasonable accommodation of our differences. It was part of what made this country great. Sadly, we seem to have lost that as we turn to the power of the government to threaten and inflict violence on others to get our way.
Obviously, not all people who identify as Christians [or of any other religion] believe exactly the same thing. Her particular church and religious tenets must teach that you can love your neighbor without participating in events or acts that are forbidden by the religion.
Other than that, I agree with you, we as a society do seem to take inflexible 'sides' rather than reasonable accommodations.
The Torah also says that women must bear a biological son or daughter. While most branches of Judaism (including my own) treat that as a minor issue, I have met Rabbis who have told me point blank that they would not marry me because I am unable to have children. Should an ultra-Orthodox Jew be able to deny to make my wedding cake because I am infertile? Should anyone be surprised if that was to happen and their business was shut down due to bad press?
The Torah also has strict dietary laws, but you don't see us trying to ban pork products in the US nor discriminate against the vast majority of people in this country who do not follow those rules.
As far as the bolded - what does that have to do with anything? I would make the argument that most bakeries don't bake "getting out of jail" cakes. If they made that type of cake and then refused to serve a black or gay ex-con, that would be a problem.
Yes. A believe that his religious freedom trumps your need for a wedding cake. The dietary laws are far different than the list of sexual deviancy set out by God as abominations.
The issue is not whether or not the "vast majority" of people follow those rules or not. The "vast majority" of people in this country are not LGBTQQXYZ+++ either, yet the "vast majority" of Christians/Jews/Muslims who believe in biblical marriage are required by force of the state to abandon those strongly held beliefs for the sake of inconvenience of a couple based solely on their view that their relationship is entitled to legal protection.
Bakeries offer cakes, there are innumerable events that people engage bakers to make cakes for. By arguing about what kind of cake, you are avoiding the underlying question that was asked. Why can't you answer that question on it's face (based on the given facts) instead of deflecting?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
