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.
I still think it's highly hypocritical for anyone seeking to limit freedoms based on sexuality to talk of "freedoms" in any case. It's practically going back to what it was: freedoms for just those people we want to give them to, which isn't freedom at all.
I still think it's highly hypocritical for anyone seeking to limit freedoms based on sexuality to talk of "freedoms" in any case. It's practically going back to what it was: freedoms for just those people we want to give them to, which isn't freedom at all.
I suppose one can take old 'traditional freedoms', like speech, association, religion, bill of rights type things, and use the word 'freedom' to mean freedom to celebrate a marriage wherever you want or have a wedding cake baked in whatever bakery you enter.
IMO, calling it hypocritical to speak of freedom because a business owner prefers not to partake in celebrating a ssm is way, way extreme.
I suppose one can take old 'traditional freedoms', like speech, association, religion, bill of rights type things, and use the word 'freedom' to mean freedom to celebrate a marriage wherever you want or have a wedding cake baked in whatever bakery you enter.
Freedom is simply being able to do what you want, period. And only when there are good, identifiable, verifiable reasons should a freedom (any freedom) be denied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama
IMO, calling it hypocritical to speak of freedom because a business owner prefers not to partake in celebrating a ssm is way, way extreme.
What, you think they're mad because he wouldn't go to one of their weddings?
I suppose one can take old 'traditional freedoms', like speech, association, religion, bill of rights type things, and use the word 'freedom' to mean freedom to celebrate a marriage wherever you want or have a wedding cake baked in whatever bakery you enter.
I suppose you can try and equate marriage (a fundamental right, as noted over and over by the United States Supreme Court) with baking a cake.
But unless you think baking a cake is a fundamental right, the equation is nonsensical.
As for your"Bill of Rights type things" comment, I guess you don't really think Amendment XIV all that important to freedom, right? Due Process Clause? Equal Protection Clause? The very reason the Bill of Rights applies not just to the federal government but all subsidiary levels of government, too (state, county, city, etc.)? Not that important?
Aren't the 1860s and the right to citizenship, equal protrection, and due process 'traditional' enough for you?
I still think it's highly hypocritical for anyone seeking to limit freedoms based on sexuality to talk of "freedoms" in any case. It's practically going back to what it was: freedoms for just those people we want to give them to, which isn't freedom at all.
There's a lot of overlap between those who incessantly complain about 'big government' and the 'nanny state' with those who pitched a fit when the USSC ruled that laws prohibiting consensual sexual activity between adults were struck down (in 2003) and who constantly oppose any attempt to let adults marry the consenting adult of their choice.
When that is the question, suddenly they can't get enough of governmental management of marriage...
Freedom is simply being able to do what you want, period. And only when there are good, identifiable, verifiable reasons should a freedom (any freedom) be denied.
What, you think they're mad because he wouldn't go to one of their weddings?
Using your standard, who's 'freedom' was denied. The owners were denied the freedom [wanted to] to reject assisting in a celebration of a marriage that violated their religious beliefs, their consciences. The couple was denied the freedom [wanted to] to hold their party in one of thousands of places where they could hold it.
Yes, providing services, whether space, music, food, lodging, is taking part in. Would 'assisting in the preparation or conduct of a celebration' for an unholy matrimony be better.
I suppose you can try and equate marriage (a fundamental right, as noted over and over by the United States Supreme Court) with baking a cake.
But unless you think baking a cake is a fundamental right, the equation is nonsensical.
As for your"Bill of Rights type things" comment, I guess you don't really think Amendment XIV all that important to freedom, right? Due Process Clause? Equal Protection Clause? The very reason the Bill of Rights applies not just to the federal government but all subsidiary levels of government, too (state, county, city, etc.)? Not that important?
Aren't the 1860s and the right to citizenship, equal protrection, and due process 'traditional' enough for you?
You switched the issue. The 'freedom' was where they'd have a party, not whether ssm should be legal or will be ruled constitutional. If you think all freedoms are =, and having a party is = to marriage, weird.
"If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult, Menino said. "Unless they open up their policies."
There's more to it than existing zoning laws. Dozens of specific permits and licenses. If you don't think the mayor and his political appointees who head local agencies don't have the power to delay, obstruct, and punish, you're politically naive.
Dragging feet is not the same as not allowing a particular place to open.
The mayor does not have ultimate authority over every agency, nor does every agency share the same views as the mayor. Many agency heads are NOT appointees.
There's a lot of overlap between those who incessantly complain about 'big government' and the 'nanny state' with those who pitched a fit when the USSC ruled that laws prohibiting consensual sexual activity between adults were struck down (in 2003) and who constantly oppose any attempt to let adults marry the consenting adult of their choice.
When that is the question, suddenly they can't get enough of governmental management of marriage...
Well said. And it's the same for every argument they offer to explain why they oppose (or simply "don't support") gay marriage. They try to blame some particular principle (what's natural, what's traditional, what's a "sin") when there are exceptions for them all which they seem to have no problem with whatsoever.
That's why people keep saying it's because they just don't like homosexuals, because no other explanation can explain why they feel SSM is "wrong" and so many other things aren't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama
Using your standard, who's 'freedom' was denied. The owners were denied the freedom [wanted to] to reject assisting in a celebration of a marriage that violated their religious beliefs, their consciences. The couple was denied the freedom [wanted to] to hold their party in one of thousands of places where they could hold it.
What owners, and what "party"? I'm not sure we're talking about the same subject here.
The CEO of Chick-Fil-A has the freedom to say what he wants and fund what he wants. Same for homosexuals and advocates of gay rights. I'm merely pointing out how, if you don't think gays should be allowed to get married (knowing you have no evidence to suggest there would be any harm in it), you're picking and choosing as to what restrictions based on mere opinion are okay.
As a heterosexual, I cannot begin to imagine how I'd feel if someone told me I couldn't marry my gf and couldn't give me a good reason. But I'd have to fight really hard to not put 2 and 2 together and figure it was a matter of prejudice.
Well said. And it's the same for every argument they offer to explain why they oppose (or simply "don't support") gay marriage. They try to blame some particular principle (what's natural, what's traditional, what's a "sin") when there are exceptions for them all which they seem to have no problem with whatsoever.
That's why people keep saying it's because they just don't like homosexuals, because no other explanation can explain why they feel SSM is "wrong" and so many other things aren't.
What owners, and what "party"? I'm not sure we're talking about the same subject here.
The CEO of Chick-Fil-A has the freedom to say what he wants and fund what he wants. Same for homosexuals and advocates of gay rights. I'm merely pointing out how, if you don't think gays should be allowed to get married (knowing you have no evidence to suggest there would be any harm in it), you're picking and choosing as to what restrictions based on mere opinion are okay.
As a heterosexual, I cannot begin to imagine how I'd feel if someone told me I couldn't marry my gf and couldn't give me a good reason. But I'd have to fight really hard to not put 2 and 2 together and figure it was a matter of prejudice.
I'm now among people who forget what thread they are posting on. I was used to the Inn thread, thought I was there. Pardon me .
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.
