California Supremes Invent Right to Marriage

ziggy wrote:

SamCogar wrote:

Stephanie wrote: I'm saying, it is better to inconvenience a minority of the population than to further burden the entire nation with more government intrusion.

That should be obvious to everyone.

Just look at "the state of this Nation" ..... solely because the lefty bleeding heart liberals didn't think it was nice or fair to inconvinence ....... the criminal element within our society.

The nation's prisons are full of certain ones of "the criminal element within our society".

What good has that done?

Here Zigster, maybe this will help you understand said "inconvinencing" of the criminal element, to wit:

DURANGO, Colo. — Police are telling a Durango liquor store owner to give shoplifters the boot — literally.

Tired of losing what he says was about $1,000 worth of merchandise a month in thefts, Gabe Fidanque started telling shoplifters he caught that they had two choices: Give him one of their shoes or he'd call the police.

A handful gave up a shoe. But Durango police told Fidanque on Friday to stop the practice or risk facing charges of felony robbery.

Shoplifting, in contrast, is a misdemeanor.

"I would suggest that he find a different option that doesn't involve giving up property," said police Capt. Micki Browning. "What's the difference between him saying, 'Give me $20 and I won't call the police' or 'Give me your shoe?'"

Fidanque was ordered to return the shoes to their owners — if he can find them.

He reluctantly agreed. But he stands by his gumshoe work, which he started, he said, because people he turned in to police would return hours after being arrested.

"That's the whole point of it. They're too humiliated to come back and ask for their shoe, and that also means they won't steal again," Fidanque said. "But it's not worth jeopardizing my business."

.

So what should we do, Sam? Build and fill still more prisons?

Now Ziggy you know I'm not going to agree to the idea of building more prisons and incarcerating more citizens. You know I believe we should decriminalize recreational drug use. I also favor getting the government out of the morality business.

However, private citizens and small business owners need to be protected and take steps to protect themselves from crime. I actually like the approach this liquor store owner took. If our criminal justice system were functioning properly he wouldn't have had to take matters into his own hands.

Humiliation has been proven to deter some crimes. We probably should return to using it as a form of punishment for certain offenses.

Imagine how much public caning would deter crimes!!!

Stephanie wrote:Now Ziggy you know I'm not going to agree to the idea of building more prisons and incarcerating more citizens. You know I believe we should decriminalize recreational drug use. I also favor getting the government out of the morality business.
However, private citizens and small business owners need to be protected and take steps to protect themselves from crime. I actually like the approach this liquor store owner took. If our criminal justice system were functioning properly he wouldn't have had to take matters into his own hands.
Humiliation has been proven to deter some crimes. We probably should return to using it as a form of punishment for certain offenses.

I have read that American Indians, in the pre-Columbus era, did not have jails- but used a system of shunning and ostracation of social misfits to compell obedience. But I haven't yet found anything on line to confirm and expand on that.

Ah caning.........

Some of you may remember my posting info about a benefit for a friend of ours who suffered a severed spine in a 5 story fall in Thailand. He is back in Charleston now, thank goodness.

My husband went to visit him in the hospital on Monday. Baxter was telling Loyd in Singapore people are caned for things like littering and gum chewing. Weekly they have public canings. Sheeesh!

You don't remember Michael Fay Stephanie?

Could that have been during your heavy recreational years???

LOL I did have a few of those. He was the young American caned for vandalism. I'm not saying I condone that, but slashing tires and breaking windows is one thing......chewing gum????

Yeah, chewing gum might be a tad extreme but I do like the discipline part of it. If nothing else, caning would at least get the younger generatoin to pull their damn pants up if for no other reason then to provide a layer of insulation.

No I'm really peeved. They've made me sound like an old man.

Nah, you've made yourself sound like a grumpy old whack job. lol

What does a law classifying homosexuals as a protected class have to do with black people Terry?

This is the type of demagoguery that will be used to get the bill passed.

Well, you are an expert at demagoguery.

Discrimination is discrimination.

What if people refused to hire you or serve you because of your religious beliefs? So your ox should be protected but theirs should be gored?

I would point out that you are a hypocrite if it wasn't already so heartbreakingly obvious.

TerryRC wrote:What does a law classifying homosexuals as a protected class have to do with black people Terry?

This is the type of demagoguery that will be used to get the bill passed.

Well, you are an expert at demagoguery.

Discrimination is discrimination.

What if people refused to hire you or serve you because of your religious beliefs? So your ox should be protected but theirs should be gored?

I would point out that you are a hypocrite if it wasn't already so heartbreakingly obvious.

No, discrimination is not discrimination but it's bleeding hearts like you that has everyone thinking it is.

My personal belief is that individuals should keep their religion, like their sexual orientation, to themself. I don't believe anyone should be kept from getting a job for either but I also don't believe either deserves special attention or consideration for their personal choices and that's exactly what happens when protected classes based on personal choices are created.

Once homosexuals are protected, the first time one doesn't get a job, that will be the reason.

Here's a novel idea. Why not base hiring and firing decisions on one's own merits and leave the rest of the tripe at the door where it belongs?

So tell me, when it is overturned, what happens when polygamist want the same rights as same sex couples because the government refuses to define marriage and the 14th amendment gurantees them the same rights as everyone else Frank?

Actually, so does the first amendment, also. The law as it stands, clearly favors judeo-christians.

I see no problem with group marriage of line marriage.

Aaron, we already have polygamy and polyandry in this country. Divorce and remarriage is known as serial polygamy or polyandry.

TerryRC wrote:
So tell me, when it is overturned, what happens when polygamist want the same rights as same sex couples because the government refuses to define marriage and the 14th amendment gurantees them the same rights as everyone else Frank?

Actually, so does the first amendment, also. The law as it stands, clearly favors judeo-christians.

I see no problem with group marriage of line marriage.

Aaron, we already have polygamy and polyandry in this country. Divorce and remarriage is known as serial polygamy or polyandry.

So what do you do about the social benefits that come from being married. Just one would be that a widowed spouse is entitled to SS survivor benefits for them and their kids. If a many has 15 wives and 45 kids, why should we as citizens pay for all of them. You're talking THOUSADS of dollars EACH month!

That's one of about 145+ benefits derived from marriage. Each would have to be addressed.

No, discrimination is not discrimination but it's bleeding hearts like you that has everyone thinking it is.

Nice ad hom but it is a bare assertion and an obviously flawed one.

My personal belief is that individuals should keep their religion, like their sexual orientation, to themself. I don't believe anyone should be kept from getting a job for either but I also don't believe either deserves special attention or consideration for their personal choices and that's exactly what happens when protected classes based on personal choices are created.

I somewhat agree but some people have to be forced to behave. You can keep your personal beliefs to yourself and I can still let you go because I saw you coming out of the synagogue on Saturday and I don't like you j00s.

So what do you do about the social benefits that come from being married. Just one would be that a widowed spouse is entitled to SS survivor benefits for them and their kids. If a many has 15 wives and 45 kids, why should we as citizens pay for all of them. You're talking THOUSADS of dollars EACH month!

That's one of about 145+ benefits derived from marriage. Each would have to be addressed.

How do they deal with it now? I know people that have been married five and six times.

Regardless of what you say, compelling public interest DOES not override a guranteed constitutional right.

Now you are talking.

Been reading some Madison?

TerryRC wrote:So what do you do about the social benefits that come from being married. Just one would be that a widowed spouse is entitled to SS survivor benefits for them and their kids. If a many has 15 wives and 45 kids, why should we as citizens pay for all of them. You're talking THOUSADS of dollars EACH month!

That's one of about 145+ benefits derived from marriage. Each would have to be addressed.

How do they deal with it now? I know people that have been married five and six times.

They have to have been married for at least 10 years to qualify for benefits from thier spouses work. I'm pretty sure they have to be a current spouse to qualify for survivors benefits. There is a difference.

So those people that have been married 5 or 6 times, are they like 80 or 90?

So those people that have been married 5 or 6 times, are they like 80 or 90?

No, but some are in their sixties.

Are you calling me a liar? I can prove myself right merely by pointing to Liz Taylor.

TerryRC wrote:
No, discrimination is not discrimination but it's bleeding hearts like you that has everyone thinking it is.

Nice ad hom but it is a bare assertion and an obviously flawed one.

My personal belief is that individuals should keep their religion, like their sexual orientation, to themself. I don't believe anyone should be kept from getting a job for either but I also don't believe either deserves special attention or consideration for their personal choices and that's exactly what happens when protected classes based on personal choices are created.

I somewhat agree but some people have to be forced to behave. You can keep your personal beliefs to yourself and I can still let you go because I saw you coming out of the synagogue on Saturday and I don't like you j00s.

So how do you prove discrimination?

So how do you prove discrimination?

I'm not a lawyer to answer that.

If you have worked for me for years, I have never had a complaint about you and I cut you loose for no reason, coincidentally after I bumped into you coming out of the synagogue, I am going to look damn suspicious.

We agree that would be wrong of me, nyet?

So what is the deal, it is wrong to be persecuted for your religious beliefs but not wrong to persecute others because of your religious beliefs?

If the clinic cuts this doctor loose because he is a bible-thumping holy-rolling crazy christian, he will scream discrimination. Watch and see.

EDIT- Sorry, I realized later that I was mixing threads about the Dr. that refused a fertility treatment to a lesbian with the gay marriage thread. They are related, though, so it isn't too off topic.

Terry,

Let me see if I have this straight:

Any citizen, in any profession, cannot object to providing any service or product for anybody at any time based upon religious or moral objections. Have I got that correct?

Doctors, pharmacists, photographers, musicians, lawyers, you name the profession........all most ignore their principles and their morality so that any minority (including pregnant women) aren't inconvenienced by having to shop around for a provider who doesn't share their objections.

Have I got that right?


I don't believe that's what our founding fathers were thinking when they authored and signed the Constitution. Nor do I believe for a moment that's what the revolutionaries gave their very lives for in their battle against England.

Doctors, pharmacists, photographers, musicians, lawyers, you name the profession........all most ignore their principles and their morality so that any minority (including pregnant women) aren't inconvenienced by having to shop around for a provider who doesn't share their objections.

Steph, is it right for me to refuse service to you because you are black? I'm a Mormon and I believe blacks are sub-human and I feel I shouldn't have to wait on animals.

Is that OK with you?

I doubt it would be. That is how people used to run the undesirables (the kikes and the queers and the niggers and the wetbacks and the papists...) out of town.

Look at it this way. You are saying the doctor that refused to treat the lesbian shouldn't be discriminated against for his religious beliefs but it is OK for him to discriminate against the woman because of his religious beliefs?

You see how crazy that sounds.

Do your job or take a hike. You can't refuse service to someone playing by the rules just because you want to be some sort of self-appointed morality cop. Don't take the job if you aren't going to give your efforts to ALL CUSTOMERS.

If it wasn't for the Civil Rights acts we would still have a segregated nation. Sometimes people need to be cuffed around before they will play nice.

I don't believe that's what our founding fathers were thinking when they authored and signed the Constitution. Nor do I believe for a moment that's what the revolutionaries gave their very lives for in their battle against England.

Don't believe it. I'll tell you one thing, though, they knew that the rights of minorities would always be in danger.

Terry,

I am not a black woman. I am a white woman. I can't tell you how another person would feel or what they would want under a particular circumstance. I can only tell you how I feel and what I would or would not want.

I wouldn't want to be treated by or receive services or goods from anyone who thinks I am sub-human because of my skin color. I would much prefer to find a provider who isn't such a hateful idiot. I wouldn't trust such a person to bag much groceries, much less implant my fertilized embryo or fill my prescription.

Our forefathers did know the rights of minorities would be in danger. They knew this because for all their contributions to our nation and our world, most of them violated the liberties of the minorities around them.

So while I share your concern about the rights of minorities, I don't share your conviction that their rights should come at someone else's expense. The two are not mutally exclusive, although you seem to think so.

Last time I checked capitalism still ruled here in America. Yes, there have been significant gains by the socialists, but most people still feed, shelter, and clothe themselves by providing goods and services for others in a relatively free market society. The result of this is that for every bigot opposed to serving a black woman or selling to a Latino, and for every individual who opposes abortion and/or same-sex marriage due to moral or religious objections, there are 2 others who care more about the cash than they do what's in their conscience.

TerryRC wrote:So how do you prove discrimination?

I'm not a lawyer to answer that.

If you have worked for me for years, I have never had a complaint about you and I cut you loose for no reason, coincidentally after I bumped into you coming out of the synagogue, I am going to look damn suspicious.

We agree that would be wrong of me, nyet?

So what is the deal, it is wrong to be persecuted for your religious beliefs but not wrong to persecute others because of your religious beliefs?

If the clinic cuts this doctor loose because he is a bible-thumping holy-rolling crazy christian, he will scream discrimination. Watch and see.

EDIT- Sorry, I realized later that I was mixing threads about the Dr. that refused a fertility treatment to a lesbian with the gay marriage thread. They are related, though, so it isn't too off topic.

I don't care if it does look suspicious or not, it's still not proof. It's like a hate crime law, easy to accuse but very, very difficult to prove.

If it were only about not refusing service or firing someone for no reason, then I would agree with you. But the thing is, once you create a protected class, then you're creating a class of people that, even it's a small minority, will want entitlements for their class. See affirmative action.

So while I certainly don't want to wrong anyone, that is overridden by my desire to not create another class of people that get a ton of entitlements. It’s just not worth it.

Comprehenda?