Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Daily Beast: Anti-Gay Jim Crow Comes to Kansas


Burgold

Recommended Posts

Question about using "the majority" as a basis.

If the majority of Kansans want this law, should it be allowed?

Also a good question. I am not even going to pretend to be any sort of legal eagle, but I'd say in sitations like this, there may be some national deferrence..

Lets say that happened, and say 20 states decided to not recognize SSM.. i think it would create too many problems.. i think it may open the door to dumb things...like we don't recognize pentacostal marriages, or ship captain marriages.. soon we will have legalized discrimination beyond the silliness otherwise implied in this thread.

"Vermont is for catholics".. etc.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interview did not happen. The good Father did not answer his phone nor respond to cell or email messages sent. Pity. I think it's a worthy topic.

 

speaking of topics....should residents of a state that does not recognize a marriage have to recognize that marriage?

 

or is the state entitled thru sovereign immunity?

 

inquiring(bored) minds want to know

Link to comment
Share on other sites

making laws restricting actions or opportunity is the same,the justification to do so certainly differs.

Ah, I see we've gone from "if we prohibit murder, then we're still discriminating" to "well, legislating discrimination and legislating against murder are both laws".

Moving the goalposts? I'm shocked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I see we've gone from "if we prohibit murder, then we're still discriminating" to "well, legislating discrimination and legislating against murder are both laws".

Moving the goalposts? I'm shocked.

 

The only thing moving is the breeze between your ears obviously  :)

do We (royal we ;) ) need to define discriminate/discrimination for you?

 

forbidding murder is discriminating against it....we forbid it by use of law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

speaking of topics....should residents of a state that does not recognize a marriage have to recognize that marriage?

 

or is the state entitled thru sovereign immunity?

 

inquiring(bored) minds want to know

Wow. Somebody's passed a law requiring individuals to recognize a marriage?

I didn't think that I even got a vote on whether people are married or not.

Perhaps you should start a thread about it.

This thread, was about whether a state should pass a law granting special legal endorsement and protection, for a certain specific kind of discrimination, that one particular political party wants to endorse.

(At least, it was, before you spent what seems like two days trying to hijack it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

did you ever read the bill that specifically addressed protection for those residents of that state not recognizing SSM?.....the one in the OP

 

ya know the denial of recognition of marriage that state has enshrined in law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

did you ever read the bill that specifically addressed protection for those residents of that state not recognizing SSM?.....the one in the OP

 

ya know the denial of recognition of marriage that state has enshrined in law.

Yes, I specifically read the bill which specifically grants special, protected status to a specified form of discrimination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing moving is the breeze between your ears obviously  :)

do We (royal we ;) ) need to define discriminate/discrimination for you?

 

forbidding murder is discriminating against it....we forbid it by use of law

Tell me where you have a constitutional right to murder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell me where you have a constitutional right to murder

tell me where there is a constitutional right to SSM

 

it certainly isn't in that state's constitution nor found in the US one yet by SCOTUS......I hear it is evolving though  :)

 

some people claim the right to murder exists in certain states though, others claim it exists for certain people

 

claims are speculative though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Jim Crow thing is a little hyperbolic, but not completely out of bounds.  It's a dangerous road you travel once you legislate who businesses can decline to serve.  Are they defending businesses or helping to persecute individuals... all a matter of perspective, I guess.  The answer may be both.

 

Fundamentally, I think a florist or a baker should be able to say "no."  Now, I don't think a civil servant should have that right.  I also would feel less at ease if a restaurant owner or gas station manager began refusing service.  I think this allows the potential for greater abuse of a group that has historically been pariahs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in a world where you can be sued for not helping celebrate others nuptials it is probably too far, Jim Crow labels on the other hand

How wrong and cruel and horrible it is, to live in a world where one particular kind of discrimination, which you approve of and endorse, while legal, is not singled out for special protections and immunities which every other kind of prejudice, while also legal, do not have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Jim Crow thing is a little hyperbolic, but not completely out of bounds. It's a dangerous road you travel once you legislate who businesses can decline to serve. Are they defending businesses or helping to persecute individuals... all a matter of perspective, I guess. The answer may be both.

Fundamentally, I think a florist or a baker should be able to say "no." Now, I don't think a civil servant should have that right. I also would feel less at ease if a restaurant owner or gas station manager began refusing service. I think this allows the potential for greater abuse of a group that has historically been pariahs.

Observing that the law not only specifically authorizes any business to discriminate, at also authorizes every single employee of said business to do so.

Not only does the baker have the right to discriminate, every single employee in the entire grocery store is allowed to.

Although I do observe that it doesn't seem to go as far as other, similar, laws I've seen, which mandate that any employee who refuses to do his job is immune from his employer firing or taking other action against him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but then so does religious freedom.....or does it?

Yes, religious freedom does have special protections. (And should).

But this law doesn't grant special protections to religious freedom.

(It grants special protection to bigots who lie, and claim that their religion endorses bigotry).

It grants special protection to one, specific, kind of discrimination.

The Muslim (or Jewish) grocery store clerk who refuses to allow any customer out of the store, if they're buying pork? Funny, he's not protected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...