Daily Beast: Anti-Gay Jim Crow Comes to Kansas

[Kilmer17]

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.

I think it's easier to distinguish actually.  There are groups provided protection under the law.  So a restaurant owner cant refuse to serve blacks.  But he can refuse to serve blacks whatever they want to eat if he doesnt already serve it.  I think there would also be protection for the restauranteur if he refused to serve a nazi, because nazi's arent a protected group. 

[twa]

No. It doesn't.

 

 

 

I believe you are wrong

applying a different level of legal scrutiny certainly seems a special protection.

 

add

telling another what their religious beliefs 'really' are is fun.....we should try that 

[Burgold]

Guess I get stuck on all men are created equal with a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now, I know that isn't law, but it is the fundamental American spirit.

Should these peoples pursuit of happiness be impeded if it impacts my own? If that's the question then it becomes how does it impact mine versus how does it restrict theirs.

[Larry]

I think it's easier to distinguish actually.  There are groups provided protection under the law.  So a restaurant owner cant refuse to serve blacks.  But he can refuse to serve blacks whatever they want to eat if he doesnt already serve it.  I think there would also be protection for the restauranteur if he refused to serve a nazi, because nazi's arent a protected group.

At present, the restaurant owner is allowed to refuse to serve Nazis, or Eagles fans, or Trekkies.

(And, I assume, in Kansas, gays. Although I wouldn't be surprised if maybe some jurisdictions, within Kansas, have chosen to protect them.)

The only exception is if the government has passed a law, specifically making it illegal to discriminate against a particular group.

This law does not change that. It does not repeal a law that says "It's illegal to discriminate against gays", because there is no such law. Nor is there going to be, unless the legislature decides to pass one.

However, if the restaurant discriminates against Nazis, or Eagles fans, or Trekkies, those people do have the right to sue. (They don't have the right to WIN, but they have the right to sue.)

What this law does do, in fact, the only thing it does, is to single out discrimination against gay couples, for special protections and exemptions enjoyed by virtually no other acts in society.

(Well, unless you want to argue that passing a law that specifically says the "This thing which already isn't illegal, is legal" is something.)

[skinsmarydu]

Guess I get stuck on all men are created equal with a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now, I know that isn't law, but it is the fundamental American spirit.

Should these peoples pursuit of happiness be impeded if it impacts my own? If that's the question then it becomes how does it impact mine versus how does it restrict theirs.

This is what I have to beat my mom over the head with occasionally. If you want all of your freedoms, you must allow others to have theirs. Every single person has a different "pursuit of happiness", and as long as you don't have to yell "Get off my lawn!", you're probably gonna be OK.

And for the "I shouldn't have to see that" argument, you don't. Turn your head.

[Burgold]

There's a reason God invented blinking

Don't look at that!

[Larry]

Guess I get stuck on all men are created equal with a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now, I know that isn't law, but it is the fundamental American spirit.

Should these peoples pursuit of happiness be impeded if it impacts my own? If that's the question then it becomes how does it impact mine versus how does it restrict theirs.

I think it's a legit question, whether businesses should have the right to discriminate.

I've actually argued that I think they should be able to. With limitations. (I point at the Boy Scouts being only open to boys, and Hooter's only hiring young women with large . . . smiles. Yeah, that's discrimination. But it's part of their corporate identity, so to speak.)

And I think that, in a perfect world, it should be allowed. I try to always come down on the side of maximizing freedom.

But I think we've seen that, in reality, allowing that kind of thing, results in a very ugly world.

I wish these laws weren't necessary. But I think they are.

[The Evil Genius]

I'm curious, if ssm's aren't recognized in states that they didn't occur in, does that mean marriages that happened between, say..1st cousins or 15 year olds aren't recognized in other states too?

 

For example, in California there is no age limit but those under 18 must receive parental consent (or a judge's). So, if two 15 year-olds get married and move to Oregon (where the legal age is 17 with parental consent), does that mean Oregon can ignore their marriage?

 

Why? 

[Larry]

There's a reason God invented blinking

Don't look at that!

I try to use the analogy of "Your right to swing your arm, stops at the other guy's nose".

And, if two guys getting married hurts your nose, then your nose is somewhere it doesn't belong.

[twa]

I'm curious, if ssm's aren't recognized in states that they didn't occur in, does that mean marriages that happened between, say..1st cousins or 15 year olds aren't recognized in other states too?

 

For example, in California there is no age limit but those under 18 must receive parental consent (or a judge's). So, if two 15 year-olds get married and move to Oregon (where the legal age is 17 with parental consent), does that mean Oregon can ignore their marriage?

 

Why? 

 

the other states CAN refuse to recognize them,but rarely do.

the why is because it is a state's prerogative...or right.

 

it is similar in some ways to concealed carry permits, some states recognize another's as valid and binding in their state,others refuse them.

you get into the problem of another state legislating law to another if you do not allow the states sovereignty.

 

rights and powers are divided ,and it certainly complicates matters

[twa]

I try to use the analogy of "Your right to swing your arm, stops at the other guy's nose".

And, if two guys getting married hurts your nose, then your nose is somewhere it doesn't belong.

why does your analogy switch ?

 

your last sentence seems to show your right to swing means I need to move.

 

add

maybe a boxing analogy will work

 

you have the right to swing in the ring, but once out of the ring it changes....yet you still have the right to swing in certain circumstances.

 

the people of kansas are outside the ring by choice and right, yet still in the arena.

 

does it matter? 

[twa]

I'm curious, if ssm's aren't recognized in states that they didn't occur in, does that mean marriages that happened between, say..1st cousins or 15 year olds aren't recognized in other states too?

 

For example, in California there is no age limit but those under 18 must receive parental consent (or a judge's). So, if two 15 year-olds get married and move to Oregon (where the legal age is 17 with parental consent), does that mean Oregon can ignore their marriage?

 

Why? 

 requoting to add suggested reading if ya'll are interested

 

http://www.law2.byu.edu/isfl/saltlakeconference/papers/isflpdfs/Grossman.pdf

 

kind of a historical review as we as society progress in marriage law and conforming state differences

[Larry]

the people of kansas are outside the ring by choice and right, yet still in the arena.

Really? The State of Kansas is exempt from the Constitution's "full faith and credence" clause, AND from the 14th Amendment?

Is this kinda like Alberto Gonzales announcing that Texas is exempt from US Treaties, because Texas didn't sign the treaty?

[twa]

Really? The State of Kansas is exempt from the Constitution's "full faith and credence" clause, AND from the 14th Amendment?

Is this kinda like Alberto Gonzales announcing that Texas is exempt from US Treaties, because Texas didn't sign the treaty?

 

It kinda is....at least from certain interpretations

 

Do you happen to know who won that case?......score Texas 1 USA 0

 

 

if you read the link above it might help you understand full faith and credit is not binding in certain cases

it is even by a liberal SSM supporter

[Larry]

if you read the link above it might help you understand full faith and credit is not binding in certain cases

I understand it's not.

I don't understand exactly WHY it's not. For example, as I understand it, traffic tickets from one state have no effect in other states, unless the two states pass "reciprocity" laws, declaring that they WILL honer each other's tickets.

(This is why we had the classic movie joke of the Yankee kids getting caught in the southers speed trap, and winding up in jail for speeding: If the southern sheriff lets the kids go back to New York, then they can just ignore the ticket, and Georgia can't touch them. Therefore, said kids have to either pay the ticket, or post bail, or appear in traffic court (which is scheduled for a month from today), before they're allowed to leave the jurisdiction.)

This seems exactly the opposite of "full faith and credence", to me. The idea that laws stop at the border, unless states negotiate an agreement that says they don;t. I would think that, based on that constitutional clause, that the rule would be that all such cases DO apply to other states, unless there's a really good reason why not.

But I'm well aware that, while I don't understand WHY, lots of laws DO, in fact, stop at the state line.

I will now point out that my post mentioned TWO parts of the US Constitution. Curiously, your post only mentioned one of them.

[twa]

The 14th's application is certainly more disputed,yet the state certainly seems outside it since SCOTUS has so far acknowledged their power to define/restrict marriage.....even when they went so far as to overturn DOMA sec 3,they left sec 2 intact

 

the more interesting question to me is....are the citizens of that state still subject to the 14th applying in this specific case?

 

do you want my opinion or a wise latino justices? (we seem to concur so far)

 

add

 if ya want to know why on full faith and credit it is explained in the link(though even THAT is subject to change)

[Larry]

The 14th's application is certainly more disputed

Every single federal judge who has examined that question, disagrees with you.

In fact, The US Supreme Court ruled that the 14th prohibits states from using discrimination to deny marriages to all citizens. Decades ago. In Loving v. Virginia.

Now, if by "disputed", you mean "a bunch of politicians are trying really hard to claim that the words 'All persons' doesn't mean gays", that's another matter.

 

yet the state certainly seems outside it since SCOTUS has so far acknowledged their power to define/restrict marriage

And I see we're sticking with the "since the Supreme Court didn't rule on a question they weren't asked, and which had no bearing on the case they were considering, therefore I can make up whatever I want, and claim that they ruled it".

Please, quote for me the part of the SC ruling that ruled that the states have a constitutional right to give their citizens unequal treatment under the law.

I confess that I haven't read the whole thing. (It's 77 pages long. Here's the link.)

 

But, frankly, I find it really hard to swallow that the Court, when considering the case of two people who

 

a)  Were legally married in Canada.

  Were recognized as being legally married in their home state (New York)

c)  Were forced to be treated as being not married, by the federal government. 

 

would have any reason at all, to rule on whether a state has the power to discriminate against people. 

 

In the case at hand, the state wasn't discriminating against them, the federal government was. 

[twa]

Larry ,that sure was a lot of wasted typing 

 

why were those judges rulings stayed ?....the reason is plain

 

it could certainly change,but precedent rules until it does.....and the precedent is the state decides

 

Loving was to a specific group(as you well know) .......is it your contention everyone can marry under that ruling?

 

add

 

in the Windsor case doesn't the fact the state of NY recognized the marriage simply reinforce what I have said about the state determining?

 

 likewise when SCOTUS overturned DOMA sec 3 it reiterated the states prerogative on defining marriage as a basis/justification for doing so

[Larry]

Larry ,that sure was a lot of wasted typing 

 

why were those judges rulings stayed ?....the reason is plain

Ah, got it.

We've moved from "The Supreme Court has ruled that states are allowed to discriminate on who they allow to marry" to "well, some court cases haven't gone into effect, yet, therefore I get to invent whatever reason I want to, and claim it was because of that".

 

it could certainly change,but precedent rules until it does.....and the precedent is the state decides

 

Cite me this other precedent that you claim applies, then.  Since you've run away from your previous claim of a ruling, and all. 

 

(Anybody want to bet against my prediction that he runs away from this claim, too?  Anybody?) 

 

Loving was to a specific group(as you well know) .......is it your contention everyone can marry under that ruling?

 

 

Loving ruled that the 14th Amendment gave citizens the fundamental right to marry the person of their choice, and that this right may not be infringed based simply on discrimination. 

 

The 14th refers to "All persons" (Not "all races"), and states that ". . . nor shall any State . . .  deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 

 

Funny words, there.  "All persons". 

 

(And five out of five federal judges seem to think that includes gays, too.) 

[twa]

Larry see my add above

 

the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage

[Larry]

it could certainly change,but precedent rules until it does.....and the precedent is the state decides

Precedent is that states marry people AND THAT THEY MAY NOT REFUSE TO DO SO, BASED SIMPLY ON DISCRIMINATION.

I've cited you the Supreme Court ruling that said so, and the section of the constitution which the court said applied.

You've claimed Supreme Court rulings and precedents, and then run away when people ask you to quote where they said what you claimed.

[twa]

Larry ,IF what you claim is the WHOLE truth and not selective amnesia   how do you explain the current status quo?

 

I've granted you the possibility of it being decided in that manner in the future

 

I'll also state it is not likely.

 

I'll ask again....why were the recent rulings stayed?

 

you ignore....."the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage" has been pointed out repeatedly

 

you ignore....SCOTUS does not make law and both the law and constitution favor "the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage"

 

You ignore race is treated differently under the law than gender or sex in cases

 

[Larry]

Larry ,IF what you claim is the WHOLE truth and not selective amnesia how do you explain the current status quo?

The fact that we've been prejudiced for a long time?

Just a theory.

I'll ask again....why were the recent rulings stayed?

And I will refrain from making up things and claiming that the Supreme Court said them.

you ignore....SCOTUS does not make law and both the law and constitution favor "the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage"

I don't ignore it. I point out the specific Supreme Court case which proves that it isn't true.

And you keep trying to claim it, any way.

[twa]

The fact that we've been prejudiced for a long time?

Just a theory.

And I will refrain from making up things and claiming that the Supreme Court said them.

I don't ignore it. I point out the specific Supreme Court case which proves that it isn't true.

And you keep trying to claim it, any way.

 

 

We certainly have been prejudiced,and legally so unless ruled otherwise                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

The SCOTUS has repeatedly affirmed states right to determine who marries, I have even quoted them saying so in cases 

 

you want a ruling that what they have affirmed is legal?....seriously?

 

 your "proof" has a rather poor batting average

 

add

let's try this

 

do you believe SCOTUS states untruths while issuing decisions?

[Larry]

Yes, the SC has ruled, multiple times, that states are the people who marry people. 

 

They have NEVER stated that, therefore, they can discriminate against their citizens, when they do so. 

 

In fact, the one and only time they have addressed the matter, they ruled exactly the opposite. 

 

Now, you want to claim that "the SC has ruled that states have the power to marry people"?  I'm right there with you. 

 

You want to claim that "the SC has ruled that states can deny marriage for any reason they want, even when the US Constitution says otherwise"?  Quote something that says that.  Not just something that says "states marry people".