1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Where do these nutty ideas come from?

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Fred Sherman, Jan 26, 2012.

  1. Fred Sherman

    Fred Sherman Well-Known Member


    Seriously? Why is there even a question about this?

    This is the Pandora's Box that should never be opened. What we end up is a restaurant that doesn't seat gay couples, another that doesn't serve interracial and another as a "whites only"?

    You are either open to the public, or you are not. Plain and simple.

    Forget the idea that, "Its my business, I can do what I want." Oh yeah? Try doing it without your business license, occupancy license and health inspection? You are not an island unto yourself.

    Owning a business is not an excuse for exercising personal bigotry.

    I would revoke the business license, occupancy license, liquor license and even the fishing license of any business that refuses service to any potential patron for any reason other than valid cause. Drunk and disorderly - valid; gay - not a valid reason.

    There are times when I don't recognize this country as the same one that I left body parts around the world defending. The Cayman Islands is looking pretty good right now.
    Phil Conway, Peggy, Renada and 7 others like this.
  2. jadmperry

    jadmperry Well-Known Member


    From many of your posts, I think we disagree on many points. However, it is great to see that we can agree on this point. I think you are spot on here.

    Not sure anyone/everyone would agree, but it seems to me to be an issue of fundamental rights and human dignity. Contrary positions sound, at some level, in appeals to bigotry and small mindedness. Practice what you like in your own home and dealings. But open a public accommodation and you should be neutral in your being open to the public.
    Peggy, Renada, jmurrayhead and 3 others like this.
  3. Steve F

    Steve F Well-Known Member

    Mostly everything could be solved in such ways.
    Peggy likes this.
  4. EQnoble

    EQnoble Well-Known Member

    It is the same old 'don't you throw your junk in my backyard'....except in the current times, a lot of people forgot that we all have a different idea of junk...and people also forget where their backyard ends.

    (I thought New Hampshire was all about 'live free or die'?)
  5. Luke F

    Luke F Well-Known Member

    Wow. Whoever proposed this is either incredibly homophobic or very narrow minded with regard to the consequences.
  6. EQnoble

    EQnoble Well-Known Member

    Or someone saw it as a way to keep the general population's attention occupied while some other crap that could totally wreck everyone's freedoms and rights is happening out of the spotlight...

    It doesn't seem logical that a politician would think this would fly...
  7. Onimua

    Onimua Well-Known Member

    Reading some of the comments are amusing and scary. They seem all for it but what if they were on the receiving end and not serviced because the owner thought they were ugly or some other detail that has no relation to whether or not they are behaving/paying customers?
    No one's stopping him from believing what he wants though I get the impression he views it that way, but he's okay with projecting that belief on other people in a public setting and making them conform to it. Seriously? o_O
  8. EQnoble

    EQnoble Well-Known Member

    Well the only way it would be religious freedom is if that was an established place pertaining to certain faiths (a Catholic eatery LOL)..if it is a public restaurant it is not the place to impose your faith and belief on someone...there are gay people...deal with it...if your religion says gay is bad and you can't deal with that you should not leave your house because you would be known as a ticking time bomb.

    The only instance I can see being even somewhat valid is a place that deals with wedding receptions...because (at least for Catholics ) if a venue were to host a shindig for a gay couple, they could stand to lose the nest egg of wedding receptions because of the opinion of the greater part of their client base. But still... if your not a church you can't discriminate because of religious views so I just see this ending with groups pitted against groups many who have nothing to do with this issue...and people making a laughing stock out of the state that is supposedly all about live free or die.
  9. dutchbb

    dutchbb Well-Known Member

    Government should stay out, the customer has the right to sue in case of discrimination. I don't see any need for more regulation.
  10. jadmperry

    jadmperry Well-Known Member

    Not to be pedantic, but appreciate the difference between a priori regulation and post hoc discrimination suits. As a general matter, post hoc suits would impose higher administrative costs on everyone. If the discrimination is, as a matter of law, illegal, then setting this out clearly reduces costs on everyone.

    Your suggestion suggests a case by case determination of wrongs. While in some cases, this may make sense, if it is in fact illegal to discriminate in serving gay couples (or more specifically, in the case of the facts of the NH proposed law, those whose marriages you disagree with), then making people sue on an individual basis does not make sense from an efficiency point of view. (There are a ton of issues that are implicated here- the fact that a law is being proposed may, in fact suggest that current law does not permit this type of "discrimination"...not to mention massive costs imposed by individual suits against businesses that cite this law as a reason to deny service; in reality, if this law were to be passed, the costs in defending the suits would likely bankrupt any small business that relied on it to deny service to any one)
  11. Fred Sherman

    Fred Sherman Well-Known Member

    Religious freedom, or any freedom, is a shield, not a sword.

    Since you bring up Catholics, lets go with that. The Knights of Columbus, a private Catholic organization, cannot be compelled to hold a wedding reception for a gay couple. That would violate their religious freedom.

    On the other hand, a public business (and yes, businesses are public by nature of their license) who happens to be a Catholic, cannot discriminate against that same couple. That would be using your religious beliefs as a sword, and using them to violate the civil rights of the couple.

    I don't understand how the concept of "rights" has gotten so warped and misused.

    So lets wander down the gay marriage path a bit.

    I'm Catholic, so I don't believe any Catholic Church should ever be forced to perform or recognize a gay marriage. But if Methodists want to do that, then so be it.

    So what role should the government have in this? None.

    The government can't establish gay marriage as a "right" without trampling on the religious rights of those faith communities that reject it. Conversely, the Defense of Marriage Act rightly failed for the same reason. This is the place for the Federal government to say "not our business, we aren't getting involved".

    The only role of government is at the state level as to whether or not they will permit same-sex civil marriages (i.e. the JP). And states should be free to act according to the wishes of their people. But even then, only with respect to civil marriages.

    For example. A gay couple in Texas wants the JP to marry them. Nope. But they go to the Episcopal Church and the minister performs the wedding. They are now married and the state of texas must respect that.

    A couple moves to Texas from California where they did receive a civil marriage. The State of texas does not have to respect that. There is no requirements for reciprocity. But in both cases, the neutrality of the federal government requires that they respect both marriages.

    Religious freedom trumps states rights. States rights trumps federalism. It should be that easy.
  12. jadmperry

    jadmperry Well-Known Member

    Your post is mostly right (meaning I agree with most of the reasoning). However, a wildcard is whether sexual orientation is a protected class under Federal law. If so, then it changes the legal analysis. There are some cases (under challenges to DADT, and also in California marriage case) that suggest that Constitutional protection as a protected class extends to sexual orientation (and thus enjoys strict scrutiny Constitutional analysis). In that case, Federal law will trump State law (though, there is a concurrent issue as to whether State Constitutional analysis would extend the same protections either in the presence or absence of Federal Constitutional strict scrutiny analysis).

    It will likely take many years until we have an answer to any or all of the above issues. In the meantime, I agree with your common sense analysis, above.
  13. Fred Sherman

    Fred Sherman Well-Known Member

    Dangerous road to go down. Lets play devil's advocate and say sexual orientation IS a protected class. Sexual orientation isn't limited to gender at all. There is age-based, species based. Are you ready to extend protected class status to NAMBLA?

    Or do you draw the distinction that we do as Catholics. You are protected for who you are, but not in what you do. So, we won't deny you the right to eat in our restaurant because you have a thing for young boys, but act our your orientation, and we throw you in jail.

    Which then creates a separation of protection. Your are protected in your being - which I believe everyone is as basic human dignity (i.e don't beat up the gay kid for being gay), but not in your actions. So gays would be protected for being gay, but would not enjoy protection in acting upon their orientation, such as marriage.

    That is how I see it. You don't deny someone, say a mortgage for a house for example, because they are gay. However, acts consistent with that orientation (or any other) are not protected.

    In Catholic terms, we call that loving the sinner but hating the sin. Its a very nuanced position that I readily admit most Catholics aren't able to properly implement.
  14. jadmperry

    jadmperry Well-Known Member

    This is not as problematic as you suspect. The "strict scrutiny" analysis would still allow regulation/punishment for rape (minors can't consent to sexual acts). The same analysis that allows for conviction for statutory rape would apply to homosexuals as it currently does for heterosexuals (well, to both currently, as there is no distinction based on sex or orientation). Neither age of majority, nor species are protected classes, so under your hypothetical, the extension of protected class status to homosexuals would not be implicated.

    A closer issue, though, I think still not problematic, is a hypothetical extension of protected class status to "plural marriage." However, for reasons way too complicated to get into in a forum post, I think this would not come to pass or be a viable basis for protected class status (it can edge into circular argument, but the easiest disposal of this issue comes as to traditional marriage as a contract between two persons theory- like I said, it can sound like a circular argument, but, I also think that the underpinnings of "protected class" theory would reject polygamy as a class enjoying strict scrutiny protections. There are numerous other reasons why polygamists would not get protected class status, but, it would take way too much time to explain the accepted arguments why this is true, so I will skip it).

    All that said, don't mistake the policy argument ("something make sense from a policy point of view") from Constitutional law (which provides a framework for analyzing an issue and drives the outcome). The two sometimes conflict (take the electoral college, for example. Plenty of people hate the idea- but its in the Constitution, so unless it is amended, that's what we have in our system).
  15. Fred Sherman

    Fred Sherman Well-Known Member

    This appears to be a self-defeating argument for any proponent of gay marriage. The right to marry someone of the opposite gender extends universally to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. Furthermore, if the government has the option to strictly limit "marriage" to the union of two persons, that is also has the authority to define the gender of those two persons if it so wishes. To say the government can define marriage as only two persons but not as a male and female is an arbitrary limit with no basis in law, correct?

    So based on that, the federal government has no business in deciding this issue one way or another. It should respect the religious doctrine of faiths that do permit gay marriage as well as those that do not, requiring states to recognize those unions under the doctrine of religious freedom regardless of their laws on civil same sex unions and, at the same time, allow each state to decide its own civil same-sex marriage position under the 10th Amendment.

    And here's the net result. Gay marriage would be permitted in every state as a religious ceremony. At the end of the day, its an issue that gets put to bed in a way that neither liberal nor conservative can gripe about.
  16. jadmperry

    jadmperry Well-Known Member

    It depends if you define sexual orientation as a protected class or not.
    The premise defines the outcome. Not accusing you of arguing this, but for illustrative purposes, take pre-Loving v. Virginia position that marriage between races was illegal. The argument went, blacks are free to marry blacks, whites are free to marry whites, just not each other, so no problem. No go, says SCOTUS:
    "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

    Without going into an explanation of what "strict scrutiny" entails, it is a limit on what the government can do- in this case restrict marriage. So, the better way to think about it is not in terms of rights of homosexuals to marry (though, that may well be the outcome), but rather as a limit on what the government can regulate.

    That is a policy argument, one that I don't need to address (it is fine, has its plusses and minusses in my opinion, but is irrelevant IF, as we are discussing, strict scrutiny applies to homosexuals...I tend to think it does, but this is not clear in the law by any means).

    Now, I am not sure which way you are arguing here, but, because of anti-establishment clause, there is no chance that religious marriage would be compelled. Remember, the issue under strict scrutiny is solely limited to what the government can act on (or not act on). There is no tension with government ever "ordering" religious marriages of homosexuals. The only issue is what the law will recognize; has no bearing, and cannot, on ordering religions to recognize or celebrate anything (now, there may be some fuzzy edges- would a Catholic owned motel be required to extend "married room rates" to both hetero and homosexual couples equally? This could become an issue- assuming, like I wrote before, IF sexual preference is a protected class).
  17. DRE

    DRE Well-Known Member

    nh? What's the nh stand for? no homo?
  18. EQnoble

    EQnoble Well-Known Member

    I have to laugh at that because for like 2 years people felt the need to suffix every sentence with that like it needed specifying...someone could be at the ball court and want to tell someone to grab them a bag containing basketballs and the sentence would come out like ...'yo grab me that bag of balls no homo.'. I always thought that was a funny yet stupid thing to say... it even got to the point where people were throwing it on the end of known figures of speech, aka...'He hit the nail on the head no homo'.

    I laugh but to me it sums up the point of this whole thing...a lot of people are homophobic and think their way of life is the only right one.

    Again I am sorry for having to laugh at that but I have heard the 'no homo' thing so many times that I thought I would have to choke-slam myself if I heard it again...but I didn't, I have to admit I laughed.

    As a person who doesn't live in new hampshire but lives close and knows a lot of folk up north I would say that people there are forgetting that to 'live free or die' does not mean 'Live free like me or go die somewhere else.' All the people protesting this don't realize the severity of what they are arguing for...a state that wants to represent living free to the point that it is on their license plates...should not be trying to keep someone from living freely...I understand religious views and all that from the point of view of a lapsed catholic, but if someone is truly religious and the homosexuals in question are not forcing people to change their lifestyle so they can have theirs their is no problem. In fact it is the religious people in this case that are trying to force people to act differently which is inconsistent with acceptance and forgiveness...and whatever a person's reasons they have for not liking what they see...they forget that their religion is in a state that has freedoms...and they are making a mockery of their own names right now.
  19. DRE

    DRE Well-Known Member

    I think that when most people use no homo as a suffix, I don't think they do it out of homophobia but more out of humor.
  20. EQnoble

    EQnoble Well-Known Member

    Well it depends but you are right to a point...in reality most who use the suffix are not homophobic...but if someone says something that walks them into a joke and they get clowned for using a reference that could be misinterpreted as something one gay person might say to another ...a joke is made with no real harm intended but the underlying fact of it is the reference of gay in correlation with something worth clowning someone over which displays an emotion that gay is bad whether or not the people using the words feel that way.

    I know that is not the point in saying no homo at all....which is why abbreviation of the state and your version of it was pretty funny to me but to someone from outside of the circles that used that terminology it would mean something totally different...one could interpret it as not liking gays where the point is making a joke of an awkward scenerio where a hetero says something that they think a homo would say because having to say no homo if you say something that might be considered 'gay' signifies a dislike or fear of that orientation.

    You and I both know that it is not said to bash gay people...but from an outside prospective some may consider it to only be that.

Share This Page