Cakegate to be decided by supremes

Can you link to the homeowner example? I can't find it.

 

I am not sure what you are talking about.
There is a substance and there is an artistic expression
You can't force people to invent or be creative against their will.
I thought is clear to everyone, but probably except people that preach perversions.

 

My sister in law served our country, pays taxes, and married a female. She is not enjoying "Special rights" just equal rights. Certainly, you can point a righteous finger in her direction and say there is no legitimate reason to recognize her legal rights as a spouse or a mother, but that doesn't change anything.

 

so what?
A lot of people serve and pay but has no rights for benefits and protections enjoyed by gays.
Equal right cannot be provided to two different groups that are not equal.
It seems like you are trying to impose false belief (nonsense) on general public.

 

Hate to break it to you guys, but Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. It generally applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including federal, state, and local governments.

Sexual orientation (homosexuality) ain't one of the protected classes, not at the federal level anyway.

 

I'm not convinced that you understand anything about the issue, actually. It seems to me that all you have is your declared opinion, and nothing to back it up.

 

Actually, every prohibition in the law does discriminate; that is to say, it recognizes a difference between what is allowed/required, and that which is not.

Your declaration that the prohibition against same-sex marriage recognition wasn't really discriminatory fails to address my actual question. You haven't identified the compelling interest of government served by that prohibition.

You've got it backwards. Scalia's dissent did not decide what the law requires or how it is to be applied - that's the domain of the majority opinion.

(and by the way, Obergefell wasn't just Tennessee; it was the culmination of cases from Michigan, Ohio - where Obergefell lived, Kentucky, and Tennessee.)

Your misplaced indignation is noted. I didn't ascribe to you an opinion that it should. My point is that government has no business limiting our choices without due cause, and they have none where same-sex marriage is concerned. We're back to my asking you to identify the compelling interest that would serve.

Now, I will acknowledge the fact that the Court didn't actually address this in the Obergefell ruling. They decided Obergefell on the issue of marriage being a fundamental right. While you might not agree that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry, it's not a popularity contest, and we aren't seeking your approval.

This asks us to pretend that two people uniting their separate households to build a life together as one is somehow the exclusive property of opposite-sex couples. Your so-called "defensible distinction" is built on a pretense I reject outright. Saying that our marriages aren't real marriages just because our relationships - our unrecognized marriages - haven't been understood or accepted throughout history, is like saying we should adhere to longstanding superstitions and prejudices based on their endurance alone. It demands that we acquiesce to millennia of abuse and continue to accept an inferior place in society. It makes 'freedom', 'justice', and 'equality' little more than empty words.

 

No, that was the state of marriage from the dawn of civilization up until the last 10-20 years.
From BC Roman law
Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
pater semper incertus est ("The father is always uncertain")
pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant ("the father is he to whom marriage points")

 

A Kentucky judge said it well-

Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, defines marriage as follows:

"A state of being married, or being united to a person or persons of the opposite sex as husband or wife; also, the mutual relation of husband and wife; wedlock; abstractly, the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence, for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family."

The Century Dictionary and Encyclopedia defines marriage as:

"The legal union of a man with a woman for life; the state or condition of being married; the legal relation of spouses to each other; wedlock; the formal declaration or contract by which a man and a woman join in wedlock."

Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, defines marriage as:

"The civil status, condition or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex."

It appears to us that appellants are prevented from marrying, not by the statutes of Kentucky or the refusal of the County Court Clerk of Jefferson County to issue them a license, but rather by their own incapability of entering into a marriage as that term is defined....
In substance, the relationship proposed by the appellants does not authorize the issuance of a marriage license because what they propose is not a marriage.

 

Marriage license isn't required for two people uniting their separate households to build a life together as one. Back in the old days, only an unrelated man and woman were prohibited by law from cohabitating in the same house. No laws prevented two dudes from shacking up together

 

A responsibility imposed by adoption or voluntarily assumed. Marriage only obligates a man, married to the woman who gives birth

 

The right to the free exercise of religion is written in the constitution. Any right to wedding cakes is a creation of city or state laws. I think the constitution should take precedence over state or city law.

 

Your relationships of course are real. And accepted. The names that you insist the rest of society agree to label them are often (as in this case) ridiculous. It's of a piece with boys insisting they be called girls and referred to as "she" or "zher" or whatever those preposterous labels that trans people assign to themselves. We aren't prejudiced, we are observant.

And it's not "endurance alone," though yes, tradition is an important part of it. And it's a tradition based on obvious differences in anatomy and reproductive roles, as well as religion. And as well as time-tested convention. And what is this "inferior place" yo refer to? You'd have a point if laws prohibited homosexuals from serving on juries or holding elective office. That's not where we are, and we never have been there in most of our lifetimes.

It is defensible if you have any respect for tradition, prescription, and culture, and you appear not to. Putting scare quotes around it doesn't impress me. You could mock anti-polygamy laws with the same tone. "What right does an assembly of old men have to tell me how many wives I can have? Oh, I see, because they were 'elected'?" (Yes, that's the reason, and you were allowed to voted in that election. You lost, so you asked 9 old lawyers to overrule the vote of millions.)

 

I did address it: the state doesn't have to identify a compelling interest for all discriminatory laws; just laws that discriminate against a suspect classification under the constitution or Title VII. This isn't one of them, so we needn't engage in a compelling interest analysis. The airlines don't have to identify a compelling interest in their discrimination against blind pilots because they aren't a protected class. If I were forced to identify that interest, it would be to respect a well-settled societal label for lifelong heterosexual relationships recognized and accepted by a society, as Dixon gave it to us above:

The Century Dictionary and Encyclopedia defines marriage as:

"The legal union of a man with a woman for life; the state or condition of being married; the legal relation of spouses to each other; wedlock; the formal declaration or contract by which a man and a woman join in wedlock."

Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, defines marriage as:

"The civil status, condition or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex."

It's etymology, not bigotry.

 

I found 2 by searching "homeowner refuses to host gay wedding"

 

The line in bold will haunt you through this discussion. Aside from that, please post one single right/benefit/protection enjoyed by gays only.

 

Marriage limited to men and women, because only men and women procreate, doesn't have to identify a compelling interest. That's why every court case on gay marriage from the 70s to late 90s was rejected by the courts.

The courts bought the absurd argument that in fact, marriage for 1000s of years wasn't limited to men and women because only they could produce children, and was instead so limited to exclude homosexuals with the intent to "disparage and injure" homosexuals. To do that, government needed a compelling interest to do so.

Is like arguing that US laws limiting marriage to just one spouse, is intended to "disparage and injure" Mormons, and therefore requires a compelling interest.

 

Full Definition of MATRIMONY
: the state of being married : marriage

Origin of MATRIMONY
Middle English, from Anglo-French matrimoignie, from Latin matrimonium, from matr-, mater mother, matron
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/matrimony

 

I like to fish. I was not born wanting to go offshore in the boat and fish but it's a chocie that I made.

If I get fired from my job, I cannot file a lawsuit claiming that fishingophbia was the reason for my termination and the govt and ACLU will not come running in to rescue me

If you replace fishing with gay-sex, which is also a choice about a specific activity and one is not born wanting gay-sex, then the rules change. The employer would be in a lot of trouble just on the accusation alone.

Please spare us the feigned ignorance you claim about the double standards when the gay-lifestyle is involved.

 

Funny to read a fishing example followed by a request to spare us from ignorance. Since no reasonable person would connect fishing to human sexuality, I will just assume you were attempting to draw attention from the real issue. Nice try. No one is born wanting to have sex of any kind.

Unless you would like to deny ever having a BJ (Sodomy) or having premarital sex, you are as guilty and are in no position to throw the first stone.

While the wise argue opinion, only a fool would argue fact. The fact is that it is unlawful to deny goods, services, employment, or housing based on ones religious beliefs. Allowing those same beliefs to be used to do it to others absolutely creates a double standard.

Since you are willing to travel great distances for an example, why not allow muslim business owners beat any woman showing skin!

 

Its a basic Maxin of Equal Protection law

The Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/310/141

 

Well, except as a heterosexual fan of sodomy and BJ's he could be denied a wedding cake by a Christian baker who doesn't like that sort of thing. While a homosexual fan of sodomy and BJ's COULD NOT be denied a wedding cake by a Christian baker who doesn't like that sort of thing. Or, if he was, he could be entitled to 100s of $1000s from the baker.
Always amusing, the cries for equal protection, when what they insist upon is UNEQUAL by design.

 

in other words, you cannot dispute that those who choose to have some gay-sex and live that lifestyle are provided special protections and accords.

I don't care that you have chosen to engage in sex differently than 98% of adults. Feel free to have as much gay sex as you wish. The issue is that your sexual act should not afford you special considerations and treatment

 

Moving the goal posts again? First its fishing and now special protections for gay sex??? Please post one special consideration, treatment, or protection exclusive to gay people. While you're at it, please post where you got the impression I have gay sex.

 

They are different, so they can't get special benefits.
gays enjoyed 1000 of benefits while relatives can't get even 10% of them.