[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
We’re talking about politicians at least threatening a private citizen(s) for wrong thought…[/quote]
The people who control all the guns, are now going to dictate where you spend your money and what you think. Super awesome.
How do people want to give this machine more power? How? [/quote]
NYC Mayor is now dictating how mother’s feed their babies. I thought that was a funny joke until I heard it was true.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
your a moron[/quote]
Oh Jesus.
The First Amendment clearly protects Chic-Fil-A and its President. Chicago and Rohm Emanuel will probably lose a civil suit under 42 U.S.C Section 1983, which provides a remedy for con-law violations committed by a City or a City’s official acting under color of state law because they are denying–or intend to deny–Chic-Fil-A business privileges expressly because of its protected activity. I think Chicago and Emanuel also have run afoul of the equal-protection clause, because they are treating Chic-Fil-A differently and denying–or intend to deny–it privileges and benefits based on a reason that does not further a legitimate state interest, i.e., for an irrational or arbitrary reason, and a reason that violates the First Amendment.
In the same way, the equal protection clause should prevent a state from denying same-sex couples the right to marry, because the reasons for denying them the right to marry are irrational and don’t further any legitimate state interest. The only justification for denying gay couples the right to marry are because the union supposedly runs afoul of traditional religious values, but the state does not have a legitimate role in imposing religious values on minority groups. This isn’t an issue that should be subject to a vote.
The bill of rights, including the 1st amendment (speech and expression, establishment clause, etc.) and 5th amendment (equal protection), are designed to protect unpopular minorities from the will of the majority and prevent the state from acting for illegitimate or irrational reasons, like imposing state-sponsored religious values on a minority, or denying people privileges and benefits for irrational, arbitrary, or impermissible reasons.
If you are standing up for Chic-Fil-A as a matter of principle, and believe in limited government, then you ought to be standing up for gay marriage for the exact same reason, and vis versa.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
the right to marry,[/quote]
Is marriage a right?
I mean, didn’t it start out a religious matter, and isn’t government’s sole roll in marriage basically property rights? (Well at least it should be.)
[quote] This isn’t an issue that should be subject to a vote.
The bill of rights, including the 1st amendment (speech and expression, establishment clause, etc.) and 5th amendment (equal protection), are designed to protect unpopular minorities from the will of the majority and prevent the state from acting for illegitimate or irrational reasons, like imposing state-sponsored religious values on a minority, or denying people privileges and benefits for irrational, arbitrary, or impermissible reasons. [/quote]
So who decides if something is irrational, arbitrary or impermissible? The minority? The majority? One or two judges? Bill Clinton?
I mean, I think you make good points and it is a good post, but that is because I agree with you, lol.
[quote]If you are standing up for Chic-Fil-A as a matter of principle, and believe in limited government, then you ought to be standing up for gay marriage for the exact same reason, and vis versa.
[/quote]
Well here is the thing. In my view governments sole role in marriage is property rights. Who owns what and when, who the kids belong with, what happens to person A’s stuff when they die, etc.
I have no problem with CFA’s president saying what he said, and I’m happy he did. Now people can make an informed choice as to whether to give him their dollars. If it hurt people’s feelings, oh well.
I also have no problem with gay people getting upset by what he said. They feel like denial of gay marriage is a violation of their civil rights, and this person supports that denial. If them being gay and getting married hurts people’s feelings, oh well.
I just get angry when the government starts trying to strong arm people or abuses it’s power in the name of equality, by eliminating the rights of one group for another.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
This whole fucking flap is for the benefit of the owner , he is laughing all the way to the bank. Who fucking care except Chic Fillet and the Religious Right ?[/quote]
Do you even actually understand the story? [/quote]
No I live under a rock , please explain it to me
[/quote]
Well, I’m perplexed. I just read a story, this one, about politicians in the US of A attempting to use the power of government to stamp out a business in the area for, well, wrong-thought. In the United States of America…And you don’t care? You really don’t care about that level of power? The power to punish, ruin, and crush…thought? We’re not talking about the gay-kisser protestors, or whatever the idiots call themselves. We’re talking about politicians at least threatening a private citizen(s) for wrong thought…[/quote]
Oh my we never had that before but I guess it is important because it is happening to the group that likes to impose their will on others 
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
This whole fucking flap is for the benefit of the owner , he is laughing all the way to the bank. Who fucking care except Chic Fillet and the Religious Right ?[/quote]
Do you even actually understand the story? [/quote]
No I live under a rock , please explain it to me
[/quote]
Well, I’m perplexed. I just read a story, this one, about politicians in the US of A attempting to use the power of government to stamp out a business in the area for, well, wrong-thought. In the United States of America…And you don’t care? You really don’t care about that level of power? The power to punish, ruin, and crush…thought? We’re not talking about the gay-kisser protestors, or whatever the idiots call themselves. We’re talking about politicians at least threatening a private citizen(s) for wrong thought…[/quote]
Oh my we never had that before but I guess it is important because it is happening to the group that likes to impose their will on others
[/quote]
Why don’t you give us an example of republican leadership that tried to shut down someone for disagreeing with a politically correct point.
Go ahead pitt…
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-20080237.html
http://open.salon.com/blog/douglas_moran/2012/02/25/republicans_and_birth_control
both Republicans and Democrats are guilty in the last
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-20080237.html
http://open.salon.com/blog/douglas_moran/2012/02/25/republicans_and_birth_control
both Republicans and Democrats are guilty in the last [/quote]
These are your examples? (shaking head)
Not including free birth control on insurance plans?
Keeping drugs out of the hands of children?
Comparing this to a Mayor trying to close down a fast food chaing because the owner believes in Christian values?
Sheesh Pitt…you should just stop trying.
So if it was “creeping fascism” when private citizens denounced the Dixie Chicks for anti-war statements, what’s it called when an elected official acting in his governmental capacity threatens to use state power to harm the interests of a private concern that won’t support gay marriage?
Never again be confused - left-wingers* are not interested in justice, they are only interested in politics. There are no overarching priniples that should apply to everyone in broad strokes - there are only advantages that apply to those people who share their views, and disadvantages that should apply to those who don’t.
*Not to be confused with liberals, although it’s hard to find them as much
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I hope all this causes them to go out of business or at least lose a lot of money. Today obviously good for profits but its only 1 day.[/quote]
Look no further than this for the ideal paragon of left-wing tolerance and champion of freedom of conscience.
These Chik-fil-A supporters - nothing a few re-education camps wouldnt fix, aye Comrade Sufiandy?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Deal? If we put it up to popular vote can both sides promise to take the results and STFU? Such a tired non-issue that is never going to have pro/con find middle ground.[/quote]
Makes sense. Let’s allow the majority to decide an issue that affects a minority. We probably should have done the same with slavery. Popular opinion does not equal justice.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Makes sense. Let’s allow the majority to decide an issue that affects a minority. We probably should have done the same with slavery. Popular opinion does not equal justice. [/quote]
Every issue decided by a majority affects a minority, unless the legislation is unanimously approved.
So, left-wingers aren’t fans of democracy, it turns out? Good to know. Let’s have a good cry and get it out there. Admission is the first step.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Makes sense. Let’s allow the majority to decide an issue that affects a minority. We probably should have done the same with slavery. Popular opinion does not equal justice. [/quote]
Every issue decided by a majority affects a minority, unless the legislation is unanimously approved.
So, left-wingers aren’t fans of democracy, it turns out? Good to know. Let’s have a good cry and get it out there. Admission is the first step.[/quote]
And it seems that right-wingers aren’t fans of the rights of individuals.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
And it seems that right-wingers aren’t fans of the rights of individuals. [/quote]
So you are conceding the left is anti-democracy?
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Deal? If we put it up to popular vote can both sides promise to take the results and STFU? Such a tired non-issue that is never going to have pro/con find middle ground.[/quote]
Makes sense. Let’s allow the majority to decide an issue that affects a minority. We probably should have done the same with slavery. Popular opinion does not equal justice. [/quote]
I’m not really sure that the state not recongnizing gay marriage is equal to, or comparable to, enslaving people.
Funny you speak about justice, because either side’s justice would be the other’s injustice.
I’m looking for compromise, you know, that thing everyone has to do in their life to get along with the other 7 billion people on Earth.
So if democracy is out of the question, what is the solution then?
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
And it seems that right-wingers aren’t fans of the rights of individuals. [/quote]
Is freedom to marry whom ever you want a right?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m not really sure that the state not recongnizing gay marriage is equal to, or comparable to, enslaving people.[/quote]
That’s because it isn’t. Not even remotely. State not recognizing, arranging, ordering, and promoting a private and individual relationship? Well, we keep hearing how it’s a private expression of an individual’s rights…So, it’s only appropriate that the government not recognize it. It’s a private act without critical and irreplaceable implications for society as a whole. The government is presently treating it as a private expression, by not recognizing it.
Compare that to slavery? Give me a break.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I hope all this causes them to go out of business or at least lose a lot of money. Today obviously good for profits but its only 1 day.[/quote]
You hope he goes out of business because he doesn’t like gay marriage? Oh brother. The man isn’t entitled to have his own opinion if it’s different than yours?
Here’s a hint, most people are against it. Where ever it’s been a ballot initiative, it got shot down in flames in even in the most liberal places in the country. If you were to not shop where people are against gay marriage you wouldn’t go anywhere. The only places it’s been legalized is where the judicial branch jumped in an legislated from the bench. For as much noise as it’s constantly gets, it’s a very, very unpopular initiative, period.
A lot of liberal pundits say that it’s going to fall like dominoes, but I am not so sure because the public is largely against it, even lots of democrats. It’s this unpopularity that makes me think it will always be a marginal thing.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Compare that to slavery? Give me a break.[/quote]
It’s the ultimae trump card. When someone disagrees with you on a political topic, equate your stance with being morally equivalent to abolition of slavery and slander your opponent as a tacit supporter of slavery.
Set aside that it is stupid and representative of a dull intelligence. They think it works.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
the right to marry,[/quote]
Is marriage a right?
I mean, didn’t it start out a religious matter, and isn’t government’s sole roll in marriage basically property rights? (Well at least it should be.)
[quote] This isn’t an issue that should be subject to a vote.
The bill of rights, including the 1st amendment (speech and expression, establishment clause, etc.) and 5th amendment (equal protection), are designed to protect unpopular minorities from the will of the majority and prevent the state from acting for illegitimate or irrational reasons, like imposing state-sponsored religious values on a minority, or denying people privileges and benefits for irrational, arbitrary, or impermissible reasons. [/quote]
So who decides if something is irrational, arbitrary or impermissible? The minority? The majority? One or two judges? Bill Clinton?
I mean, I think you make good points and it is a good post, but that is because I agree with you, lol.
[quote]If you are standing up for Chic-Fil-A as a matter of principle, and believe in limited government, then you ought to be standing up for gay marriage for the exact same reason, and vis versa.
[/quote]
Well here is the thing. In my view governments sole role in marriage is property rights. Who owns what and when, who the kids belong with, what happens to person A’s stuff when they die, etc.
I have no problem with CFA’s president saying what he said, and I’m happy he did. Now people can make an informed choice as to whether to give him their dollars. If it hurt people’s feelings, oh well.
I also have no problem with gay people getting upset by what he said. They feel like denial of gay marriage is a violation of their civil rights, and this person supports that denial. If them being gay and getting married hurts people’s feelings, oh well.
I just get angry when the government starts trying to strong arm people or abuses it’s power in the name of equality, by eliminating the rights of one group for another. [/quote]
I wouldn’t say marriage is a right per say, but it is a benefit. Once the government confers a benefit, the equal protection clause (at least the way equal protection had been interpreted) says you can’t deny that benefit to a class or suspect class of persons for impermissible reasons. I also agree that the state’s business is in regulating and deciding property rights, but once you tie those rights into a system and call it marriage, I don’t think you can deny entrance into that system for suspect, irrational, or religious reasons. Its just like a business license, a person does not necessarily have a “right” to a business license, but the state can’t deny a person one for impermissible or arbitrary reasons.
Who decides? Article III ultimately gives the Supreme Court the right to decide what is and isn’t constitutional. People get to vote on lots of stuff, but they can’t vote to take away basic con-law rights like the right to equal protection. Its not a perfect system, but that’s the system.