Proposition 8 same sex marriage ban poll

[quote name='UncleBob']I have to agree with him though. If it's my business, I should be allowed to freely choose which customers I want to serve - just as the customers are allowed to freely choose which businesses they want to be served by.[/QUOTE]

Except you can't. Its illegal to refuse someone services based on something arbitrary like sexual orientation.

Good try, though.
 
[quote name='VioletArrows']With blackjack and hookers? You say that as if anyone can just pull a multi billion dollar industry out of their ass.[/QUOTE]

Wow... Creating a business is hard work... who would have thought that. Now, pretend you spent all your money and all your time creating a building a business up from scratch and now the government is going to come in and tell you who you have to associate with in your business dealings.

[quote name='ninju D']Except you can't. Its illegal to refuse someone services based on something arbitrary like sexual orientation.

Good try, though.[/QUOTE]

It's also illegal for homosexual couples to get married in California. I guess that the law is the law and we should blindly abide by it - never questioning and never challenging it.

Sorry lilboo - you're SOL.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It's also illegal for homosexual couples to get married in California. I guess that the law is the law and we should blindly abide by it - never questioning and never challenging it.

Sorry lilboo - you're SOL.[/QUOTE]

Since when was believing in civil rights strictly a liberal point of view?
 
[quote name='ninju D']Since when was believing in civil rights strictly a liberal point of view?[/QUOTE]

Since "Civil Rights" were expanded to the point where they trampled on the rights of private property owners and their freedom to associate with individuals of their picking.

See, the Constitution clearly defines an individual's right to own and defend property. It also protects an individual's right to choose who they wish to associate with. However, no where in the Constitution does it give the government the right to spit at these key principles and require a private individual to do business with another individual or allow that individual onto his/her property.

And before anyone pulls out the 14th Amendment, be sure to go back and read it carefully.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090601/ap_on_re_us/us_cheney

[quote name='Cheney']"I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone," Cheney said in a speech at the National Press Club. "I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."[/quote]

Ok, cool. Finally, equality for ALL.

[quote name='Cheney']"And I think that's the way it ought to be handled today, that is, on a state-by-state basis. Different states will make different decisions. But I don't have any problem with that. I think people ought to get a shot at that," he said."[/quote]

Erm... wait... so make up your mind, or are we going to put gays and indians together then... ?
 
[quote name='von551']It's not about stopping people from being gay, it's about them trying to redefine the definition of marriage. They claim they had their right to be married taken away when it never was their right and shouldn't have been. three activist judges took it up themselves to overturn millions of citizen's votes after being influenced by Gavin Newsom, governor of San Francisco. a man who cheated on his ex with his good friend's wife, a man who clearly doesn't understand the definition of true marriage. how socialist can you be when you think it's ok for the government to overrule the people's vote? whether you agree with the decision or not, you can't be ok with the government not obeying the people. Doesn't the Constitution start out with "We the people"? Interesting. Again the government is considering overturning millions of votes, what's the point of voting if we're truly a country being run like a monarchy? Democracy: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections[/QUOTE]

How socialist can you be when you think it's ok for the government to overrule individual rights because the majority said so?
 
[quote name='ninju D']Except you can't. Its illegal to refuse someone services based on something arbitrary like sexual orientation.

Good try, though.[/QUOTE]

Did you miss the word "should" in his post?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I have to agree with him though. If it's my business, I should be allowed to freely choose which customers I want to serve - just as the customers are allowed to freely choose which businesses they want to be served by.[/QUOTE]

Except you don't have that freedom. Not in toto, at any rate.

Sorry, Charlie.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Except you don't have that freedom. Not in toto, at any rate.

Sorry, Charlie.[/QUOTE]

The Constitution guarantees my right to freely associate with individuals of my choosing. I do have that right - even if courts would deny it.
 
[quote name='lilboo']It's funny though. It's really easy to say no to the minority, but what if it was the other way around?
Let's say Civil Unions became national, and to make all the lunatics happy..it WASN'T equal to marriage.

HOWEVER: All Civil Unions were granted free healthcare by the Government. ;)

So how many here would be PISSED? ;)[/QUOTE]


I'm sorry but how is this equal protection for all? Treating couples differently than individuals is also unequal protection, by law.

And let's clarify that nothing provided by the government is "free."


And Myke, you're just an asshole sometimes. Really. We all know of your blatant disdain for liberty and individual rights, so please stop pretending to be their defender by calling real liberals racists. You have no intention of letting any man, black, brown, or purple, think for himself and make free choices as long as your government can make the right choices for him.

What you really hate is that you don't yet have that sadistic, legislative control of every citizen, their thoughts, and actions. It's the modern "liberal", fascist view that's nearly identical to the views of your enemies.
 
Amazing, people who argue the merits of torture only see freedom in terms of how much interaction they are "forced" to have with brown people.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']:whee:[/QUOTE]

My argument is the same as the argument for same-sex marriage. The Federal Government should not be in the business of telling people who they can and cannot associate with. I'm not sure why that's so confusing.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Amazing, people who argue the merits of torture only see freedom in terms of how much interaction they are "forced" to have with brown people.[/QUOTE]

Amazing. I can say torture is immoral and unjustified and you can completely ignore that.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I have to agree with him though. If it's my business, I should be allowed to freely choose which customers I want to serve - just as the customers are allowed to freely choose which businesses they want to be served by.[/quote]

[quote name='ninju D']Except you can't. Its illegal to refuse someone services based on something arbitrary like sexual orientation.

Good try, though.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='rickonker']Did you miss the word "should" in his post?[/quote]

[quote name='mykevermin']Except you don't have that freedom. Not in toto, at any rate.

Sorry, Charlie.[/QUOTE]

I find it amusing that two people made almost identical, incorrect responses. And one of them was just criticizing another CAG's reading comprehension skills.

Seriously, compare the sentences in the two posts, one at a time.

Except you can't. Except you don't have that freedom.

Its illegal to refuse someone services based on something arbitrary like sexual orientation. Not in toto, at any rate.

Good try, though. Sorry, Charlie.​


Coincidence? Or religious influence, perhaps?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']My argument is the same as the argument for same-sex marriage. The Federal Government should not be in the business of telling people who they can and cannot associate with. I'm not sure why that's so confusing.[/QUOTE]

Do you have the right?

Or should the government not be in the business of blah blah blah?

Get your story straight. You're telling me two different things are the case.

rickoncker: selective piss-taking posts since...whenever he joined. I couldn't be arsed to actually look. When you have someone say "I DO HAVE THAT RIGHT - EVEN IF THE COURTS WOULD DENY IT" - and you instead focus on the heavy petting you've got going on with his word "should," you're just being a cunt for the sake of being a cunt.

Let me make a corollary argument: I have the right to murder you and your family, shit in your microwave, steal your xbox, eat all your food, and blow up your house - even if the courts would deny it.

If you don't take issue with that claim, you'd be a goddamned fool. More of one, at any rate.

Nevertheless, you dance right over UncleBob's claim that he has the right to ignore the various and myriad bits of civil rights and antidiscriminatory legislation passed throughout US history, AND THAT THE COURT, AND THUS THE LAW, ARE IN THE WRONG. You dance right over that and float safely down to "should" island, where you can rest haughtily on a foundation of being a complete and utter cunt focused on one semantic fucking phrase.

Make a real claim and don't hide behind such a weak-ass argument.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']Do you have the right?
[...]
Nevertheless, you dance right over UncleBob's claim that he has the right to ignore the various and myriad bits of civil rights and antidiscriminatory legislation passed throughout US history, AND THAT THE COURT, AND THUS THE LAW, ARE IN THE WRONG.[/QUOTE]

Isn't this pretty much the basis of this entire thread - the law and the courts are wrong and that homosexuals should have the right to marry? Or am I wrong?
 
As long as your claim is that the constitution guarantees you the right to ensure people aren't necessarily equal, as that appears to be your point of contention.
 
Where did I say that people are not necessarily equal? Find me anywhere I said that.

Otherwise, stop putting words in my mouth and admit your argument has absolutely no merit.
 
You insist upon your right to discriminate. That involves inherent inequality.

Stop dodging the point that your desire to discriminate is not a Constitutionally-guaranteed right.
 
I'll stop dodging the point you're trying to make if you stop putting words into my mouth, then trying to argue against things I didn't say. :)

Do you disagree that the Constitution provides an individual with legal rights to own and protect property?

Do you disagree that the Constitution provides an individual with legal rights to choose who they wish to associate with?
 
The fuck does any of the right to service shit have to do with two gay guys wanting to enter into a marriage that's legally recognized by the state and nation?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Do you disagree that the Constitution provides an individual with legal rights to choose who they wish to associate with?[/QUOTE]

As a private citizen, you have those rights.

As a business, you do not.
 
[quote name='JJSP']The fuck does any of the right to service shit have to do with two gay guys wanting to enter into a marriage that's legally recognized by the state and nation?[/QUOTE]

It was discussed earlier in this thread about the differences between "Marriage" and "Civil Union" - the biggest being that some perks are given to married couples and not to couples in a "union" - like insurance.

My point is that a private company should have a right to enter into business agreements with individuals of their own choosing - just as private individuals have a right to determine which companies they wish to do business with.

[quote name='mykevermin']He don't want no queers sittin' at his woolworth's lunch counter.[/QUOTE]

Continue to make comments like this and you better never hope I see your ass in real life. I like to think we can have a civil debate in regards to the rights we have - and should have - as US Citizens without you resorting to name calling.

Just because I believe individuals should have a right to choose who they allow on to their property or who they wish to associate with, it does not mean I'm a racist or a bigot or any such thing.

Likewise, I believe individuals should be allowed to have an abortion. Personally, I'm fully against it.
I believe individuals should have a right to assisted suicide - although I can't see myself going through with it or assisting someone else.
I believe in the state's right to administer the death penalty - although I can't imagine myself in a situation where I would ever ask for someone who has hurt me to be put to death.

If you want to have a discussion about our rights, then we can continue. If you want to call me names, then my personal cell phone number is - as always - in my signature. Call it, I'll give you my address and you can at least do it to my face.

[quote name='mykevermin']As a private citizen, you have those rights.

As a business, you do not.[/QUOTE]

So, you believe, as a business, you give up your rights?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']
So, you believe, as a business, you give up your rights?[/QUOTE]
If you provide a service to the public, rely on small business loans provided and funded by public institutions, and collect and pay taxes from the public and to the government, you accept the limitation that you can't turn someone away just because of skin tone/orientation/sex/whatever. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is a nice concept to those who want to pretend they're allowed to be dicks, but it'd never hold up legally and is a horrible business practice.

You're not giving them up completely - don't cry wolf over something like that and let's get back to the topic, gay marriage.

Ain't got no problem with them man-snugglers getting married. Ain't got no problem them registering at the local Bed, Bath, & Beyond either.
 
[quote name='JJSP']If you provide a service to the public,[/QUOTE]

A business isn't "providing a service to the public", per say. They're entering a business deal with private individuals. If we're talking about a Public Utility or such, then I'd agree. If we're talking about the Dollar General or your grandpappy's yard sale, then I'd say no.

[quote name='JJSP']rely on small business loans provided and funded by public institutions,[/quote]

If the funding comes from private resources (say, a group of investors), then the business owner should be held to the standards of those investors.

If the funding comes from government tax dollars, then, I would agree, the business would be giving up it's right to "discriminate" based on Civil Rights legislation. However - personally, I don't think it's the place of the government to confiscate - by force - the private property (in this case, money) of one individual and give it to another for the purpose of the second individual starting a business. Since the government *does* do this, I agree - if you take government money, you should be held accountable as the government is until such time as you can pay back every penny - plus interest.

But, if you start and run your business with your own money... then it should be your business.

[quote name='JJSP']and collect and pay taxes from the public and to the government,[/quote]

I'm sure many businesses would be thrilled to be allowed to stop playing tax man for the government. I don't think any of us would be thrilled if the government sent someone to your home, forced you to become a government employee, then took any of your rights away from you.
 
Bob. If you're so adamant about having a business that only deals with people of your choosing, then do so. It's not called a business, it's called a private club. Country clubs decide who they want to come in. So do some nightclubs.

Let's do an experiment then, Bob. If you feel that you are legally entitled to choose who you do business with, open a business. Make a sign on the door spelling out exactly who is allowed to come in and do business and who should not even bother stepping in the door. We'll see what happens and go from there.

Southern business used to to do it all the time. Such signs used to say:

"$$$$a, when the sun don't shine I betta not see yo black behind."

"Whites Only"

Here's the big point though. If you're in business, why should you deny anyone service? Are you trying to make money or a point?
 
[quote name='depascal22']Bob. If you're so adamant about having a business that only deals with people of your choosing, then do so. It's not called a business, it's called a private club. Country clubs decide who they want to come in. So do some nightclubs.

Let's do an experiment then, Bob. If you feel that you are legally entitled to choose who you do business with, open a business. Make a sign on the door spelling out exactly who is allowed to come in and do business and who should not even bother stepping in the door. We'll see what happens and go from there.

Southern business used to to do it all the time. Such signs used to say:

"$$$$a, when the sun don't shine I betta not see yo black behind."

"Whites Only"

Here's the big point though. If you're in business, why should you deny anyone service? Are you trying to make money or a point?[/QUOTE]

I have no interest in starting such a business.
And I completely agree - it doesn't (typically) make business sense to deny services to paying customers.

However - simply because I don't agree with something, it doesn't mean someone who does should be denied their freedom to associate.

I would also like to point out - if I knew of a business that clearly discriminated against a group of individuals based on race/gender/etc., I, personally, would refuse to do business with the individuals who own the business. A business who denies services to one group loses the business of a much larger group.
 
So what's your point? We should cut off our noses to spite our face just so we can be Constitutionally (and ideolgically) pure? Sure, business theoretically have the right to deny service but what real business does so just to make a point other than the Catholic Church and various other religious organizations?

This is about ideology trumping common human decency. Two people (not four or a guy and a dog) want to get married and have the same legal rights that any hetero couple has without qualifers, buts, or also known as, or any other legal crap that tends to get in the way of people going about their lives.

I'm just tired of the conservative line of thinking that you have to deny rights to a minority so you can mistakenly guarantee rights to the majority. What sense does that make? I've never heard one real way that marriage will be weakened because gays will partake in it. Will your marriage have less of a chance of making it? Are you doomed to get a divorce just because Bob and Tom got hitched in a nice quiet backyard ceremony and honeymooned in Maui? If the Bible is your reason for denying them, practice what Jesus preached and treat them with love. If God is really against two gay people living in a peaceful loving relationship, let Him make the decision at the Pearly Gates. We should just be working to bring peace and happiness to everyone on Earth instead of misery and shame.
 
depascal surely you have noticed that all boob ever does is argue things that he later claims "he isn't really arguing saying".
 
Attention people near depascal: Please take away his cell phone and/or webcams. We don't want him doing something he'll regret in the morning.
 
Check out the "rape game" thread for my future regret. I'm the Commie bastard that doesn't mind that they get banned but I offered a new game since everyone seems to think they're Constitutionally protected AND art.
 
[quote name='Boeing 747']I really don't care, if people want to be gay, go ahead, more room in heaven for me. /s[/QUOTE]
It's okay, God's a butch lesbian anyway. Have fun.
 
[quote name='Strell']You jerk. I'm going to open my own heaven, specifically tailored for gay people.

And this time I'm keeping my pants on.[/QUOTE]

Yeah it's called hell, enjoy it, you'll have it a lot. Since Satan will be there to ass ram all of the gays, with his giant razor blade filled boiling water semen, dick of damnation, I'm sure they will, because their gay!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']rickoncker: selective piss-taking posts since...whenever he joined. I couldn't be arsed to actually look. When you have someone say "I DO HAVE THAT RIGHT - EVEN IF THE COURTS WOULD DENY IT" - and you instead focus on the heavy petting you've got going on with his word "should," you're just being a cunt for the sake of being a cunt.

Let me make a corollary argument: I have the right to murder you and your family, shit in your microwave, steal your xbox, eat all your food, and blow up your house - even if the courts would deny it.

If you don't take issue with that claim, you'd be a goddamned fool. More of one, at any rate.

Nevertheless, you dance right over UncleBob's claim that he has the right to ignore the various and myriad bits of civil rights and antidiscriminatory legislation passed throughout US history, AND THAT THE COURT, AND THUS THE LAW, ARE IN THE WRONG. You dance right over that and float safely down to "should" island, where you can rest haughtily on a foundation of being a complete and utter cunt focused on one semantic fucking phrase.

Make a real claim and don't hide behind such a weak-ass argument.[/QUOTE]

I guess I really do need to explain this to you.

Maybe an example will help.

Dude: Gay people should be allowed to marry each other.

Homophobe: Except they don't have that freedom. Sorry, Charlie.

Dude: Uh, I said they should be allowed to do it, not that they're allowed to do it now.

Homophobe: You dance right over your claim that you have the right to ignore the various and myriad bits of legislation passed throughout US history, AND THAT THE COURT, AND THUS THE LAW, ARE IN THE WRONG.

Dude: Uh, no, I'm actually saying the law is wrong.

Homophobe: Semantics! You cunt!
​

I'm curious to see if you'll try to ignore the argument and resort to name-calling as usual, or if you'll just run away from the thread again.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Continue to make comments like this and you better never hope I see your ass in real life.[/quote]

tee-hee.

So, you believe, as a business, you give up your rights?
Click to expand...

No, but I do *know* (as long as rickonker's havin' hisself a good ol' time with semantics) that you do give up some rights as a business/incorporated body.

But, no, I don't *believe*. I don't believe in the laptop in front of me. I know it is there.
 
[quote name='depascal22']So what's your point? We should cut off our noses to spite our face just so we can be Constitutionally (and ideolgically) pure? Sure, business theoretically have the right to deny service but what real business does so just to make a point other than the Catholic Church and various other religious organizations?

This is about ideology trumping common human decency. Two people (not four or a guy and a dog) want to get married and have the same legal rights that any hetero couple has without qualifers, buts, or also known as, or any other legal crap that tends to get in the way of people going about their lives.

I'm just tired of the conservative line of thinking that you have to deny rights to a minority so you can mistakenly guarantee rights to the majority. What sense does that make? I've never heard one real way that marriage will be weakened because gays will partake in it. Will your marriage have less of a chance of making it? Are you doomed to get a divorce just because Bob and Tom got hitched in a nice quiet backyard ceremony and honeymooned in Maui? If the Bible is your reason for denying them, practice what Jesus preached and treat them with love. If God is really against two gay people living in a peaceful loving relationship, let Him make the decision at the Pearly Gates. We should just be working to bring peace and happiness to everyone on Earth instead of misery and shame.[/QUOTE]

I believe, if two consenting individuals of sound mind wish to enter a contractual agreement, the government should not be allowed to deny them this due to the genders of the two individuals who wish to enter into the agreement.

You'll get no argument out of me on that one.

As for private business - let's look at two different cases.

Let's pretend you're a member of a minority. For the sake of not offending anyone, I'm going to say you're a Green Martian. Now, there's a lot of hate toward you Martin folk. You're lazy. You take our jobs. You steal our women. You cause violence and use our social services without paying taxes. You spread disease. In all, you're a filthy, disgusting creature. ;)

Now, you want to buy a game. You have the option from three different stores.

The first store has a sign on the door "Greenies stay out!". You try to walk in, but the guy behind the counter yells at you and kicks you out.

At the second store, the guy behind the counter hates you. It's quite obvious. But, he wants your money. He's "nice" - faked through his gritted teeth the entire time you're in there.

Then, there's a third store that is ran by other Martians and welcomes all people into the store. It used to be ran by Americans, but the Martians took our jobs.

So, do you really, really want to give your hard earned cash to the guy at the second store? He hates you and probably imagines several different ways of hanging you without getting caught.

In a world where our government takes away our right to associate, the first store and the second store are one and the same. The guy in the first store has to fake being nice for fear that his store could get into legal trouble. Do you really want to give him your money? Do you really want to support his business? Wouldn't it be much nicer to just know which stores are ran by ignorant people so you can stay away from them and not support them?
 
what does homosexuality have to do with race?

race = no choice in the matter
sexual orientation = choice in the matter

don't even bother comparing the two. if you want to make comparisons, at least use something that is relatively similar to homosexuality such as overweight people.
 
there is variance from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but sexual orientation is covered virtually everywhere as a subset of EEOA laws.

Seeing as how the law looks at it that way, I compare the two. Like the law does.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']there is variance from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but sexual orientation is covered virtually everywhere as a subset of EEOA laws.

Seeing as how the law looks at it that way, I compare the two. Like the law does.[/QUOTE]

The law (In California, at least) also does *not* compare Homosexual Marriage to Heterosexual Marriage. I assume you're okay with them not being equal then?
 
Of course not. But that's because it is unconstitutional to legally define classes of citizenry and delegate differential rights based on those classes.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Of course not. But that's because it is unconstitutional to legally define classes of citizenry and delegate differential rights based on those classes.[/QUOTE]

Incorrect.

There are two ways of fixing this statement:

"It is unlawful to legally define classes of citizenry and delegate differential rights based on those classes."

"It is unconstitutional for the State to legally define classes of citizenry and delegate differential rights based on those classes."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top