gbaji wrote:
Because, first off, this isn't an issue of rights, but benefits
-gbaji
"You silly Japanese! Being not-prison-camped is a benefit! Next you'll want your property back! You didn't earn that!"
-gbaji
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Justice Scalia dead
Justice Scalia deadFollow
"You silly Negroes! Being not-a-slave is a benefit! You're just looking for the government to give you something you didn't earn!"
-gbaji
"You silly Japanese! Being not-prison-camped is a benefit! Next you'll want your property back! You didn't earn that!"
-gbaji
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
gbaji wrote:
It was also broadly represented to the public, not based on the final wording that appeared on the actual ballot, but the previous wording used during the petition process:
Quote:
Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-*** couples, and that protects religious freedom by ensuring that no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs?
Wow, super-tricky, man. I can see where the illiterate, functionally retarded and/or recently reanimated dead would have been fooled there. Good point!
Quote:
Because then it'll be the people making the decision and not the courts? Was that really a question?
So we should deprive people of their constitutional rights until enough people decide to allow others to have them? Well, hey, maybe that's your idea of rights, I dunno. Also, determining when something is or isn't constitutional has been part of the court's role for well over two hundred years.
Quote:
Because, first off, this isn't an issue of rights
A majority of SC Justices (and super-majority of lower court justices) all disagree with you. You're welcome to discount their opinion but I'm more apt to listen to them than to you:
Justice Kennedy wrote:
They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law, the Constitution grants them that right.
But you keep on insisting that people shouldn't be granted their constitutional rights until some arbitrary balloting and referendum process that you finally feel is sufficient occurs.
Edited, Mar 22nd 2016 7:35pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Or, it is a tool to prevent the marginalization of a group of people that GUARANTEES equal rights under federal law.
To-may-to, to-man-to, right?
To-may-to, to-man-to, right?
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that if being gehy had a prerequisite of having a net worth of at least $1 million, gabji would be in the forefront of gehy rights?
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Because, first off, this isn't an issue of rights, but benefits
-gbaji
"You silly Japanese! Being not-prison-camped is a benefit! Next you'll want your property back! You didn't earn that!"
-gbaji
The fact that you had to phrase those both with a "not" should be your first clue as to where your logic is breaking down.
As I have stated many times on this forum (and I suppose will have to state many more), the absence of a positive is not a negative. Ergo, the absence (or "not") of a negative is also not a positive. It's a base condition. If I decide to not steal from you, I haven't given you anything. I've simply refrained from taking from you.
Rights are not Benefits. Rights are things that you would normally have (absence of a negative condition, if you will). They can be infringed or taken away (presence of a negative condition infringing on you). So when we apply a "not" to the condition of having a right infringed (such as being made a slave, or a prisoner), we have restored your normal right to personal liberty. That is not a benefit, that's removal of a negative infringement of your natural rights. Thus, there is a constitutional relevance to removing things that infringe liberty in such ways.
Benefits are not Rights. The state creating a special status that rewards people if they enter into a legally binding marriage contract, is a nice thing to do, and may serve some broader sociological purpose, but is never a right and no one can demand that they receive this benefit. More importantly, failing to provide this benefit is never ever an infringement of a right. Because Benefits are not Rights.
Get it yet? Or do I have to explain this to you guys more? This is like basic rights and liberty understanding 101 here. If you don't get this stuff, you don't actually understand the basic foundation of the society you live in. Which, sadly, is becoming more and more common. I blame our public school system.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Rights are not Benefits. Rights are things that you would normally have (absence of a negative condition, if you will)..
Japanese Americans had the right to not be locked in a prison camp because _______"
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
gbaji wrote:
It reduced our liberties by taking away our ability to choose as citizens which sets of people should qualify for which state benefits, and why.
Jophiel wrote:
But you keep on insisting that people shouldn't be granted their constitutional rights
gbaji wrote:
Or do I have to explain this to you guys more?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
The ability to enter into a state-sanctioned and recognized marriage has been upheld as a basic fundamental right in multiple SCotUS cases. Gbaji can whine about it for pages and pages and pages but he'll still be wrong.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
The ability to enter into a state-sanctioned and recognized marriage has been upheld as a basic fundamental right in multiple SCotUS cases. Gbaji can whine about it for pages and pages and pages but he'll still be wrong.
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
The "People will eventually stop being dicks" argument is great. We have thousands of years of history proving that isn't true, but on this case it'll totally happen.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
I like the "people have been fighting over abortion" example though. You know what else people have been fighting over for far, far longer than abortion? Guns. So obviously, the answer isn't for the SCotUS to pass rulings about the right to own firearms but rather for each state or locality to create their own rules based on the desires of the people.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Because, first off, this isn't an issue of rights, but benefits
-gbaji
"You silly Japanese! Being not-prison-camped is a benefit! Next you'll want your property back! You didn't earn that!"
-gbaji
The fact that you had to phrase those both with a "not" should be your first clue as to where your logic is breaking down.
"You silly gays! Being not-allowed-to-marry is a benefit!. Your desire to share your life with another person in a union both physical and emotional wasn't earned
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
Also, Capitalism vs Homophobia is a win in my book...Link
http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/disney-marvel-boycott-georgia-anti-gay-bill-1201737405/
Edited, Mar 23rd 2016 11:56am by stupidmonkey
http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/disney-marvel-boycott-georgia-anti-gay-bill-1201737405/
Edited, Mar 23rd 2016 11:56am by stupidmonkey
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
NFL is talking about removing Atlanta from any Super Bowl bids even once their new stadium is built.
They did same thing with Arizona a while back and the Governor of Arizona ended up refusing to sign the bill, as the NFL and others all threatened to pull all business dealings from the state. Companies that are global in reach want nothing to do with homophobic laws.
They did same thing with Arizona a while back and the Governor of Arizona ended up refusing to sign the bill, as the NFL and others all threatened to pull all business dealings from the state. Companies that are global in reach want nothing to do with homophobic laws.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Censor ate your link.
Disney Marvel threatening to boycott if Georgia passes their "Free Exercise Protection Act" into law, which would allow faith-based organizations to deny services to anyone who violates their “sincerely held religious belief," and fire employees who aren't in line with those beliefs. Which would hurt Georgia immensely, since outside Atlanta was where they just finished filming Captain America: Civil War, and are starting filming on Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.
The first part sounds partially okay, a church shouldn't have to do the service. Not so much random cake shop. It's the whole fire employees part that's the nose dive off the cliff too far.
Disney Marvel threatening to boycott if Georgia passes their "Free Exercise Protection Act" into law, which would allow faith-based organizations to deny services to anyone who violates their “sincerely held religious belief," and fire employees who aren't in line with those beliefs. Which would hurt Georgia immensely, since outside Atlanta was where they just finished filming Captain America: Civil War, and are starting filming on Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.
The first part sounds partially okay, a church shouldn't have to do the service. Not so much random cake shop. It's the whole fire employees part that's the nose dive off the cliff too far.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
Disney Marvel threatening to boycott if Georgia passes their "Free Exercise Protection Act" into law, which would allow faith-based organizations to deny services to anyone who violates their “sincerely held religious belief," [...]
The first part sounds partially okay, a church shouldn't have to do the service. Not so much random cake shop. It's the whole fire employees part that's the nose dive off the cliff too far.
The first part sounds partially okay, a church shouldn't have to do the service. Not so much random cake shop. It's the whole fire employees part that's the nose dive off the cliff too far.
The issue isn't forcing churches to conduct weddings, the issue is religiously affiliated businesses (schools, hospitals, etc) discriminating against patrons on the basis of sexuality.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
The idea of a hospital denying some kind of medical procedure to someone is mildly unsettling. Then again we do that now by simply having them be "out of network" and therefore so expensive the person simply denies themselves the procedure without the hospital needing to get involved.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
I'm okay with that, so long as they're an actually religiously affiliated business. I don't feel it's right to force a Christian Book Store for instance to sell gay literature. None of that "but I went to church one Christmas so I'm a Christian business owner" nonsense, though. I mean I do also understand it could easily be abused, but the premise of that one part I'm okay with.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
I don't feel it's right to force a Christian Book Store for instance to sell gay literature.
I don't either. I also don't think it's right for a Christian Book Store to refuse to sell Precious Moments figurines to homosexuals. Which is what the law is actually about.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Georgia's Governor Nathan Deal vetoed the bill. Looks like he feels the money from the various movie studios, NFL and NBA, and various corporations outweighed chest puffing of a bakery not selling a wedding cake because the owner went to church one Easter. Conservative lawmakers had already threatened to call a veto session if Deal were to reject the bill, however they will need a three-fifths majority in both chambers to call a special session, and a two-thirds majority to override the governor's veto. So there should still be a bit of fun to watch.
Edited, Mar 28th 2016 2:31pm by lolgaxe
Nathan Deal wrote:
Our people work side by side without regard to the color of our skin, or the religion we adhere to. We are working to make life better for our families and our communities. That is the character of Georgia. I intend to do my part to keep it that way. For that reason, I will veto HB 757.
Edited, Mar 28th 2016 2:31pm by lolgaxe
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Rights are not Benefits. Rights are things that you would normally have (absence of a negative condition, if you will)..
Japanese Americans had the right to not be locked in a prison camp because _______"
Because in the absence of someone locking you up, you wouldn't be locked up. Was this really difficult for you to grasp?
Now, finish this sentence:
"Gay couples have the right to receive state granted marriage benefits because _______"
Let me give you a hint: In the absence of someone granting marriage benefits, you don't get marriage benefits. So the "natural state" is to not receive marriage benefits, just as the "natural state" is to not be imprisoned. Thus, while there is a violation of rights if you lock someone up, there is no violation of rights to not grant someone marriage benefits.
It's just strange to me that so many people can't wrap their heads around this.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Gbaji's obsolete crusade against equal rights for homosexuals aside, former IL governor Rod Blagojevich had his request for an appeal hearing to the SCotUS turned down today when it was previously expected to get through with Scalia's support.
Edited, Mar 28th 2016 7:04pm by Jophiel
Edited, Mar 28th 2016 7:04pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Why would you use *** and not just say All?
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Jophiel wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Disney Marvel threatening to boycott if Georgia passes their "Free Exercise Protection Act" into law, which would allow faith-based organizations to deny services to anyone who violates their “sincerely held religious belief," [...]
The first part sounds partially okay, a church shouldn't have to do the service. Not so much random cake shop. It's the whole fire employees part that's the nose dive off the cliff too far.
The first part sounds partially okay, a church shouldn't have to do the service. Not so much random cake shop. It's the whole fire employees part that's the nose dive off the cliff too far.
The issue isn't forcing churches to conduct weddings, the issue is religiously affiliated businesses (schools, hospitals, etc) discriminating against patrons on the basis of sexuality.
Except that, while touting the possibility of discrimination in other areas, the effect is to do exactly what many religious people have been worried about: Forcing churches to perform gay weddings, or to provide gay adoption, or otherwise be forced to engage in activities in violation of their faith. The law in question has language that specifically states that it cannot violate existing federal or state bans on invidious discrimination.
This is more about half truths and speculation than fact, but along the way, what a coincidence that it's yet another case where the outrage just happens to prevent passage of any law protecting the rights of religious organizations. I've read the act in question. There's nothing particularly unusual there. The primary effect of the law appears to be to prevent nuisance lawsuits from being eternally filed against faith based organizations for failing to do something that everyone already seems to agree they should not be forced to do.
I'm curious what horrific discrimination you think is going to happen. First off, I'm not sure it applies to hospitals, and certainly would not apply to normal emergency care (they can't refuse to set a person's broken arm because of their sexual orientation, for example). I think we can all agree, however, that forcing a faith based health center to provide contraceptives, or perform abortions should not be allowed though. Also, what do you mean by "patrons" here? Student enrollment in a private school is always subject to admissions rules, and a faith based school absolutely can (and always have) discriminate based on whether the person is a member of said faith, and/or how well that person exemplifies the tenants of said faith.
It just seems like you're touting some really vague but scary things, but when we drill down the specific cases, it's not so scary. Can you give me an exact example of some form of discrimination that you think this law will allow for, but that you don't think should be allowed? Cause I'm not seeing anything in the law itself. I hear tons of people speculating though. Which, I suspect, is part of the objective.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
lolgaxe wrote:
I'm okay with that, so long as they're an actually religiously affiliated business. I don't feel it's right to force a Christian Book Store for instance to sell gay literature. None of that "but I went to church one Christmas so I'm a Christian business owner" nonsense, though. I mean I do also understand it could easily be abused, but the premise of that one part I'm okay with.
The proposed law didn't have anything to do with that at all. Um... But for the record, no book store should be "forced" to sell any book they don't want to sell, for any reason they might feel like. It's their store, and their shelf space. Not sure why this is even an issue. The question is more about whether they can be forced to employ someone who is gay. But the law also only applies to actual 501(c)(3) organizations, and only to services they provide that are specific to their faith. The typical book store isn't likely to qualify. They can't discriminate in hiring any more than any other business. I'll also point out that the proposed law said nothing about bakeries, or photographers, or anything else that wasn't a faith based organization.
This is a great example of ignorance feeding fear mongering, leading to threats, and forcing the very thing everyone insists wont happen. I'm shocked I say! Shocked!
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Recent Visitors: 266
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (266)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Justice Scalia dead
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC