Gay Marriage now legal, what rights and freedoms have any of us lost in the US?

[clownboy]

it's part of the constitution that you claimed we lost because of this decision, which was a ridiculous assertion.

Indeed, and doesn't at all address my comments. In fact, it's been rendered meaningless by the court. They have no need of constitution, just the panel's majority decision backed by nothing more than their own personal opinions.

 

[Helix]

Indeed, and doesn't at all address my comments. In fact, it's been rendered meaningless by the court. They have no need of constitution, just the panel's majority decision backed by nothing more than their own personal opinions.

incorrect. they upheld the fourteenth amendment. it protects the fundamental rights of homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.

 

[beefheart]

Oh look, someone has learned how to post cartoons in response to arguments they have no answer to, how cute.

Your post was cartoonish hyperbole, so...it fit.

Stay angry, it got you this far! :lamo

 

[LaylaWindu]

You appear to be confused. Whether that is natural or pretend, perhaps there's a remedy - some education. A judicial opinion is not a personal opinion, at least it's not supposed to be. I suspect you know this. If you don't, take a look at past congressional conformation hearings for supreme court judicial appointees.

So now not only are you still dodging my questions and you still haven't support your hypocritical claims but you are now making up strawmen. Wow that's a trifecta right there. Maybe stop posting cause the hole your posts dug is already very deep and I heard rain is coming. But when you can answer my questions feel free, but my guess is you will continue to head for the his from them.

 

[AGENT J]

This is a follow up to my earlier thread.
[h=1]If gays get equal rights tomorrow what rights and freedoms do you lose?[/h]http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/220992-if-gays-get-equal-rights-tomorrow-rights-and-freedoms-do-you-lose.html

I asked this question before SSM passed and many seem to think it was a really good question. While no one seemed to have a real answer I'll ask again now after SSM. Maybe now that it's a reality some answers can be given and there's proof of this concern..

This was my question.
"If gays got equal rights, sexual orientation was added to all anti-discrimination laws and to civil rights can anybody tell me what rights, freedoms and liberties you or I lose? I keep hearing these crap claims that Christianity is under attack and our freedoms are under attack because of gay rights but where?"

Some of it is here now, what rights and freedoms have I loss?

I gave you complements on your first thread cause it was awesome . . . you got no answers there and I doubt you'll get any answers here because there are none. Im not surprised this one is shorter because peoples best attempts were already destroyed in the other thread. the facts is we lost no religious rights or liberties based on SSM.

 

[JoeTrumps]

i think the problem, Layla, is that the polygamists, transgender and every other weirdo group out there can skirt in under the same basic premise you have laid out to protect gay marriage. and also the catholic school I attended could lose it's federal funding if it refuses to recognize gay marriage which would put the school's very existence in jeopardy. but I'm sure you realized all this and you just want to debate, so there are the facts. debate

 

[AGENT J]

1.)i think the problem, Layla, is that the polygamists, transgender and every other weirdo group out there can skirt in under the same basic premise you have laid out to protect gay marriage.
2.) and also the catholic school I went to school at could lose it's federal funding which could be traced directly to this law being "passed".
3.) but I'm sure you realized all this and you just want to debate, so there are the facts. debate

1.)THe real problem is making bigoted comments like weirdos
secondly what you are saying is simply not true, there is no argument based solely on the legality of SSM that lends itself to anything else
lastly that even if your fantasies were true that doesnt impact rights and freedoms
2.) no, it actually can't. If any school is in danger of losing funding it will be because it is breaking the law and or infringing on the rights of others . . . .if gays never existed your scenario could still happen for the same crimes
3.) cant speak for her but you havent listed one single fact that impacts religious rights and freedoms , so theres nothgin to debate, your post is simply flat out wrong and sdoenst provide what was asked. try again

 

[roguenuke]

Well the most obvious one is voters lost their freedom on an issue of policy. Most of the state SSM bans were voter initiatives, so the people in their state lost the right to vote on the issue or have their beliefs put into law by their state.

Secondly allowing sexuality protection under public accommodation laws leads to violations of religious freedom, a recent example is the Oregon cake bakers who were fined $135,000 for not baking a cake for some lesbian wedding.

For the most part I think many fear what would happen as a result of SSM being allowed, that being less religious freedom, social persecution against religious people who believe homosexuality or their unions are sinful/not legitimate under God and any laws against churches/tax status issues that get brought up.

You don't really have that right to begin with though, not from the federal Constitution. That was a state privilege, granted by most states (at least one state does not allow such initiatives) and still subject to the US Constitution to be restricted. This entire premise presumes that the voters could vote to enact a ballot initiative that would prohibit people from practicing Catholicism in their state and that this would be constitutionally okay because a majority of voters in a state voted for it.

 

[Paschendale]

I never said I agreed with them, just saying what most SSM opponents have said when they talk about how SSM may impact them. Although the public accommodation stuff is a serious and valid concern.

Just like it was when people who devoutly believed that god had ordained the separation of races had a serious and valid concern.

You appear to be confused. Whether that is natural or pretend, perhaps there's a remedy - some education. A judicial opinion is not a personal opinion, at least it's not supposed to be. I suspect you know this. If you don't, take a look at past congressional conformation hearings for supreme court judicial appointees.

Feel free to offer a legal argument, then, that disagrees with the holding of the court. I'll give you a hint. The dissents offered had no legal reasoning or basis whatsoever. THOSE were personal opinions. The constitution was exceedingly clear. It was shown time and time again when SSM bans were thrown out every single time they were put to the test (barring one single instance where a judge examined the law and chose to ignore it, making it absolutely clear what he was doing).

So go ahead, prove your position.

i think the problem, Layla, is that the polygamists, transgender and every other weirdo group out there can skirt in under the same basic premise you have laid out to protect gay marriage. and also the catholic school I attended could lose it's federal funding if it refuses to recognize gay marriage which would put the school's very existence in jeopardy. but I'm sure you realized all this and you just want to debate, so there are the facts. debate

No one skirts. Different issues are discussed and debated and ruled and legislated on differently.

No, your Catholic school would be safe. It doesn't have to catch up and live in the modern world and is free to be a bastion of Dark Age ideology.

Your "facts" are made up.

 

[roguenuke]

i think the problem, Layla, is that the polygamists, transgender and every other weirdo group out there can skirt in under the same basic premise you have laid out to protect gay marriage. and also the catholic school I attended could lose it's federal funding if it refuses to recognize gay marriage which would put the school's very existence in jeopardy. but I'm sure you realized all this and you just want to debate, so there are the facts. debate

Transgendered people are already protected when it comes to marriage, as they have been for a bit longer in some ways than gays. They are simply better protected, don't have to fear having their legally entered into marriages dissolved/not recognized because they legally change their sex/gender.

If they are being federally funded, then perhaps they should look at why they expect to be able to discriminate against people whose tax money is going to help pay for them to remain open.

 

[AGENT J]

7/8/2015
number of factual religious rights and freedoms I lost as a christian due to SSM/equal rights: 0

 

[AGENT J]

7/8/2015
number of factual religious rights and freedoms I lost as a christian due to SSM/equal rights: 0

7/10/2015 and the count is still ZERO . .. . maybe over the weekend I'll lose some due to this :shrug:

 

[Rentoc]

Here's what I don't understand. How can the Government (Fed or local) force a business to do business with anyone. As a private citizen I have the FREEDOM to choose who I associate with and who I do not. I would think that if I choose not to do business with a certain demographic (race, sex, sexual preference) then that is my choice. I will for sure take a loss sales wise, and in todays political environment word will get out and friends of the group will not frequent my business, but the government should not be able to force me to do business with that group.

What's next, we all have to attend Homosexual Rights classes or parades?

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Here's what I don't understand. How can the Government (Fed or local) force a business to do business with anyone.
2.) As a private citizen I have the FREEDOM to choose who I associate with and who I do not.
3.) I would think that if I choose not to do business with a certain demographic (race, sex, sexual preference) then that is my choice. I will for sure take a loss sales wise, and in todays political environment word will get out and friends of the group will not frequent my business
4.) but the government should not be able to force me to do business with that group.
5.)What's next, we all have to attend Homosexual Rights classes or parades?

1.) they arent
2.) correct with in reason and public access business owners CHOOSE to have those types of business and run them under the same laws and rules as ALL OF US. As a Christian i dont get to make up my own laws and rules or break them when ever i feel like it. Id have to be a moron to think i just get to do what ever i want cause of a belief. If i don't like the laws and rules i don't run that type of business or i run a private membership type etc. I have to play by the same rules as EVERYBODY I dont get special treatment.
3.) that can be your choose and you would have to chose to do a private business or membership business of some type or simply not admit why you were illegally discriminating.
For example you could fix cars out of your garage at your house and let your business spread by word of mouth etc and refuse anybody you want. But you buy a commercial corner lot, put up signs and enter into contractual rules of public, regulated and licensed commerce and run a public access business there are rules you must follow and that was in deed your CHOICE.
4.) they arent it will be your choice
5.) now that statement is just dumb and has no bases in reality or anything else. Try sticking to the topic

 

[roguenuke]

Here's what I don't understand. How can the Government (Fed or local) force a business to do business with anyone. As a private citizen I have the FREEDOM to choose who I associate with and who I do not. I would think that if I choose not to do business with a certain demographic (race, sex, sexual preference) then that is my choice. I will for sure take a loss sales wise, and in todays political environment word will get out and friends of the group will not frequent my business, but the government should not be able to force me to do business with that group.

What's next, we all have to attend Homosexual Rights classes or parades?

You don't have that right though. Check out the Newman v Piggie park enterprises decision. You cannot refuse to serve someone because you don't like their sex, religion, race, handicap (to a degree), relationships associated with these classifications, or certain other reasons when your business is open to the public. You benefit from being able to have clients from the whole public and businesses as a whole have power due to our system. That is limited by these public accommodation laws.

Now this isn't forcing someone to do anything they haven't already agreed to do, provide a certain service or product to others in the public.

 

[Rentoc]

1.) they arent
2.) correct with in reason and public access business owners CHOOSE to have those types of business and run them under the same laws and rules as ALL OF US. As a Christian i dont get to make up my own laws and rules or break them when ever i feel like it. Id have to be a moron to think i just get to do what ever i want cause of a belief. If i don't like the laws and rules i don't run that type of business or i run a private membership type etc. I have to play by the same rules as EVERYBODY I dont get special treatment.
3.) that can be your choose and you would have to chose to do a private business or membership business of some type or simply not admit why you were illegally discriminating.
For example you could fix cars out of your garage at your house and let your business spread by word of mouth etc and refuse anybody you want. But you buy a commercial corner lot, put up signs and enter into contractual rules of public, regulated and licensed commerce and run a public access business there are rules you must follow and that was in deed your CHOICE.
4.) they arent it will be your choice
5.) now that statement is just dumb and has no bases in reality or anything else. Try sticking to the topic

Sorry for my ignorance on this subject, but....

What I am being told is that there are laws on the books that state if I have a business, open to the public, then I have to be open to everyone, no matter what my views of their race or lifestyle or whatever? I cannot chose to serve only the people that I want to serve? I'm sorry, but I believe that is a violation of MY rights of free association. Not that I agree with someone who refuses to serve someone for whatever reason, but I believe that a private business owner should be able to choose who they do business with.

As for part of my comment being "dumb", it goes to where is the line drawn for the Government to tell what we must do? We have been told that we have to purchase a product (Health Insurance), if we own a business we have no choice who we do business with. So where is the line drawn?

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Sorry for my ignorance on this subject, but....
2.)What I am being told is that there are laws on the books that state if I have a business, open to the public, then I have to be open to everyone, no matter what my views of their race or lifestyle or whatever?
3.) I cannot chose to serve only the people that I want to serve?
4.) I'm sorry, but I believe that is a violation of MY rights of free association.
5.) Not that I agree with someone who refuses to serve someone for whatever reason, but I believe that a private business owner should be able to choose who they do business with.
6.)As for part of my comment being "dumb", it goes to where is the line drawn for the Government to tell what we must do? We have been told that we have to purchase a product (Health Insurance), if we own a business we have no choice who we do business with. So where is the line drawn?

1.) no need to apologize lord knows ive made mistakes and there are many issues out there i am unfamiliar with.
2.) in very basic terms this is correct. Its not quite as black and white but thats the basics. Yes your views are meaningless to rights and laws.
3.) no you can, you just have to operate a type of business that allows that or set up one that doesnt break laws and illegal discriminate
4.) and you would believe wrong because your choice still exists and there is no force. You CHOOSE to enter a business with rules and guidelines that we all must follow. You dont like it choose another type of business/service or dont do it at all nobody is forcing you to so your freedom of association is completely intact.
5.) they can with in the guidelines and rights that we all follow . . not just some . . all of us
6.) I understand what you were trying to refer to (the line) but public business not being allowed to break laws and infringe on the rights of others is not analogous with forcing people to attend parades. . . they arent the same on any level.

 

[JC Callender]

I'm actually relieved it's legal.

 

[Eric7216]

One aspect of this was rather well covered in the Supreme Court case on DOMA in 2013. The defendants argued that the government was giving a significant benefit in estate planning to married couples who passed wealth to spouses without estate taxes. Perhaps that costs the US Treasury $75 billion a year. Also most married couples benefit on income taxes as one spouse's higher income is taxed at a lower blended rate when combined with the other spouse's income. I saved a couple thousand a year net when I compare married versus both of us filing as single.
Someone has to pay for government. When some get a special rate others pay more at some point. As the % of adults unmarried in the country approaches 50%, many for life, those people would pick up the tab.

 

[polgara]

I'm actually relieved it's legal.

Greetings, JC, :2wave:

In a way I am too. I've never cared who married who, so now the debate can stop about it, and that's welcome. Once the "fine print" items like cakes and where to hold receptions are ironed out, most people will adjust. Maybe we'll have some quiet time until they start divorcing each other, huh? :mrgreen:

BTW, the video was hilarious! :thumbs:

 

[JC Callender]

Greetings, JC, :2wave:

In a way I am too. I've never cared who married who, so now the debate can stop about it, and that's welcome. Once the "fine print" items like cakes and where to hold receptions are ironed out, most people will adjust. Maybe we'll have some quiet time until they start divorcing each other, huh? :mrgreen:

Evening Pg *hug*

:agree Yeah, I think everything will work out fine.

 

[blaxshep]

If you are open for business you should serve all the people, if you don't like it, no one is forcing to to run a business.

 

[CriticalThought]

Here's what I don't understand. How can the Government (Fed or local) force a business to do business with anyone. As a private citizen I have the FREEDOM to choose who I associate with and who I do not. I would think that if I choose not to do business with a certain demographic (race, sex, sexual preference) then that is my choice. I will for sure take a loss sales wise, and in todays political environment word will get out and friends of the group will not frequent my business, but the government should not be able to force me to do business with that group.

What's next, we all have to attend Homosexual Rights classes or parades?

In principle I agree.

 

[AGENT J]

7/12/2015
number of factual religious rights and freedoms I lost as a christian due to SSM/equal rights or sexual orientation being add to anti-discrimination laws in some places: 0

 

[AGENT J]

7/12/2015
number of factual religious rights and freedoms I lost as a christian due to SSM/equal rights or sexual orientation being add to anti-discrimination laws in some places: 0

7/14/2105
Same thing as above and i figured Id add this
number of US churches in danger of legally being forced to marry gays before the SSM ruling: 0
number of US churches in danger of legally being forced to marry gays after the SSM ruling: 0
What legality changed due to the SSM ruling that could allow churches to legally be forced: 0