From a federal standpoint, yes. People do have that right. They have the right to refuse service to blacks for any reason. There is no constitutional right to be treated equal by your peers, and no real federal authority to outlaw discrimination.So then, by that, you agree that people OUTSIDE of the government should have the right to refuse service to blacks based on "religious freedom" ??
From a federal standpoint, yes. People do have that right. They have the right to refuse service to blacks for any reason. There is no constitutional right to be treated equal by your peers, and no real federal authority to outlaw discrimination.
You replied too quick for me to finish my edit. See above.People do not have the right to wage aggressive economic warfare, with the assistance of public infrastructure, against any group let alone minorities.
You replied too quick for me to finish my edit. See above.
The reason you can't refuse service to blacks at a restaurant isn't because the government protects people from discrimination, but because the government protects interstate commerce, and refusing service to blacks is just not good business.
How dare you define quality and concept for people that disagree with you! How dare you attempt to impose YOUR definitions of marriage and equality on others! WTF kind of hypocrite are you?
Its rather ironic that you...a champion of homosexuality and gay marriage...feel you have the right to impose your definitions on others. THIS is ok...but not THAT.It is noene the less true. Polygamy stems from a time when women were subjugated and treated as inferior. We have advanced from that primitive behavior and I see no reason to go back to it.
I don't need to back up anything. My religion dictates that even if there's no evidence you should just have faith in my comments.
The name change isn't a requirement even today. And children typically take whichever last name the parents decide to put on the birth certificate.
And that is WITHOUT polygamy. Another issue that is not really an issue specific to polygamy.
Also, as long as it is not YOUR family tree..... what business is it of yours?
Its rather ironic that you...a champion of homosexuality and gay marriage...feel you have the right to impose your definitions on others. THIS is ok...but not THAT.
Gotcha....blatant hypocrisy at its finest.
We were talking about legal rights. The federal government has no mandate to ensure people are not discriminated against or to ensure that society is not harmed by that discrimination. The do have the authority to regulate interstate commerce. The point was that legally speaking, it was all about business.It's not just about good business, it's about waging war with the assistance of public infrastructure against minority groups. That's bad for business and society. It's harming society under the guise of a business "open to the public". If you want a private club that excludes blacks, that's your business but if you're open to the public it's public business.
Economics aside, we as a people, have every right to ban such behavior from public business because it's harmful to society.
We were talking about legal rights. The federal government has no mandate to ensure people are not discriminated against or to ensure that society is not harmed by that discrimination. The do have the authority to regulate interstate commerce. The point was that legally speaking, it was all about business.
Yes, of course, the true motivation was otherwise, but they had no power to address that directly.
How can you have an equal partnership with polygamy? That is the crux of a modern marriage. Polygamy is going backwards.
WHy? WHy not three? Why not four? What has CLEARLY been determined is that the definition of 'normal' is fluid and can mean essentially whatever people want it to mean.
I dont have a 'problem' with two people of the same gender being together. I dont care that two consenting adults choose to be together. I accept the courts decisions, in spite fo the fact that it undoes 38 states constitutions and laws. That IS a matter for the courts. That doesnt make it 'right' and it certainly doesnt make it 'normal' (one need look no further than the gay community at large to see the extremes of 'normal'). But I celebrate your right to be gay...even though I cant see it defined in ANY manner as 'normal'.
The modern concept of marriage is an equal partnership which is impossible in polygamy.
Too much of a good thing isn't a good thing.
With ever increasing degrees of freedom come a proportional degree of responsibility exercising that freedom. The latter is severely lacking, yet continued indulgence of the former is demanded. Between the two trends there's an ensuing collision, where everyone in the society and the society itself suffers. These are the crossroads where I believe we've arrived.
From a federal standpoint, yes. People do have that right. They have the right to refuse service to blacks for any reason. There is no constitutional right to be treated equal by your peers, and no real federal authority to outlaw discrimination.
The reason you can't refuse service to blacks at a restaurant isn't because the government protects people from discrimination, but because the government protects interstate commerce, and refusing service to blacks is just not good business.
It is none the less true. Polygamy stems from a time when women were subjugated and treated as inferior. We have advanced from that primitive behavior and I see no reason to go back to it.
Ironically, by making gay marriage legal, it will ultimately serve to end the concept of legal marriage altogether. Unintended (or intended) consequences will abound.
People have a right to be treated equally under the law. If a business chooses to be open to the public we have entered a legal discussion.
The modern concept of marriage is an equal partnership which is impossible in polygamy.
And this entire discussion stemmed from Taylor defending the right of magistrates to refuse to perform marriage licensing duties under the dumb ass "Religious Freedoms" laws some states, including my own (despite Gubernatorial veto) have passed.
And this entire discussion stemmed from Taylor defending the right of magistrates to refuse to perform marriage licensing duties under the dumb ass "Religious Freedoms" laws some states, including my own (despite Gubernatorial veto) have passed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?