Chick-Fil-A and Homosexuality

[StrangeSox]

Well, there's not. But that's the point of this debate. There's also not a protected class discrimination for SSM either, but you want it. I'm relating your arguments to other situations.

 

Yes, there is. I cannot marry a man. On what basis is that determined?

 

 

And i'm not sure what Mass laws are, but I know in illinois everything is written in husband/wife language. Some is "spouse" stuff, but you're still going to have to rewrite a LOT of laws already on the books.

 

It's still a definitional change at worst, not a structural change as MPM would require. I would be surprised if Mass laws weren't very similar to Illinois laws yet still did not have to be re-written. Hell, the bill legalizing gay marriage could include a broad statement on that, changing it simply to "spouse" instead of husband and wife.

[Soxbadger]

1) Because it isn't a protected class.

 

 

 

2) I was saying marriage is a contract, not just MPM. Please read more carefully.

 

 

 

3) Who cares which is which? Perhaps I overstated when I said nothing would have to change for SSM, but I doubt it would need to be changed legislatively versus a new rules interpretation or something similar from SSA. The arrangement and the structure of the program still remain exactly the same. Modifying the language to limit it to "first-spouse," however, represents something a little more fundamental than simply clarifying some definitions.

 

 

 

4) Please try to pay attention to what I'm actually saying, as I've had to point out to you several times now that when I said it would be "legislatively complicated," I did not mean that one particular modification to one particular program would be complicated, but that the entire process of modifying every necessary program would be. Simply restating over and over how you could change SS survivors' benefits doesn't even acknowledge my argument, let alone address it.

 

 

 

The arguments for it are equal protection and eliminating gender-based discrimination. MPM does not fall under either of those and my comment was to the difficulty of enacting it as a policy. I don't know why it caused you to flip your s***.

 

1) Just because it isnt protected, doesnt mean it shouldnt be protected. The argument isnt about what is, it is about, what should be.

 

2) I did read it carefully, which is why I remarked that calling them contracts is a terrible argument. They are more than a contract, you are saying they are a "right."

 

3) Disagree, changing the law is changing the law. It can be done simply (as I suggested) or it can be done complexly, but regardless laws are going to have to change. And the amount of laws, should not impact whether we as a society think its right or wrong. If its wrong, it should be fixed, regardless of how hard it is.

 

4) I read your statement fine, you just have brought 0 evidence to the table. You keep saying that SSM wont require law changes, which isnt true. You then said "Well it requires less then MPM", yet the only law you brought as evidence would have to be re-written more for SSM than MPM. So if you want to rely on that, you should have to bring the evidence.

 

My argument, which you seem to not care about, is that it doesnt matter how many laws have to be changed, if its the right thing to do, it should be done.

 

You have yet to address that, nor have you addressed the real point of my post, you are making weak arguments that play right into the anti-SSM crowd. I just dont get why youd make that argument, when its completely unnecessary.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

Apparently Mass. did have to amend affected laws:

 

February 4, 2004: The court clarified in a statement to the Massachusetts Senate that it was unacceptable to allow opposite-sex couples marriages but same-sex couples only civil unions; they found the distinction unconstitutional discrimination, even if the state rights granted were otherwise identical. The court also reiterated the need for the Legislature to change marital laws. "The purpose of the stay was to afford the Legislature an opportunity to conform the existing statutes to the provisions of the Goodridge decision.”[24]

February 11, 2004: A constitutional convention is convened to attempt to overturn the Supreme Court's decision. After six weeks marked by intense debate and tactical voting to prevent a more extreme measure, the state legislature narrowly passes an amendment 105-92 that would ban same-sex marriage but allow civil unions. The amendment could have taken effect if it was approved by the legislature in 2005, and by popular vote in 2006.[25]

April 16, 2004: Legislative action to change the laws still has not occurred. “He [Romney] placed the blame for the confusion on the Legislature, which has yet to follow a directive from the SJC to change the state’s marriage laws to reflect the legalization of same-sex matrimony." ‘‘I believe the reason that the court gave 180 days to the Legislature was to allow the Legislature the chance to look through the laws developed over the centuries and see how they should be adjusted or clarified for purposes of same-sex marriage; the Legislature didn’t do that,’’ Romney said. Senator Bruce E. Tarr ® of Gloucester, said he believes the Legislature will ultimately pass bills that will insert genderneutral language into the state’s marriage laws in time for the May 17 deadline. ‘‘No one should interpret inaction thus far with the idea that no action is forthcoming,’’ he said.[26]

 

I still maintain that definitional changes such as these are less complicated than the structural changes that would have to be considered for MPM. Hopefully we can end this tangent now.

[kitekrazy]

By now, you've probably heard about Chick-Fil-A and their anti-same sex marriage stand. This coming from a company that is openly evangelical. Is it a big deal?

 

Personally, I think they can have any opinion they want, but it's a slippery slope. The corporation gives to "anti-gay" groups but will gladly accept money from the LGBT community (if anyone of them would ever go there again). But, you can't discriminate and not allow them to buy your chicken.

 

Seems like this is a case of shut up and serve....

 

matt

 

 

It's the gay right agenda bullying people. They owners are also against divorce. Where are the divorcees protesting? I doubt they discriminate in hiring. No one asks in an interview if you are gay unless you are interested in a job being a bartender at a gay bar. (gays do discriminate)

 

They are a company, not a religious institution. They probably don't discriminate in hiring.

 

I've read stupid statements from the mayors of Boston and Chicago about blocking this company from bringing in a franchise. I guess they have never heard of the 1st Amendment.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

My ability to marry a man is determined by my gender. How is that not gender-based discrimination?

 

I guess i'd argue that the fact that your a man doesn't stop you from receiving the benefits of marriage. You can go marry a woman if you wanted them. What stops you is your sexuality, which isn't protected.

[StrangeSox]

1) Just because it isnt protected, doesnt mean it shouldnt be protected. The argument isnt about what it, it is about, what should be.

 

2) I did read it carefully, which is why I remarked that calling them contracts is a terrible argument. They are more than a contract, you are saying they are a "right."

 

I was not calling marriage a right. Equal protection is a right, and discriminatory marriage laws violate that. No such constitutional right is violated, imo, by MPM prohibition.

 

3) Disagree, changing the law is changing the law. It can be done simply (as I suggested) or it can be done complexly, but regardless laws are going to have to change. And the amount of laws, should not impact whether we as a society think its right or wrong. If its wrong, it should be fixed, regardless of how hard it is.

 

I never disagreed that if it's the right thing to do, it should be changed. I was only remarking that the process for doing so for MPM would necessarily be more complicated. You are not simply redefining everything from "husband" and "wife" to gender-neutral "spouse," you have to consider each individual law and whether it should be restricted to one spouse and how it should be restricted. That does not apply to replacing husband/wife with spouse.

 

4) I read your statement fine, you just have brought 0 evidence to the table. You keep saying that SSM wont require law changes, which isnt true. You then said "Well it requires less then MPM", yet the only law you brought as evidence would have to be re-written more for SSM than MPM. So if you want to rely on that, you should have to bring the evidence.

 

I admit that I was wrong that SSM would not require any legislative changes. I still maintain that it requires less changes than MPM because you are only replacing language with gender-neutral terms, not considering the actual structure and impact. If every pertinent law had been written with "spouse" instead of "husband/wife," then there would be zero changes. The same could not be said for MPM, and each program or benefit would have to be analyzed to determine if it should be restricted to one or given to all.

 

My argument, which you seem to not care about, is that it doesnt matter how many laws have to be changed, if its the right thing to do, it should be done.

 

You're right, I don't really care, because it's not relevant to my side-comment that started this whole thing. I do not fundamentally disagree with what you are saying.

 

You have yet to address that, nor have you addressed the real point of my post, you are making weak arguments that play right into the anti-SSM crowd. I just dont get why youd make that argument, when its completely unnecessary.

 

I didn't address it because I don't really disagree with the main thrust of your argument. I disagree that the legislative changes necessary would be comparable in nature to SSM, and I do not think that MPM is protected constitutionally as SSM is. That doesn't mean we shouldn't allow it, but imo it's a policy argument, not a constitutional rights one.

 

[StrangeSox]

I guess i'd argue that the fact that your a man doesn't stop you from receiving the benefits of marriage. You can go marry a woman if you wanted them. What stops you is your sexuality, which isn't protected.

 

I'm not being denied a marriage license to another man because I'm gay, I'm being denied a marriage license because I'm a man. That is straight-up gender discrimination. The "everyone has an equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex" argument just doesn't fly.

[StrangeSox]

It's the gay right agenda bullying people. They owners are also against divorce. Where are the divorcees protesting? I doubt they discriminate in hiring. No one asks in an interview if you are gay unless you are interested in a job being a bartender at a gay bar. (gays do discriminate)

 

I know straight people who work at a gay bar. I know gay people who were fired for being gay.

[Balta1701]

They are a company, not a religious institution. They probably don't discriminate in hiring.

They butt right up against the lines of discrimination and have been sued about a dozen times for it.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm not being denied a marriage license to another man because I'm gay, I'm being denied a marriage license because I'm a man. That is straight-up gender discrimination. The "everyone has an equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex" argument just doesn't fly.

 

You being a man has nothing to do with the denial. You being gay does. That's the discriminatory characteristic there. Being a man is part of the requirement for getting a license in the first place.

[bmags]

I think to bring in the main topic, I think it's ridiculous posturing. I disagree they should zone chickfila out for this. But Matthew Yglesias brought up, if you really don't want them in your neighborhood you can bring up the million stupid zoning laws to prevent people from getting there.

[StrangeSox]

You being a man has nothing to do with the denial. You being gay does. That's the discriminatory characteristic there. Being a man is part of the requirement for getting a license in the first place.

 

The only thing determining that is my gender. Sexuality is not on the form.

 

If your argument made sense, then gays would be barred from marriage regardless of who they were going to marry. The restriction is entirely gender-based as two homosexuals can get married as long as they are opposite-gendered.

Edited July 30, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

The only thing determining that is my gender. Sexuality is not on the form.

 

If your argument made sense, then gays would be barred from marriage regardless of who they were going to marry. The restriction is entirely gender-based as two homosexuals can get married as long as they are opposite-gendered.

 

The courts don't view it this way or there would have been an equal protection case long, long ago about gay marriage.

[CrimsonWeltall]

You being a man has nothing to do with the denial. You being gay does. That's the discriminatory characteristic there. Being a man is part of the requirement for getting a license in the first place.

 

The intention of the current setup is to keep gays from marrying, but the method of doing so uses gender, not sexual orientation.

[Soxbadger]

Jenks is making the classic winning argument against SSM.

 

Every man can marry a woman, and every woman can marry a man. That is equality. Which is why (imo) to actually win the entire debate, you must argue that in and of itself marriage has become a right or sexual orientation is a right, and therefore the govt denying it to consenting adults, is a deprivation of rights.

 

Gender discrimination usually refers to a man or woman being treated different due to their gender. In this case, neither men nor women are being treated differently.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Quin]

I guess i'd argue that the fact that your a man doesn't stop you from receiving the benefits of marriage. You can go marry a woman if you wanted them. What stops you is your sexuality, which isn't protected.

 

So could I deny someone some rights for being Christian? It's their choice to not be Jewish or Muslim.

[CrimsonWeltall]

So could I deny someone some rights for being Christian? It's their choice to not be Jewish or Muslim.

 

Tax breaks for all people who attend Lutheran church services every Sunday.

 

Every person, Lutheran and non-Lutheran alike, has EQUAL ability to attend such services, therefore this tax break is not discriminatory.

[Quin]

Tax breaks for all people who attend Lutheran church services every Sunday.

 

Every person, Lutheran and non-Lutheran alike, has EQUAL ability to attend such services, therefore this tax break is not discriminatory.

 

Why do feel like if I replaced Lutheran with Muslim or Jewish, there'd be an uproar?

[Soxbadger]

So could I deny someone some rights for being Christian? It's their choice to not be Jewish or Muslim.

 

Faith is protected.

 

The actual comparison would be something like:

 

McDonalds is giving out free cheeseburgers, McDonalds refuses to give out just plain hamburgers, and eating dairy/meat is against my religion so I cant get the benefits. Or if McDonalds refused to serve kosher products.

 

This would presumably be legal, even though it would be illegal for McDonalds not to serve Jews on the basis of religion.

[Jenksismyhero]

So could I deny someone some rights for being Christian? It's their choice to not be Jewish or Muslim.

 

No, religion is a protected class.

[CrimsonWeltall]

No, religion is a protected class.

 

So is gender. And so should be sexual orientation.

[Quin]

No, religion is a protected class.

But I thought it's their choice?

[Reddy]

So is gender. And so should be sexual orientation.

and if you don't agree with that you prove my ORIGINAL POINT ABOUT SOUTHERNERS!

 

see i tied in my own bigotry again. this recent string of posts was getting boring.

[Soxbadger]

But I thought it's their choice?

 

Law specifically prohibits.

 

There is no law that specifically prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.

[Balta1701]

Law specifically prohibits.

 

There is no law that specifically prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation at the federal level

To be fair, fixed. About 20 states have done so.