The Politics Thread v2

[Solo]

Many Republican/Tea Party people do not "oppose" homosexuality as a private practice. They simply do not approve of it receiving special treatment, particularly at the expense of religion, which it has. Many would be quite satisfied to have universal civil partnerships instead of government marriages.

Allowing gays to receive the same benefits as straight couples does not take away any rights or power from religion or straight people, it just means they need to share their rights now with people they previously and deliberately excluded.  As far as opposing homosexuality, locally at least, the conservatives very much do oppose homosexuality.  If you're LGBT and murdered/assaulted openly in the streets here no attempt is made to find your killer at all.  The conservative government and law enforcement simply tells victims that's what they get for not conforming.

Candidate statements

Your relationship with [your partner] can be made more permanent through contractual obligations that set forth asset disposition and other issues. However, I don’t believe that your relationship should be afforded the same status in the law as a man and a woman agreeing to marriage. The institution of marriage is under attack in our society and it needs to be strengthened. This does not have to be at the expense of other kinds of relationships but in support of the most important institution in our society.

On June 26, 2015, Ben Carson expressed his disagreement with the holding in Obergefell v. Hodges, but conceded the Supreme Court's "ruling is now the law of the land." Carson added, "I call on Congress to make sure deeply held religious views are respected and protected. The government must never force Christians to violate their religious beliefs. I support same sex civil unions but to me, and millions like me, marriage is a religious service not a government form.

In 2012, Chris Christie expressed his support for civil unions. Although he was opposed to legalizing gay marriage, he said that he believed same-sex couples in a civil union deserved to receive the same benefits as married couples and to be protected from discrimination

Speaking at the Western Conservative Summit in Denver on June 27, 2015, Carly Fiorina noted that she supported civil unions and accompanying benefits, but reiterated her opposition to same-sex marriage. Fiorina explained, "Throughout the millennia and in every religion in the world, marriage has a very specific meaning. Marriage is a institution [sic] grounded in spirituality. It is the union of a man and a woman, and from that union comes life, and life is a gift from God."[42]

On June 26, 2015, following the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, Trump tweeted, "Once again the Bush appointed Supreme Court Justice John Roberts has let us down. Jeb pushed him hard! Remember!"

This is just a sample; the link has more info. Also, ignoring candidates polling at 0 here. But it does establish the candidates; in general, believe in a seperate but equal, system for gay couples.

[Samwise]

Allowing gays to receive the same benefits as straight couples does not take away any rights or power from religion or straight people, it just means they need to share their rights now with people they previously and deliberately excluded.  As far as opposing homosexuality, locally at least, the conservatives very much do oppose homosexuality.  If you're LGBT and murdered/assaulted openly in the streets here no attempt is made to find your killer at all.  The conservative government and law enforcement simply tells victims that's what they get for not conforming.

The problem is when "same" become "preference", which is what is happening all too often.
As for law enforcement, given the number of fraudulent claims these days, I simply don't believe any claims of bias until they've been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

And yet closing the country to immigration is the platform of the two most popular candidates on the conservative side of the aisle.  Granted neither one is really conservative or republican, so I imagine their voters are in for quite a surprise.

No, closing the country to illegal immigration is the platform. Legal immigrants are still welcome.
As for closing the country to legal immigrants, as I said, you might want to check where Bernie stands on that.
Oh, and while Trump is certainly not conservative or Republican, why do you think Carson isn't?

Are they pushing them because they believe in them, or out of cynical political belief that it's hard to call someone a racist, even if they sport racist ideology, when they happen to be that race?  It's easy enough to pluck someone off the streets whose always been an outsider and promise them a title and power if you just vote their way.  It's how fascists worm their way into power.

Because they believe in them.
It is the "liberals" who refuse to call racists what they are simply because of their skin color and other ideology.
Indeed, that is precisely how fascists worm their way into power, and why "conservatives" oppose them.

Based on my experiences here it seems more like they oppose women's rights in the theocratic belief that women don't have the smae rights and privileges men do.  The local city councilman is often quoted as saying the three greatest failures of the united states was abolishing slavery, allowing blacks to vote, and allowing women to vote.  He's republican.  Coasted to easy re-election despite being quoted as saying blacks should be euthanized because they're parasites instead of humans.

You have some serious idiots out there then.
I've encountered more of that kind racism from "liberals" than I have from "conservatives".

Yes but as they have latched on to the conservative movement, they are in many places now the defacto conservatives.  Ohio was for a time politically moderate (by which I mean sane despite it's embedded racism).  Now people I have known who would have once been considered right of center have stopped paying taxes, quit their jobs, and cashed out their life savings to stock up on food, guns and ammunition for "the coming race war during Obama's emergency third term".  2 locals actually attempted suicide when the supreme court decided for gay marriage because they thought the biblical Armageddon had arrived.  There's a reason I often refer to Ohio as the 7th Circle of Hell.

Yes they did. That was a deliberate plan by Rothbard, carried out by Rockwell, with Paul as the front man. I've ranted about that repeatedly and vehemently in "conservative" forums, and been called truly horrific things by the Ronulan trolls as a result. I would also add that pandering to race war proclivities was part of their program, as in the infamous newsletters.
Never mind not disagreeing with you about that, I don't think you denounce them enough. I simply note that while they call themselves "conservatives" they absolutely aren't.

That's little more than semantics here, or in much of the Midwest/South.  If the establishment candidate feels he has to pander to the tea party to prevent an attack from his right during the campaign, the he's giving in to their desires, and he votes much the way they want ot for fear of them.  Establishment republicans are dying of to be replaced by conspiracy theorists and people who claim to be conservative, but who really seek some moral justification for selfishness and brutality they think voters will accept.

Again, I'm not going to disagree. All I will do is point out that in NYC we wind up with the "reverse", with the candidates arguing over who is the most properly socialist without actually calling themselves socialist (unless they just want to be transgressive and ultra-kewl and use it anyway).
And I would ask, now do you understand why I hesitated to accept being called a "conservative" before I knew what you meant by the term?

[Samwise]

This is just a sample; the link has more info. Also, ignoring candidates polling at 0 here. But it does establish the candidates; in general, believe in a seperate but equal, system for gay couples.

But they do not believe that non-monogamous, non-heterosexuals (so as to allow for full inclusion of everyone else) should be denied basic rights, which was the claim.
And which does not contradict my statement that there are significant numbers of "conservatives" who favor separating marriage from civil unions specifically to avoid such a "separate but equal" situation.

This of course in contrast to the Clintons and Obama who have flipped and flopped with the polls like dying fish on crystal meth. As for feeling the Bern:
http://time.com/4089946/bernie-sanders-gay-marriage/
Well that's a fine problematic to have to memory hole.

Meanwhile, meet Rubén Díaz, Sr.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rub%C3%A9n_D%C3%ADaz,_Sr.
One of the biggest political bosses in the Bronx.
The issue doesn't break purely on party lines, and there is indeed a significant "puritan" core within socialism.

[Solo]

But they do not believe that non-monogamous, non-heterosexuals (so as to allow for full inclusion of everyone else) should be denied basic rights, which was the claim.

What about an employer firing someone who is gay because of values, which is something Jeb! and Rand Paul (among others?) have supported? What about denying them access to businesses and services?

And which does not contradict my statement that there are significant numbers of "conservatives" who favor separating marriage from civil unions specifically to avoid such a "separate but equal" situation.

I've only heard of them seperating marriage from civil unions for gays.

And iirc, the last Republican presidentil candidate was against even civil unions if they were otherwise identical to marriages.

[bhu]

The problem is when "same" become "preference", which is what is happening all too often.
As for law enforcement, given the number of fraudulent claims these days, I simply don't believe any claims of bias until they've been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

When I mentioned law enforcement i wasn't discussing they're being biased against claims of fraud or discrimination.  I was discussing people who reported assault or murder being told "He had it coming, now fuck off or we'll finis the job his assailants started."  There are good cops in Ohio, but they are well overshadowed by a long standing tradition of cops who spend their lives masturbating metaphorically to the idea that some day they will be able to legally murder a minority, a homosexual, or their wife/girlfriend, and be able to hide behind their badge.  The local police force in particular used to be quite bad, and were little more than jack booted thugs.  That started to change a little bit after the police chief was fired for being an ignorant racist in too public and overt a manner, but it hasn't changed enough.

Oh, and while Trump is certainly not conservative or Republican, why do you think Carson isn't?

 

Carson only became registered as a Republican last year.  Like Trump his positions on most issues are significantly different now than they were from his past.  Unlike Trump his friends and family have said in interviews that they don't recognize him, because the man running for President is not the man they know.  He's not exactly anti gun control, he wants the minimum wage to rise, he claims to be against subsidies (but then directly admits there are certain ones he'd like to keep/expand), he's referred to health care as an ideal place for expanding government regulation (to the point he believes health insurance should be nationalized), doesn't think price fixing is an inherently bad idea, believes the government must interfere with the marketplace or there is no growth (he thinks government  deregulation caused the housing crisis), is a strong supported of food stamps and the Dodd-Frank act, has supported what conservatives would call amnesty for illegal aliens, and believes that free speech that causes harm or distress should be excluded under the 1st amendment (in other words if it pisses people off).  There are other examples, but a great many conservatives would like to see him pilloried for the above.  He's flopped on some of those after being questioned, giving the impression he is a political neophyte being taken advantage of by handlers, or he sees a populist wave he believes he can ride to the White House if he can make the public believe he's modified his views.  He is the only candidate the political fact checkers give a 0% score on telling the truth, though most admit he's not likely lying so much as just uninformed or misinformed.  He gets by because until now, no other candidate has taken him seriously.  Bush is fighting with Trump and Rubio.  Paul is fighting with Christie.  Most of the others are all squabbling with Trump, and Carson has coasted with no scrutiny because he's been believed to be a non-entity.  Now that he has possible front runner status that will change, and of all the candidates he is the only one whose statements and political views fall apart under scrutiny as much as Trump's do.  He's a mix of left and right ideologies with a good deal of political and social ignorance thrown in, and comes off as a big government theocrat.

You have some serious idiots out there then.
I've encountered more of that kind racism from "liberals" than I have from "conservatives".

I spend a great deal of time in the bitching forum venting about them.  Ohio is a great place to live if you white, male, straight, politically conservative, protestant christian (in some areas it's catholic instead), under educated, and consider all of the above to be your greatest achievement in life.  Deviate from that even a little and people make your life hell.  There's a little town 15 minutes northeast of me where you still have to be a Klan member to open a business or run for office.

Yes they did. That was a deliberate plan by Rothbard, carried out by Rockwell, with Paul as the front man. I've ranted about that repeatedly and vehemently in "conservative" forums, and been called truly horrific things by the Ronulan trolls as a result. I would also add that pandering to race war proclivities was part of their program, as in the infamous newsletters.
Never mind not disagreeing with you about that, I don't think you denounce them enough. I simply note that while they call themselves "conservatives" they absolutely aren't.

"Perception is Reality" is an unfortunately true saying.  If someone considers me their enemy, I am their enemy, even if I do not agree with that perception.  Similarly if a group refers to themselves as conservative, and the media calls them conservative, and other political ideologies call them conservative, they may as well be the new definition of conservative because after a while the public will come to accept them as conservative.  Thankfully Rand Paul doesn't seem to have the pull his father Ron did.  They've decide to abandon modern libertarianism (which is really objectivism) for the Neo-Reactionary movement.  Which, also thankfully, is too extreme to have much influence.

Again, I'm not going to disagree. All I will do is point out that in NYC we wind up with the "reverse", with the candidates arguing over who is the most properly socialist without actually calling themselves socialist (unless they just want to be transgressive and ultra-kewl and use it anyway).
And I would ask, now do you understand why I hesitated to accept being called a "conservative" before I knew what you meant by the term?

  Every side has it's holier than thou types.  It's generally unfair to judge them all by those individuals, unless said holier than thou types are actually the majority.  Which doesn't make being judgey any more acceptable, but you can at least why it's more likely that people do so.

One should never be hesitant to be oneself, and if others make mistakes then approach them non-combatively and explain gently why they are wrong.  I generally disagree with much of what Anton LaVey says but he does have one point I agree with: "Be who you are without reserve or apology.  If a monster is what you happen to be, then openly and honestly be the best damn monster you can be.  Similarly if you are saintly at heart, do not make excuses or seek outside justification for being so."

[Unbeliever]

The problem is when "same" become "preference", which is what is happening all too often.

I'll bite, even though I shouldn't, give me a single instance in which a marriage between two people of the same sex has been treated preferentially.  That is, in a way that is not in all ways, shapes, and forms identical to a marriage between a man and a woman. 

What I think you want to refer to, but are shoddily eliding, is the idea that a homosexual person or persons can demand services from people who might not be inclined to give them to them, e.g., the baker has to make a cake for a gay wedding, regardless of their personal beliefs and commitments.  This is a slightly more complicated question, but the legal principle that a business that holds itself as open to the public must serve all comers barring specific exceptions (e.g., danger) is older than the United States.  And, that's not even touching on the patchwork of civil rights legislation, regulation, and constitutional rights. 

[Samwise]

What about an employer firing someone who is gay because of values, which is something Jeb! and Rand Paul (among others?) have supported? What about denying them access to businesses and services?

Too broad.

Do you mean a religious school firing a teacher who comes out?
Or do you mean a restaurant refusing to hire a "basic" homosexual?
Or do you mean a warehouse not wanting a transvestite?

And do you mean a baker not wanting to provide a wedding cake?
Or do you mean a gym not allowing a non-surgical trans-sexual access to a locker room of the opposite sex?
Or do you mean a pharmacy refusing to sell aspirin to two guys kissing?

I've only heard of them seperating marriage from civil unions for gays.

And iirc, the last Republican presidentil candidate was against even civil unions if they were otherwise identical to marriages.

Well, now you have.
As Romney, according that he was squishy on the issue of the extent of civil unions. Again though, shall we compare that to the current Democratic President's absolute flip on gay marriage?

[Samwise]

When I mentioned law enforcement i wasn't discussing they're being biased against claims of fraud or discrimination.  I was discussing people who reported assault or murder being told "He had it coming, now fuck off or we'll finis the job his assailants started."

Right.
And as I said, given the number of fraudulent reports on such things, I do not believe any reports of such without clear and convincing evidence.
That may not be "fair", but that is what the frauds have wrought crying wolf too many times.

Carson only became registered as a Republican last year.  Like Trump his positions on most issues are significantly different now than they were from his past.  . . . He's a mix of left and right ideologies with a good deal of political and social ignorance thrown in, and comes off as a big government theocrat.

Could be. I've suspected that myself but was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

"Perception is Reality" is an unfortunately true saying.  If someone considers me their enemy, I am their enemy, even if I do not agree with that perception.  . . .

Well, I'm still willing to put up some fight over the term "conservative", but otherwise I completely agree, only adding that while I'm a "live and let live" sort of guy, if someone makes me vote for who survives I will always be voting for me/my group.

Every side has it's holier than thou types.  It's generally unfair to judge them all by those individuals, unless said holier than thou types are actually the majority.  Which doesn't make being judgey any more acceptable, but you can at least why it's more likely that people do so.

I don't judge, I just hesitate to leap to be a target for insults based on things I not only don't believe but strenuously object to.
And that's just the crap I've gotten from close friends.

One should never be hesitant to be oneself, and if others make mistakes then approach them non-combatively and explain gently why they are wrong.  I generally disagree with much of what Anton LaVey says but he does have one point I agree with: "Be who you are without reserve or apology.  If a monster is what you happen to be, then openly and honestly be the best damn monster you can be.  Similarly if you are saintly at heart, do not make excuses or seek outside justification for being so."

Well, I think clearly I've shown I don't. 
And I like quoting Cromwell, "When we stop getting better, we stop being good." It's a perfect motto for training people for competition but I'd never endorse any of his other beliefs.

[Solo]

Too broad.

Do you mean a religious school firing a teacher who comes out?
Or do you mean a restaurant refusing to hire a "basic" homosexual?
Or do you mean a warehouse not wanting a transvestite?

And do you mean a baker not wanting to provide a wedding cake?
Or do you mean a gym not allowing a non-surgical trans-sexual access to a locker room of the opposite sex?
Or do you mean a pharmacy refusing to sell aspirin to two guys kissing?

Sticking to real world events, we have a Catholic school teacher fired for being gay and married, a mechanic who will not service openly gay customers, and, of course, that clerk who not only refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple, but forbade anyone else in her office from doing so, despite this being illegal.

And the bakery thing too, I guess.

As Romney, according that he was squishy on the issue of the extent of civil unions. Again though, shall we compare that to the current Democratic President's absolute flip on gay marriage?

Ah, whataboutism. I thought it had died after the Cold War, but it is refreshing to see it once again. We will make a Marxist of you yet, tovarisch.

[Samwise]

I'll bite, even though I shouldn't, give me a single instance in which a marriage between two people of the same sex has been treated preferentially.  That is, in a way that is not in all ways, shapes, and forms identical to a marriage between a man and a woman. 

What I think you want to refer to, but are shoddily eliding, is the idea that a homosexual person or persons can demand services from people who might not be inclined to give them to them, e.g., the baker has to make a cake for a gay wedding, regardless of their personal beliefs and commitments.  This is a slightly more complicated question, but the legal principle that a business that holds itself as open to the public must serve all comers barring specific exceptions (e.g., danger) is older than the United States.  And, that's not even touching on the patchwork of civil rights legislation, regulation, and constitutional rights.

There is also a legal principle of conscience, particularly of faith, and a right to refuse service, which is older.
Indeed the principle you are referring was pretty much explicitly for inns servicing travelers, which often were government sponsored or sanctioned, and thus clearly eligible to be subjected to different standards.

As a counter-example, consider a recent adjudicated case in NYC where a Muslim cab driver was fined for expelling a lesbian couple for kissing/making out (depending on whose version you believe).
While the "default" "conservative" view is that the business owner has the right to refuse service, NYC cabs are a licensed government monopoly, and so such privileges can clearly be suspended. Had it been a private car service, say Uber, with a posted restriction of no public displays of affection, it would have been different.
Even with this, a baker refusing a birthday cake for a gay couple has a significant difference from refusing a wedding cake.

As for more direct preference, note the difference in how corporations that support or oppose non-heterosexual, non-monogamous marriage are treated differently. Likewise consider when the last time you heard about a corporation making a PR announcement that it had hired a monogamous, married, heterosexual as opposed to when it hired some other version.
Clearly there are very functional circumstances when a "married" gay couple is treated better than other married couples.

[Solo]

Maybe because there isn't a history of systemic oppression and prejudice against heterosexual WASP couples?

Though I will say that such PR moves are rather hypocriticl. It was never about being good, just appearing so.

[Samwise]

Sticking to real world events, we have a Catholic school teacher fired for being gay and married,

Legal, religious freedom has precedence.

a mechanic who will not service openly gay customers[/url],

Repeat of your first link so I can't read it.
Preferably, he should simply be snubbed until he goes out of business. Of course letting the free market determine such things outrages many people, so we are stuck with a law against it for now.

and, of course, that clerk who not only refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple, but forbade anyone else in her office from doing so, despite this being illegal.

Completely illegal. If she refuses to resign then she should be in jail until the legislature removes her from office.
Candidates that disagree are wrong. I am extremely disappointed in Cruz for backing her. (I am not disappointed in Huckashmuck backing her because I expect that level of stupidity from a religious fascist like him.)
Of course it would have been nice to see that kind of outrage when other clerks issued marriage licenses to gay couples when it was illegal, but I guess obeying the law is a subjective thing.

And the bakery thing too, I guess.

See previous post.

Ah, whataboutism. I thought it had died after the Cold War, but it is refreshing to see it once again.

You can invoke Romney but I cannot cite Obama?
Yeah, see, no.

Maybe because there isn't a history of systemic oppression and prejudice against heterosexual WASP couples?

So the solution to systemic oppression and prejudice is different systemic oppression and prejudice?

Though I will say that such PR moves are rather hypocriticl. It was never about being good, just appearing so.

Well look at that, we agree on something.

[Unbeliever]

There is also a legal principle of conscience, particularly of faith, and a right to refuse service, which is older.

Citation Needed.  Indeed, one of the big breaks with previous legal regimes is the First Amendment and Freedom of Religion.  But, honestly, that's neither here nor there.  Nobody in existence rates legal rights based on their age.  As you're obviously aware this right to refuse service, as you put it, has a number of strict limits.  It's by no means general.  It does not support your argument, especially in whatever tenebrous state it currently exists in American law. 

While I mentioned the age of some legal provisions, that principle is in no way presently cabined to inns.  So, while your remarks may have been persuasive to a judge in the 16th century, I thankfully do not live then.  Somehow, we've had expansive legal developments in the past 500 years.  These provisions have been extended to various firms and business.  So, try again.  And, if you choose to, try to base it on what the law is, rather than what you'd like it to be. 

Even with this, a baker refusing a birthday cake for a gay couple has a significant difference from refusing a wedding cake.

How so?  And, a wedding cake was my exact hypothetical.  The original question was about gay marriage, though, not about rights of refusal for service of civil rights.  Like I said, you've conflated the two, they are entirely different legal and moral questions.  But, I guess we're down this road. 

On this point you'll need an argument that does not amount to "this offends the baker's religious sensibilities and therefore they cannot be compelled to do it."  That has been conclusively foreclosed by numerous other constitutional and legal commitments; courts have been at pains to point out that the free exercise of religion, an important and fundamental right, is, like all such rights, not absolute.  We've got 100+ years of precedent on this. 

You also cheat in the lesbians making out in the car example.  You contrast a taxi cab (which I guess had to deal with the state action doctrine?) with a hypothetical  Uber company policy that would apply generally and not discriminate against anyone on the basis of sexual orientation.  A general "no public displays of affection" policy obviously applies to queers and straights alike.

As for more direct preference, note the difference in how corporations that support or oppose non-heterosexual, non-monogamous marriage are treated differently. Likewise consider when the last time you heard about a corporation making a PR announcement that it had hired a monogamous, married, heterosexual as opposed to when it hired some other version.

So, the idea that corporations make a choice to trumpet some forms of diversity implies legal or rights imbalance?  How could that possibly be so?  This is an absurd statement. 

Equal treatment before the law =/= equal popularity before the public.  Why would it?  The Nazis get to march in Skokie, just like the League of Awesomeness that Everyone Really Really Likes.  The former is one of the most maligned groups in existence, the latter (admittedly fake) isn't. 

If you beef is with civil society and the attendant popularity contests, then you were not responding to Bhu's point and are seeking to change the goal posts now. 

Clearly there are very functional circumstances when a "married" gay couple is treated better than other married couples.

And I will calmly wait for you to identify one where the gay married couple has different, and greater, legal rights, privileges, etc. than a straight one. 


P.S.:  with the caveat that I am presuming we are talking about the US you don't get to put scare quotes around marriage for gay people.  If Adam and Steve go to the county clerk and get a certificate (or common law marriage, etc., depends on the state), they are just as married as Ted Cruz and Heidi Nelson.  For better or worse, in the United States the government gets to decide who is married and who isn't.  If you want to put some qualifier on it, like "religiously married" or "Catholically married" or "married before god" then go ahead.

[Samwise]

Citation Needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_contract

Note:
"However, in the case of the United States the principle of freedom of contract has eroded over time due to judicial deference to legislation affecting contracts.[7] For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricted private racial discrimination against African-Americans.[8]"

Freedom of contract came before public accommodation.

Indeed, one of the big breaks with previous legal regimes is the First Amendment and Freedom of Religion. But, honestly, that's neither here nor there.

Mostly not there, as the Freedom of Religion in the First Amendment has nothing to do with private business and exclusively applies to government.
But nice fail at conflation and diversion.

Nobody in existence rates legal rights based on their age.

That is absolutely incorrect.
The whole point of common law is precedence and stare decisis.
Casually overturning old standards is never taken lightly, no matter how much you may want to do away with inconvenient and long-standing rights.

As you're obviously aware this right to refuse service, as you put it, has a number of strict limits.  It's by no means general.  It does not support your argument, especially in whatever tenebrous state it currently exists in American law.

It absolutely supports my argument as a political position. Just because it disagrees with your political position in no way alters its validity.

While I mentioned the age of some legal provisions, that principle is in no way presently cabined to inns.  So, while your remarks may have been persuasive to a judge in the 16th century, I thankfully do not live then.  Somehow, we've had expansive legal developments in the past 500 years.  These provisions have been extended to various firms and business.  So, try again.  And, if you choose to, try to base it on what the law is, rather than what you'd like it to be.

The same back at you - take your post-modern usurpation of rights and go peddle them to someone who is impressed with such. Some of us actually prefer our age-old civil rights.

How so?  And, a wedding cake was my exact hypothetical.  The original question was about gay marriage, though, not about rights of refusal for service of civil rights.  Like I said, you've conflated the two, they are entirely different legal and moral questions.  But, I guess we're down this road.

Birthdays have no particular religious standing. Weddings do.
And because of the unjustified intrusion on private contract rights that you insist on warping the justice system with, the two are inextricably linked as legal and moral questions.

On this point you'll need an argument that does not amount to "this offends the baker's religious sensibilities and therefore they cannot be compelled to do it."  That has been conclusively foreclosed by numerous other constitutional and legal commitments; courts have been at pains to point out that the free exercise of religion, an important and fundamental right, is, like all such rights, not absolute.  We've got 100+ years of precedent on this.

Actually, it hasn't been conclusively foreclosed, though of course you want to pretend that it has. We've also got 100+ years of precedent supporting free exercise of religion in numerous areas because it is such an important and fundamental right.

You also cheat in the lesbians making out in the car example.  You contrast a taxi cab (which I guess had to deal with the state action doctrine?) with a hypothetical  Uber company policy that would apply generally and not discriminate against anyone on the basis of sexual orientation.  A general "no public displays of affection" policy obviously applies to queers and straights alike.

Then let them publicize no gay men kissing but lesbian women can make out all they want while the driver watches and let them get as much business as they can.
The critical element is the difference between an open free market service and a government enforced monopoly.

So, the idea that corporations make a choice to trumpet some forms of diversity implies legal or rights imbalance?  How could that possibly be so?  This is an absurd statement.

Just because you do not understand why it is a problem does not mean it is just, and definitely not that it is absurd.
By that standard, Huckashmuck and his buddies who cannot conceive of why gays would want to be married in the first place completely negates the legitimacy of your position simply by declaring their beliefs.

Equal treatment before the law =/= equal popularity before the public. Why would it?  The Nazis get to march in Skokie, just like the League of Awesomeness that Everyone Really Really Likes.  The former is one of the most maligned groups in existence, the latter (admittedly fake) isn't.

So then . . . there is nothing wrong with a business owner refusing to make a wedding cake for any wedding he doesn't approve of, and nothing wrong with people who don't approve that choice with shopping elsewhere.
Congratulations, you have proved I am right.

If you beef is with civil society and the attendant popularity contests, then you were not responding to Bhu's point and are seeking to change the goal posts now.

I responded to Bhu's points quite well. It is you and others who keep moving the goal posts every time I rebut something you assert and you have no way to continue challenging me. Or have you forgotten this was about me calling the Clinton's Alinskyites and Bernie a Marxist with delusions of being as competent as Lenin? I guess you have.

And I will calmly wait for you to identify one where the gay married couple has different, and greater, legal rights, privileges, etc. than a straight one.

A gay married couple can demand service of anyone, claim "homophobia", and get a massive payout if unsatisfied.
A straight couple cannot.

P.S.:  with the caveat . . .

I have no need to play such games. I simply ask for specifics so I know precisely when you are moving the goalposts yet again.

[Unbeliever]

Nobody in existence rates legal rights based on their age.

That is absolutely incorrect.
The whole point of common law is precedence and stare decisis.
Casually overturning old standards is never taken lightly, no matter how much you may want to do away with inconvenient and long-standing rights.

Oh hell, if only I had a ton of legal analysis to back up one of the most obvious statements about the common law.  I'm just going to pick one important example.  By that logic, Chevron, the single most cited case in US public law, is invalid b/c it's relatively new (1984) and the regime it supplanted was substantially older.  It is, of course, not only perfectly valid, but dominant.  My poor students have to struggle with it, along with every other attorney dealing with administrative law in the United States.  By this simplistic logic Plessy v. Ferguson would be good law simply b/c it's old. 

Nobody ever said anything about doing legal evolution "lightly."  Indeed, I suspect the judges and the clerks in this country are vaguely insulted by the notion.  But, this is just the practice of law.  Just to highlight how "absolutely incorrect" I am, the age of the precedent cuts both ways with regards to stare decisis.  Sometimes, long-settled practice and ongoing reliance are very good reasons to maintain a precedent, even a flawed on.  On the other hand, sometimes age weakens the stare decisis effect.  See, e.g., Justice Scalia's commentary on Church of the Holy Trinity in Zuni Public School District No. 89 v. DOE (2007, Scalia, J., dissenting).  Your argument and your reading is far too simplistic.

It absolutely supports my argument as a political position. Just because it disagrees with your political position in no way alters its validity.

Oh, sorry, I thought we were talking about the state of the law and constitutional discourse.  My bad. 

The same back at you - take your post-modern usurpation of rights and go peddle them to someone who is impressed with such. Some of us actually prefer our age-old civil rights.

See above. I was kind of keeping with civil rights as they've been defined and interpreted by the institution charged with doing so.  Those post-modern folks who wear black robes.  Again, my bad. 

Birthdays have no particular religious standing. Weddings do.
And because of the unjustified intrusion on private contract rights that you insist on warping the justice system with, the two are inextricably linked as legal and moral questions.

See above.  This argument has not, to my knowledge, carried the day in a single federal court in this nation.  I have not researched this point, so I could be wrong.  But, unless I see a counter example, this "warped sense of justice" is, for good or ill, the law. 

Really, it's so much worse than I think you realize.  Outside of special circumstances,  states are forced to recognize the marriages of other states, even if that marriage would constitute incest in the state in question.  See, e.g., In re May's Estate.  So, this important legal/religious/whatever institution can be shanghaied by a bunch of yahoos across the country.

Welcome to America. 

The problem with this conversation is that I actually know something about the law.  And, it doesn't support your arguments.  At least certainly not in the way you think it does.  For instance, you linked me to a wikipedia article on Freedom of Contract.  That article cites one US case -- Lochner -- which has been thoroughly discredited and overturned.  The law of the land is aptly summarized in Justice Holmes' dissent: 

It is settled by various decisions of this court that state constitutions and state laws may regulate life in many ways which we, as legislators, might think as injudicious, or, if you like, as tyrannical, as this, and which, equally with this, interfere with the liberty to contract ... The liberty of the citizen to do as he likes so long as he does not interfere with the liberty of others to do the same, which has been a shibboleth for some well known writers, is interfered with by school laws, by the Post Office, by every state or municipal institution which takes his money for purposes thought desirable, whether he likes it or not.

If you instead want to make some sort of argument from first principles -- abandoning the institutions and framework of the US -- that's a different story.  I'm not particularly interested in that kind of conversation, but maybe somebody else is.

[Solo]

Legal, religious freedom has precedence.

The interesting thing here is that they fired her not for being gay - she told them she was married to a woman when they hired her - but after her being gay became public knowledge due to an obituary. (I believe her mother died?)

You can invoke Romney but I cannot cite Obama?
Yeah, see, no.

As we were talking about conservatives, and as Rommy was a conservative... Yeah, see yes.

Maybe because there isn't a history of systemic oppression and prejudice against heterosexual WASP couples?

So the solution to systemic oppression and prejudice is different systemic oppression and prejudice?

To clarify: are you saying that when gay couples are celebrated by a company as evidence of its progressiveness (contrasting with the past where this sort of thing would have gotten people fired, it is the equivalent to systematic oppression of straight married couples?

[Samwise]

Nobody ever said anything about doing legal evolution "lightly."

Well, yeah, you did.
And when caught you want to blame me for your error.

Oh, sorry, I thought we were talking about the state of the law and constitutional discourse.  My bad.

We were talking about theory and political preferences, so indeed your bad.
But hey, let's run with that:
One year ago, gay marriage was illegal, and anyone advocating it was supporting a usurpation of the law.
Is that what you want to stand for?
Is that how you want to defend anymore changes to current laws? Like say . . . the changes Bernie wants?

See above. I was kind of keeping with civil rights as they've been defined and interpreted by the institution charged with doing so.  Those post-modern folks who wear black robes.  Again, my bad. 

No, you wanted to pretend that one particular case that you like means nothing is ever allowed to change ever again no matter.
By that standard, once Dred Scott was decided the way the Democratic Party wanted (the party Bernie is running for the nomination of) everything was settled and nobody should have advocated any change ever.
Yes, your bad for supporting that principle.

See above.  This argument has not, to my knowledge, carried the day in a single federal court in this nation.  I have not researched this point, so I could be wrong.  But, unless I see a counter example, this "warped sense of justice" is, for good or ill, the law. 

So then no courts ever ruled in favor of say . . . religious institutions firing people on the basis of religious values?
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf
Maybe you should check the laws again.

The problem with this conversation is that I actually know something about the law. And, it doesn't support your arguments.  At least certainly not in the way you think it does.

Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing about you.

For instance, you linked me to a wikipedia article on Freedom of Contract.  That article cites one US case -- Lochner -- which has been thoroughly discredited and overturned.  The law of the land is aptly summarized in Justice Holmes' dissent:

So . . .
Ignore that I was right about the right existing;
Ignore that I was right about the right being recognized for a considerable period of time;
Ignore that I was right about the right being over-ruled;
Ignore that I was right about things being mutable;
And then declare that it didn't support what I said.
You seem really confused about what constitutes "support" for an argument.
Which rather explains why you are confused about the status of laws and the Constitution.

[Samwise]

The interesting thing here is that they fired her not for being gay - she told them she was married to a woman when they hired her - but after her being gay became public knowledge due to an obituary. (I believe her mother died?)

Actually the whole article is rather confused. It says they fired her but it also says they just didn't renew her contract, which is quite different from cancelling a contract in the middle of it.

As we were talking about conservatives, and as Rommy was a conservative... Yeah, see yes.

Well, no, see, no, I was talking about the Clintons and Bernie, so, no, yeah no.

To clarify: are you saying that when gay couples are celebrated by a company as evidence of its progressiveness (contrasting with the past where this sort of thing would have gotten people fired, it is the equivalent to systematic oppression of straight married couples?

IF celebrating straight couples is a priori evidence of the systematic oppression of gay couples;
THEN celebrating gay couples is de facto evidence of the systematic oppression of straight couples.

Note: Yes, that is Alinskyite tactics - holding the enemy to his own standards.
Horrible of me, but . . .

[Solo]

Actually the whole article is rather confused. It says they fired her but it also says they just didn't renew her contract, which is quite different from cancelling a contract in the middle of it.

The part that people find disagreable us that the school chose not to renew based soley on the fact that she was outed to the public.

Well, no, see, no, I was talking about the Clintons and Bernie, so, no, yeah no.

Not to me you weren't.

IF celebrating straight couples is a priori evidence of the systematic oppression of gay couples;
THEN celebrating gay couples is de facto evidence of the systematic oppression of straight couples.

But celebrating straight couples is not oppression towards gays, nor has anyone, to my knowledge, said it is. Legally giving them more rights; better treatment in the eyes of the law, etc, is. Just like celebrating being white (either through Irish pride parades or a white power rally) is not oppressing minorities, but forcing them to the back of the bus on pain of lynching is.

[MrWolfe]

Legal, religious freedom has precedence.

The interesting thing here is that they fired her not for being gay - she told them she was married to a woman when they hired her - but after her being gay became public knowledge due to an obituary. (I believe her mother died?)

If true, they fired her for being gay in public, rather than keeping it in the closet. Let's not pretend that isn't firing someone for being gay.

In any event, refusing to serve/employ someone because their orientation doesn't jive with your beliefs isn't religious freedom, it's a violation of their religious freedom by attempting to force them to conform to your belief system. This would be like a Jewish or Muslim person knocking the beer and hotdogs out of other people's hands at a baseball game because their religion says they aren't allowed to eat them. If you run a restaurant, sure, you could decide not to serve foods which are prohibited by your belief system--but refusing to serve or employ members of another faith or people who do eat those foods (at home, in the privacy of their own dining room) is not about being free to practice your religion, it's about persecuting others for not practicing it.

Actually the whole article is rather confused. It says they fired her but it also says they just didn't renew her contract, which is quite different from cancelling a contract in the middle of it.

The "declined to renew their contract" excuse is just the coward's way of firing someone for reasons that may be illegal or drum up bad publicity. It's right up there with firing employees or evicting tenants "without cause" to get around anti-discrimination laws. ie: "You weren't fired because you're black, we just felt you weren't a good fit here and decided it was time to let you go."

Maybe because there isn't a history of systemic oppression and prejudice against heterosexual WASP couples?

So the solution to systemic oppression and prejudice is different systemic oppression and prejudice?

To clarify: are you saying that when gay couples are celebrated by a company as evidence of its progressiveness (contrasting with the past where this sort of thing would have gotten people fired, it is the equivalent to systematic oppression of straight married couples?

There are a lot of people who think like this. One of the side effects of having privilege at the expense of other groups is that when those groups start to gain even a hint of equality the privileged people often see it at an attack on their rights, rather than giving back some of the power they've been unjustly stealing from marginalized people.

To be fair, I follow the news, and I had no idea there was an election until 24 hours in advanced.  It's a mark of shame, but I had to do my research quickly in order to make an educated choice.  I'm afraid this one caught up on me since I was all focused on midterms and the primary.  Its exactly the kind of problem I think is pretty bad; they advertise nothing, and with many people cutting cables, even more lack information that these things are going on.  Whenever there is an election, they need to make sure everyone knows.  This is why no one votes in anything but the general, nevermind low voter turnout in general due to disenfranchisement.

A lot of that is intentional. My wife re-registered about six years ago when we moved into our current place, and she never got her registration card or anything. We found out later there was a big scandal with Republican-affiliated groups in our area setting up voter registration booths (without disclosing their affiliation) and then tossing the forms of people who didn't register Republican. As a result, a lot of people who thought they were registered found out they weren't on election day, and weren't allowed to vote.

After that she registered through the DMV when renewing her license, but even though she did receive her registration card (about six months late, just after the next election) neither she nor I have received any literature on the different candidates or bills, or even notification of where our polling place is, for many years.