aka the plot to suppress Martinus' thread count.
First up:
Yonaty v. Mincolla - New York's highest court effectively endorsed a ruling rejecting the ancient common law rule that impuation of homosexuality is libel per se, citing the evolution in social attitudes.
Guess we'll have to sue Brain in a different state.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 04, 2013, 11:58:34 AM
aka the plot to suppress Martinus' thread count.
First up:
Yonaty v. Mincolla - New York's highest court effectively endorsed a ruling rejecting the ancient common law rule that impuation of homosexuality is libel per se, citing the evolution in social attitudes.
Future cases will make an exception for any imputation of being Marti-like.
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?id=141833
QuoteTurkish Court Rules Gay Sex Is Natural
An Istanbul court ruled on Monday that consensual sex between two men is natural. The landmark ruling contradicts rulings made in the past by the country's Supreme Court, Gay Star News reports.
The ruling involved a merchant who was caught selling 125 DVDs of gay porn. The trader's personal information has not been published but his initials are D.M. D.M. faced up to four years in prison as Turkey's penal code outlaws citizens from owning, selling, distributing and publishing "unnatural sex" videos.
In a surprise ruling, however, Jude Manmut Erdemli said that sexual orientation cannot be considered unnatural and it should be respected. The ruling goes against the country's Supreme Court, which has ruled that gay sex is unnatural, along with beastality, in past cases.
What is more remarkable, the judge pointed to the legality of gay marriages in the United States and in Europe. "Today, it is possible to have gay marriages in modern countries," he said in his ruling.
"International regulations prohibit discrimination regarding peoples' sexual preference, and it is therefore an obligation to respect their sexual orientation," Erdemli said. "In this respect, most of the European countries see gay relationships as equivalent to marriage. Contemporary societies allow [gay relationships] to achieve this legal status and therefore the contents of the DVDs can not be seen as unnatural."
Although the court ruled that D.M. was not guilty of selling unnatural porn, he was found guilty of "the unauthorized selling of porn" and received eight months in prison. Turkey's criminal division of the Supreme Court slammed the lower court's ruling and said same gay sex and group sex are unnatural and the court was wrong to sentence the trader for just eight months, instead of four years.
LGBT rights have not progressed much in the Eurasian country as gay marriage is not recognized or any form of same-sex relationships. Additionally, sexual orientation and gender identity are not part of Turkey's civil rights laws but transgender individuals are allowed to undergo sex reassignment surgery.
Modern Turkey was founded on the ruins of the long-tottering Ottoman Empire after the First World War as a progressive, adamantly secular nation. Although the nation is almost entirely Muslim, it has traditionally protected other religions.
Istanbul remains as the seat of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and it is the only remaining Muslim Middle Eastern nation where a small Jewish minority remains at all, let alone thrives. Turkey has, until recently, been especially notable as an ally of Israel.
In recent years, the ascendency of an Islamic political party has leaned the nation more toward the Sharia law of its neighbor Iran. Even so, the nation, which spans Europe and Asia, has long sought entry to the European Union.
Thus, the ruling by the judge can be viewed in geopolitical terms as another subtle bow Turkey is making toward entry in the EU, which has mandated that any nation wishing to join the economic union must demonstrate its bona fides as regards to its LGBT citizens.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 04, 2013, 11:58:34 AM
aka the plot to suppress Martinus' thread count.
First up:
Yonaty v. Mincolla - New York's highest court effectively endorsed a ruling rejecting the ancient common law rule that impuation of homosexuality is libel per se, citing the evolution in social attitudes.
But wouldn't you need some lawtalker skills to post an opinion in this thread ?
I wouldn't say Turkey is a Middle Eastern country.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 22, 2013, 01:41:19 PM
I wouldn't say Turkey is a Middle Eastern country.
Quick google search shows most people including Turkey on maps of Middle East though there is a sizable subset that does not.
New York. :yucky:
Quote from: mongers on February 22, 2013, 01:41:06 PM
But wouldn't you need some lawtalker skills to post an opinion in this thread ?
Don't think so - these cases are of general public interest.
Quote from: mongers on February 22, 2013, 01:41:06 PM
But wouldn't you need some lawtalker skills to post an opinion in this thread ?
That's never stopped Marti before! :P
Quote from: garbon on February 22, 2013, 01:33:27 PM
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?id=141833
QuoteTurkish Court Rules Gay Sex Is Natural
An Istanbul court ruled on Monday that consensual sex between two men is natural. The landmark ruling contradicts rulings made in the past by the country's Supreme Court, Gay Star News reports.
The ruling involved a merchant who was caught selling 125 DVDs of gay porn. The trader's personal information has not been published but his initials are D.M. D.M. faced up to four years in prison as Turkey's penal code outlaws citizens from owning, selling, distributing and publishing "unnatural sex" videos.
In a surprise ruling, however, Jude Manmut Erdemli said that sexual orientation cannot be considered unnatural and it should be respected. The ruling goes against the country's Supreme Court, which has ruled that gay sex is unnatural, along with beastality, in past cases.
What is more remarkable, the judge pointed to the legality of gay marriages in the United States and in Europe. "Today, it is possible to have gay marriages in modern countries," he said in his ruling.
"International regulations prohibit discrimination regarding peoples' sexual preference, and it is therefore an obligation to respect their sexual orientation," Erdemli said. "In this respect, most of the European countries see gay relationships as equivalent to marriage. Contemporary societies allow [gay relationships] to achieve this legal status and therefore the contents of the DVDs can not be seen as unnatural."
Although the court ruled that D.M. was not guilty of selling unnatural porn, he was found guilty of "the unauthorized selling of porn" and received eight months in prison. Turkey's criminal division of the Supreme Court slammed the lower court's ruling and said same gay sex and group sex are unnatural and the court was wrong to sentence the trader for just eight months, instead of four years.
LGBT rights have not progressed much in the Eurasian country as gay marriage is not recognized or any form of same-sex relationships. Additionally, sexual orientation and gender identity are not part of Turkey's civil rights laws but transgender individuals are allowed to undergo sex reassignment surgery.
Modern Turkey was founded on the ruins of the long-tottering Ottoman Empire after the First World War as a progressive, adamantly secular nation. Although the nation is almost entirely Muslim, it has traditionally protected other religions.
Istanbul remains as the seat of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and it is the only remaining Muslim Middle Eastern nation where a small Jewish minority remains at all, let alone thrives. Turkey has, until recently, been especially notable as an ally of Israel.
In recent years, the ascendency of an Islamic political party has leaned the nation more toward the Sharia law of its neighbor Iran. Even so, the nation, which spans Europe and Asia, has long sought entry to the European Union.
Thus, the ruling by the judge can be viewed in geopolitical terms as another subtle bow Turkey is making toward entry in the EU, which has mandated that any nation wishing to join the economic union must demonstrate its bona fides as regards to its LGBT citizens.
That is a surprise. The article though leaves much to be desired in terms of clarity. Does this mean that the lower court ruling was overturned on appeal, or what?
QuoteTurkey's criminal division of the Supreme Court slammed the lower court's ruling and said same gay sex and group sex are unnatural and the court was wrong to sentence the trader for just eight months, instead of four years.
If so, sadly, not so much of a surprise.
Quote from: mongers on February 22, 2013, 01:41:06 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 04, 2013, 11:58:34 AM
aka the plot to suppress Martinus' thread count.
First up:
Yonaty v. Mincolla - New York's highest court effectively endorsed a ruling rejecting the ancient common law rule that impuation of homosexuality is libel per se, citing the evolution in social attitudes.
But wouldn't you need some lawtalker skills to post an opinion in this thread ?
Not really. All this means is that if you publicly claim someone's gay in a publication and they aren't, that person can't turn around and sue you for harming his reputation - because being called gay doesn't actually harm a reputation any more. It's like claiming someone is Anglican when they are really Episcopalian or something, rather than (say) like claiming someome is a rapist pedophile.
Quote from: Malthus on February 22, 2013, 05:54:07 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 22, 2013, 01:41:06 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 04, 2013, 11:58:34 AM
aka the plot to suppress Martinus' thread count.
First up:
Yonaty v. Mincolla - New York's highest court effectively endorsed a ruling rejecting the ancient common law rule that impuation of homosexuality is libel per se, citing the evolution in social attitudes.
But wouldn't you need some lawtalker skills to post an opinion in this thread ?
Not really. All this means is that if you publicly claim someone's gay in a publication and they aren't, that person can't turn around and sue you for harming his reputation - because being called gay doesn't actually harm a reputation any more. It's like claiming someone is Anglican when they are really Episcopalian or something, rather than (say) like claiming someome is a rapist pedophile.
I think I should have attached an appropriate smilie to my post. :)
Quote from: Malthus on February 22, 2013, 05:54:07 PM
Not really. All this means is that if you publicly claim someone's gay in a publication and they aren't, that person can't turn around and sue you for harming his reputation - because being called gay doesn't actually harm a reputation any more. It's like claiming someone is Anglican when they are really Episcopalian or something, rather than (say) like claiming someome is a rapist pedophile.
What if though they make their living from being attractive and having female fans?
Though being gay wouldn't be a big deal for most people's living, doctors or lawyers or journalists or whatever; for someone who trades off their theoretical availability it could be quite damning, actors and singers and the like.
Not a surprise an Istanbul court ruled differently from the Supreme Court - I understand that Istanbul has a culture completely different from the rest of Turkey - it is very cosmopolitan and European.
Quote from: Tyr on February 23, 2013, 02:15:14 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 22, 2013, 05:54:07 PM
Not really. All this means is that if you publicly claim someone's gay in a publication and they aren't, that person can't turn around and sue you for harming his reputation - because being called gay doesn't actually harm a reputation any more. It's like claiming someone is Anglican when they are really Episcopalian or something, rather than (say) like claiming someome is a rapist pedophile.
What if though they make their living from being attractive and having female fans?
Though being gay wouldn't be a big deal for most people's living, doctors or lawyers or journalists or whatever; for someone who trades off their theoretical availability it could be quite damning, actors and singers and the like.
I haven't read thge ruling, but from the description what it stands for is that an imputation of homosexuality isn't
per se defamatory - meaning, if you call any Tom, Dick or Harry "gay" he can't sue.
Dunno if you have a star who is famously attractive to the opposite sex.
Rule should be that if you could sue if (say) you were famously a gay star who is called hetero or bi, then you should be able to sue in the reverse situation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 22, 2013, 01:41:19 PM
I wouldn't say Turkey is a Middle Eastern country.
Right, it's a Near Eastern country. :smarty:
Quote from: Tyr on February 23, 2013, 02:15:14 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 22, 2013, 05:54:07 PM
Not really. All this means is that if you publicly claim someone's gay in a publication and they aren't, that person can't turn around and sue you for harming his reputation - because being called gay doesn't actually harm a reputation any more. It's like claiming someone is Anglican when they are really Episcopalian or something, rather than (say) like claiming someome is a rapist pedophile.
What if though they make their living from being attractive and having female fans?
Though being gay wouldn't be a big deal for most people's living, doctors or lawyers or journalists or whatever; for someone who trades off their theoretical availability it could be quite damning, actors and singers and the like.
Gay rumors swirl around all the time about actors and singers. I don't think that hurts them.
Quote from: Malthus on February 23, 2013, 10:02:21 AM
Quote from: Tyr on February 23, 2013, 02:15:14 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 22, 2013, 05:54:07 PM
Not really. All this means is that if you publicly claim someone's gay in a publication and they aren't, that person can't turn around and sue you for harming his reputation - because being called gay doesn't actually harm a reputation any more. It's like claiming someone is Anglican when they are really Episcopalian or something, rather than (say) like claiming someome is a rapist pedophile.
What if though they make their living from being attractive and having female fans?
Though being gay wouldn't be a big deal for most people's living, doctors or lawyers or journalists or whatever; for someone who trades off their theoretical availability it could be quite damning, actors and singers and the like.
I haven't read thge ruling, but from the description what it stands for is that an imputation of homosexuality isn't per se defamatory - meaning, if you call any Tom, Dick or Harry "gay" he can't sue.
Dunno if you have a star who is famously attractive to the opposite sex.
Rule should be that if you could sue if (say) you were famously a gay star who is called hetero or bi, then you should be able to sue in the reverse situation.
My understanding was that before the ruling, claiming that someone was gay, if untrue, was considered harmful in and of itself, with no need to actually demonstrate any damages. Now, it still might be libel or slander, but the you'd have to demonstrate actual damages.
So the penalty for sodomy is... being sent to a Turkish prison. :hmm:
:D
The High Court started hearing about this earlier today:
QuoteChristian group challenges ban on gay poster campaign
Boris Johnson will this week face claims in the High Court that he failed to respect a Christian group's right to free speech by banning their posters from the side of London buses.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.telegraph.co.uk%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F02490%2Fgay-bus-boris_2490701b.jpg&hash=72af04e37a623b13caf66f6bf6099675a43758c0)
Mr Johnson's role puts him in charge of Transport for London, which is responsible for approving advertising on buses in the city Photo: Alamy
By David Barrett, Home Affairs Correspondent8:20AM GMT 24 Feb 2013326 Comments
The Mayor of London refused to run the advertisements which promoted the group's view that homosexuals can be "reoriented" through therapy and prayer.
Mr Johnson said the ads by the Core Issues Trust were offensive to gays, and said they could even spark retaliation against the wider Christian community.
The posters said "Not Gay! Ex-Gay, Post-Gay and Proud. Get over it!" and was in response to a previous poster campaign by Stonewall, the gay rights group, which said: "Some people are gay. Get over it!"
Mr Johnson's role puts him in charge of Transport for London, which is responsible for approving advertising on buses in the city.
On Thursday Dr Mike Davidson, the head of the trust, and his supporters will go to the High Court to claim Mr Johnson's ban on their poster campaign should be reversed on the grounds that he unlawfully stifled free speech.
They are bringing a judicial review and Dr Davidson is hoping Transport for London (TfL) will be forced to accept the advertisements.
They argue that other advertising campaigns - including Stonewall's, and campaigns for underwear - have been allowed TfL.
"This is all about being free to talk about these issues," said Dr Davidson, who himself has a homosexual past, but has been attracted controversy for suggesting gays can become heterosexual through counselling and prayer.
"It was a mistake to assume these views we were expressing came from entrenched homophobia, and failed to recognise that people who want to walk away from their homosexual feelings are a group in their own right."
He has instructed Paul Diamond, the human rights barrister, in this week's case.
Stifling debate by banning their advert amounted to discrimination, the trust will argue.
They will point in particular to one poster which some Christians found offensive. Funded by Richard Dawkins, the academic, and the British Humanist Association in 2009, it said: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying. And enjoy your life."
Andrea Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre, which is supporting Dr Davidson's case, said: "The ban on these advertisements was the beginning of a kind of reverse discrimination which threatens to obliterate debate in the public sphere.
"Boris Johnson needs to realise his mistake and ensure there is freedom for all in the marketplace of ideas. He cannot prefer one group over another."
A Transport for London spokesman said: "The advertisement breached TfL's advertising policy as in our view it contained a publicly controversial message and was likely to cause widespread offence to members of the public."
Even if you argued that advertisements on city buses offer full freedom of speech (a rather unusual claim), I don't think fraudulent medical advertising is protected speech by anyone's standards :huh:
America is looking pretty sad:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-22114599
QuoteCongress in Uruguay has voted to legalise same-sex marriage, becoming the second country in Latin America to do so, after Argentina.
The bill was approved by an overwhelming majority of the lower chamber, sparking scenes of celebration in the public galleries.
Despite opposition from some groups, the proposal has already been backed by the upper house and is expected to be signed into law within weeks.
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2013, 01:28:40 PM
America is looking pretty sad:
Not sure what you mean. We have had same sex marriage in this country for years.
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2013, 01:31:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2013, 01:28:40 PM
America is looking pretty sad:
Not sure what you mean. We have had same sex marriage in this country for years.
Not federally, which is I think what he's getting at.
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2013, 01:28:40 PM
America is looking pretty sad:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-22114599
QuoteCongress in Uruguay has voted to legalise same-sex marriage, becoming the second country in Latin America to do so, after Argentina.
The bill was approved by an overwhelming majority of the lower chamber, sparking scenes of celebration in the public galleries.
Despite opposition from some groups, the proposal has already been backed by the upper house and is expected to be signed into law within weeks.
There are many arguments to make in favour of gay marriage, but "we need to follow in the lead of Argentina and Uruguay" is not not a particularily powerful one.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 12, 2013, 01:35:49 PM
Not federally, which is I think what he's getting at.
They probably should appeal DOMA and will at some point. But beyond that I do not think that is Constitutional is it?
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2013, 01:39:39 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 12, 2013, 01:35:49 PM
Not federally, which is I think what he's getting at.
They probably should appeal DOMA and will at some point. But beyond that I do not think that is Constitutional is it?
To what do "that" and "it" refer?
Quote from: fahdiz on April 12, 2013, 01:43:29 PM
To what do "that" and "it" refer?
The thing I thought you were talking about. Pass a law legalizing gay marriage at the federal level.
Pass.
Quote from: Barrister on April 12, 2013, 01:38:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2013, 01:28:40 PM
America is looking pretty sad:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-22114599
QuoteCongress in Uruguay has voted to legalise same-sex marriage, becoming the second country in Latin America to do so, after Argentina.
The bill was approved by an overwhelming majority of the lower chamber, sparking scenes of celebration in the public galleries.
Despite opposition from some groups, the proposal has already been backed by the upper house and is expected to be signed into law within weeks.
There are many arguments to make in favour of gay marriage, but "we need to follow in the lead of Argentina and Uruguay" is not not a particularily powerful one.
How about "we ought not to
fall behind Argentinia and Uruguay on a human rights matter"?
Uruguay's amazing. It's like Argentina without the crazy. And I defy anyone to name a better sandwich than the chivito.
Chivito means sandwich.
Not all sandwiches are Chivito
Quote from: Malthus on April 12, 2013, 01:50:17 PM
How about "we ought not to fall behind Argentinia and Uruguay on a human rights matter"?
I don't get the contempt for Uruguay. It is one of the best run countries in Latin America.
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2013, 01:59:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 12, 2013, 01:50:17 PM
How about "we ought not to fall behind Argentinia and Uruguay on a human rights matter"?
I don't get the contempt for Uruguay. It is one of the best run countries in Latin America.
I'm not expressing contempt for Uruguay.
Quote from: Malthus on April 12, 2013, 02:02:10 PM
I'm not expressing contempt for Uruguay.
Well having them passing this law makes us look sad. Furthermore we should be be scrambling so as not to fall behind them. Those sentiments sorta makes it sound like it would be height of embarrasment for a country as contemptuous as Uruguay to beat us at something. I am not amused at all by this portrayal of such a fine nation as Uruguay. Shame...SHAME upon you.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 12, 2013, 01:35:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2013, 01:31:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2013, 01:28:40 PM
America is looking pretty sad:
Not sure what you mean. We have had same sex marriage in this country for years.
Not federally, which is I think what he's getting at.
:yes:
Quote from: Malthus on April 12, 2013, 02:02:10 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2013, 01:59:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 12, 2013, 01:50:17 PM
How about "we ought not to fall behind Argentinia and Uruguay on a human rights matter"?
I don't get the contempt for Uruguay. It is one of the best run countries in Latin America.
I'm not expressing contempt for Uruguay.
Well I'm expressing contempt for it. It has a silly name.
Although I suppose it was inevitable that a country whose name resembles "U R Gay" should approve gay marriage. :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2013, 02:06:11 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 12, 2013, 02:02:10 PM
I'm not expressing contempt for Uruguay.
Well having them passing this law makes us look sad. Furthermore we should be be scrambling so as not to fall behind them. Those sentiments sorta makes it sound like it would be height of embarrasment for a country as contemptuous as Uruguay to beat us at something. I am not amused at all by this portrayal of such a fine nation as Uruguay. Shame...SHAME upon you.
I don't think one was to have contempt to say that it makes us look bad when Uruguay and Argentina are allowing gay marriage before us.
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2013, 02:06:11 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 12, 2013, 02:02:10 PM
I'm not expressing contempt for Uruguay.
Well having them passing this law makes us look sad. Furthermore we should be be scrambling so as not to fall behind them. Those sentiments sorta makes it sound like it would be height of embarrasment for a country as contemptuous as Uruguay to beat us at something. I am not amused at all by this portrayal of such a fine nation as Uruguay. Shame...SHAME upon you.
In my opinion, you ought not to fall behind Canada on this issue, either. Anyway, aim your pro-Uruguayan rhetorical artillery at BB, not me. :P
All you Canadians look alike.
Quote from: Malthus on April 12, 2013, 02:10:22 PM
In my opinion, you ought not to fall behind Canada on this issue, either.
:yes:
Quote from: katmai on April 12, 2013, 02:11:53 PM
All you Canadians look alike.
But do I look Canadian?
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2013, 02:14:42 PM
Quote from: katmai on April 12, 2013, 02:11:53 PM
All you Canadians look alike.
But do I look Canadian?
Skin not pale enough. You look as if you have seen the sun too much, can't be canadian, especially this year ;)
Quote from: viper37 on April 12, 2013, 02:18:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2013, 02:14:42 PM
Quote from: katmai on April 12, 2013, 02:11:53 PM
All you Canadians look alike.
But do I look Canadian?
Skin not pale enough. You look as if you have seen the sun too much, can't be canadian, especially this year ;)
You're too kind. :hug:
Quote from: Malthus on April 12, 2013, 02:10:22 PM
In my opinion, you ought not to fall behind Canada on this issue, either.
Ah no now a brutal attack on your own country? You Canucks are so self-loathing.
Anyway I am sure that my country will be both among the first and among the last to legalize gay unions/marriages.
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2013, 03:06:58 PMActually no one who isn't "Canadian" ever guesses that I'm "Canadian".
That's true of most Canadians too; at least outside of Canada.
Quote from: viper37 on April 12, 2013, 02:18:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2013, 02:14:42 PM
Quote from: katmai on April 12, 2013, 02:11:53 PM
All you Canadians look alike.
But do I look Canadian?
Skin not pale enough. You look as if you have seen the sun too much, can't be canadian, especially this year ;)
I'm reasonably tanned at the moment. Is my Canadianness being called into question? :unsure:
Quote from: Jacob on April 12, 2013, 03:22:38 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2013, 03:06:58 PMActually no one who isn't "Canadian" ever guesses that I'm "Canadian".
That's true of most Canadians too; at least outside of Canada.
Yeah but it isn't true of most "Canadians". If it were, passing wouldn't be a phenomena.
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2013, 03:24:55 PMYeah but it isn't true of most "Canadians". If it were, passing wouldn't be a phenomena.
... oh... is this the "Canadian" = slang for "Black" thing?
Quote from: Jacob on April 12, 2013, 03:57:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2013, 03:24:55 PMYeah but it isn't true of most "Canadians". If it were, passing wouldn't be a phenomena.
... oh... is this the "Canadian" = slang for "Black" thing?
Yeah.
Garbon could easily pass for Canadian, all he'd need to do was don an article of clothing with a red maple leaf on it.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 12, 2013, 04:37:36 PM
Garbon could easily pass for Canadian, all he'd need to do was don an article of clothing with a red maple leaf on it.
You know I think Brazillians have Canadians beat for slapping their flag on everything imaginable...
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2013, 01:46:31 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 12, 2013, 01:43:29 PM
To what do "that" and "it" refer?
The thing I thought you were talking about. Pass a law legalizing gay marriage at the federal level.
I just wanted to be clear, since it's good to be specific when you're talking about constitutionality :)
I'm not sure that you'd need to pass a law legalizing gay marriage. You would, however, need to ensure that no state could pass or retain a law *banning* gay marriage, rather like how no state can pass a law which discriminates against black folks, for example.
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2013, 04:34:41 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 12, 2013, 03:57:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2013, 03:24:55 PMYeah but it isn't true of most "Canadians". If it were, passing wouldn't be a phenomena.
... oh... is this the "Canadian" = slang for "Black" thing?
Yeah.
Well then. Okay.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 12, 2013, 04:49:54 PM
I'm not sure that you'd need to pass a law legalizing gay marriage. You would, however, need to ensure that no state could pass or retain a law *banning* gay marriage, rather like how no state can pass a law which discriminates against black folks, for example.
Glad to hear that we've legalized black folks.
Quote from: Jacob on April 12, 2013, 05:27:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2013, 04:34:41 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 12, 2013, 03:57:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2013, 03:24:55 PMYeah but it isn't true of most "Canadians". If it were, passing wouldn't be a phenomena.
... oh... is this the "Canadian" = slang for "Black" thing?
Yeah.
Well then. Okay.
Teach brought it up so I just played along.
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2013, 05:39:13 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 12, 2013, 04:49:54 PM
I'm not sure that you'd need to pass a law legalizing gay marriage. You would, however, need to ensure that no state could pass or retain a law *banning* gay marriage, rather like how no state can pass a law which discriminates against black folks, for example.
Glad to hear that we've legalized black folks.
:huh:
Quote from: fahdiz on April 12, 2013, 05:47:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2013, 05:39:13 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 12, 2013, 04:49:54 PM
I'm not sure that you'd need to pass a law legalizing gay marriage. You would, however, need to ensure that no state could pass or retain a law *banning* gay marriage, rather like how no state can pass a law which discriminates against black folks, for example.
Glad to hear that we've legalized black folks.
:huh:
Well you used a negative counterexample, as in taking away an ability (in your example - discrimination), whereas Valm's was taking about the granting of something, a positive. I don't think what you've said is right as if a state doesn't have a new law/court decision enabling gay marriage, the default is that it doesn't have it. That's why instituting bans about gay marriage are really more about locking in a historical attitude for the future as most* states that banned it, didn't have it to begin with.
*:weep:
See in my opinion the given should be that two consenting adults should be able to marry; laws which attempt to curtail this are discriminatory and should not be allowed. It's not so much "we recognize that two people can get married" as it is "no one should have the ability to tell these two people they can't get married".
In my mind, anyway.
I prefer the negative counterexamples; the default should always be that a human being is a human being, period and without qualification.
But unrealistic for the world we live in. Unless we say gay marriage is allowed, it isn't. :mellow:
I agree with both of you. :)
Now New Zealand. :weep:
Hopefully Valmy doesn't post about me looking down on that island nation.
NZ MP speaks out for Gay Marriage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gl8oKO7BAuU
:lmfao:
Quote from: Syt on April 20, 2013, 08:02:57 AM
NZ MP speaks out for Gay Marriage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gl8oKO7BAuU
:lmfao:
I love Kiwis :wub:
:)
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/french-gay-marriage-water-cannon-police-legions-19020308#.UXa4ZrWceSo
QuoteFrance legalized gay marriage on Tuesday after a wrenching national debate and protests that flooded the streets of Paris. Legions of officers and water cannon stood ready near France's National Assembly ahead of the final vote, bracing for possible violence on an issue that galvanized the country's faltering conservative movement.
The measure passed easily in the Socialist-majority Assembly, 331-225, just minutes after the president of the legislative body expelled a disruptive protester in pink, the color adopted by French opponents of gay marriage.
"Only those who love democracy are here," Claude Bartelone, the Assembly president, said angrily.
In recent weeks, violent attacks against gay couples have spiked and some legislators have received threats — including Bartelone, who got a gunpowder-filled envelope on Monday.
One of the biggest protests against same-sex marriage drew together hundreds of thousands of people bused in from the French provinces — conservative activists, schoolchildren with their parents, retirees, priests and others. That demonstration ended in blasts of tear gas, as right-wing rabble-rousers, some in masks and hoods, led the charge against police, damaging cars along the Champs-Elysees avenue and making a break for the presidential palace.
Justice Minister Christiane Taubira told lawmakers that the first weddings could be as soon as June.
...
Add France to the list.
Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2013, 11:36:30 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/french-gay-marriage-water-cannon-police-legions-19020308#.UXa4ZrWceSo
QuoteFrance legalized gay marriage on Tuesday after a wrenching national debate and protests that flooded the streets of Paris. Legions of officers and water cannon stood ready near France's National Assembly ahead of the final vote, bracing for possible violence on an issue that galvanized the country's faltering conservative movement.
The measure passed easily in the Socialist-majority Assembly, 331-225, just minutes after the president of the legislative body expelled a disruptive protester in pink, the color adopted by French opponents of gay marriage.
"Only those who love democracy are here," Claude Bartelone, the Assembly president, said angrily.
In recent weeks, violent attacks against gay couples have spiked and some legislators have received threats — including Bartelone, who got a gunpowder-filled envelope on Monday.
One of the biggest protests against same-sex marriage drew together hundreds of thousands of people bused in from the French provinces — conservative activists, schoolchildren with their parents, retirees, priests and others. That demonstration ended in blasts of tear gas, as right-wing rabble-rousers, some in masks and hoods, led the charge against police, damaging cars along the Champs-Elysees avenue and making a break for the presidential palace.
Justice Minister Christiane Taubira told lawmakers that the first weddings could be as soon as June.
...
Add France to the list.
Wait, people protesting *against* gay marriage wear pink? :hmm:
Well yeah there is something odd with those protesters. Look at these individuals against gay marriage.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-ec.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2Fenhanced%2Fwebdr01%2F2013%2F4%2F22%2F14%2Fenhanced-buzz-17222-1366654218-10.jpg&hash=9b42341e5ed284cf6991e8c240e34c3602099d38)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-ec.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2Fenhanced%2Fwebdr06%2F2013%2F4%2F22%2F14%2Fenhanced-buzz-25740-1366654092-10.jpg&hash=6f0411bcfefb370af33a0bf39e87575457e7fcc2)
I guess they are upset their partners are going to want to get married now
Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2013, 11:43:34 AM
Well yeah there is something odd with those protesters. Look at these individuals against gay marriage.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-ec.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2Fenhanced%2Fwebdr01%2F2013%2F4%2F22%2F14%2Fenhanced-buzz-17222-1366654218-10.jpg&hash=9b42341e5ed284cf6991e8c240e34c3602099d38)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-ec.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2Fenhanced%2Fwebdr06%2F2013%2F4%2F22%2F14%2Fenhanced-buzz-25740-1366654092-10.jpg&hash=6f0411bcfefb370af33a0bf39e87575457e7fcc2)
I can only conclude it is the "marriage" part they are protesting against. :lol:
Hey Malt, here are the people in pink against gay marriage. I feel like your statement also applies.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-ec.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2Fenhanced%2Fwebdr05%2F2013%2F4%2F23%2F16%2Fenhanced-buzz-2485-1366750263-8.jpg&hash=e2f6b174dbb772bffd14616caea98515b149d3da)
See, this is why my gay-dar doesn't work in Europe. :glare:
In the spirit of this thread which is to prevent mulitple Marti threads, I present to you the first openly gay NBA player.
QuoteJason Collins, a centre in the National Basketball Association, is standing up as the first openly gay man from a major American professional team.
Collins is a 12-year NBA veteran, currently a free agent who most recently played for the Washington Wizards. He has played for six pro teams and appeared in two NBA Finals. Coming out in an article he penned for a May 6 issue of Sports Illustrated, Collins writes "I'm a 34-year-old NBA center. I'm black. And I'm gay."
Surely coming out as black is a bigger deal?
Well that took long enough. Damn shame it took this long.
Here's his story by the way:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/magazine/news/20130429/jason-collins-gay-nba-player/?sct=hp_t11_a1&eref=sihp
I just finished reading that article and came to see of anyone had posted it.
Good for him.
Well that didnt take long. Some NBA analyst apparently took offence to Collins claiming to be both gay and a christian. Not sure what that has to do with the NBA but there you go.
Quote from: garbon on April 24, 2013, 10:57:29 AM
Hey Malt, here are the people in pink against gay marriage. I feel like your statement also applies.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-ec.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2Fenhanced%2Fwebdr05%2F2013%2F4%2F23%2F16%2Fenhanced-buzz-2485-1366750263-8.jpg&hash=e2f6b174dbb772bffd14616caea98515b149d3da)
So that is what happened to Dexy's Midnight Runners.
:yeah: :punk:
Quote(Reuters) - Minnesota's Senate on Monday approved a bill that would make Minnesota the 12th U.S. state to allow same-sex couples to marry and only the second in the Midwest, advancing it to the governor, who said he would sign it on Tuesday.
11B - see above. This is how it's done. :)
How many states will it take before the Feds will make it law? I mean, I assume that's kind of what they're waiting on.
Quote from: merithyn on May 14, 2013, 09:53:34 AM
How many states will it take before the Feds will make it law? I mean, I assume that's kind of what they're waiting on.
It's more likely to require a solid majority in the House and 60+ votes in the senate, no matter what happens in the state houses.
Quote from: merithyn on May 14, 2013, 09:53:34 AM
How many states will it take before the Feds will make it law? I mean, I assume that's kind of what they're waiting on.
However many states it takes for the Republicans to flip to being pro. I doubt anything will happen while one of the two parties opposes.
The Democrats may not technically be in favor of it, because they are so damn wimpy about everything, but you know...
Quote from: garbon on April 24, 2013, 10:57:29 AM
Hey Malt, here are the people in pink against gay marriage. I feel like your statement also applies.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-ec.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2Fenhanced%2Fwebdr05%2F2013%2F4%2F23%2F16%2Fenhanced-buzz-2485-1366750263-8.jpg&hash=e2f6b174dbb772bffd14616caea98515b149d3da)
Gay marriage has no hope of success when such stalwarts of straightness as these fine fellows stand ready to oppose it. :hmm:
They all look like James Franco, to boot. The guy on the right is kinda cute, though.
Also, they are not gay. They are wearing House Bolton's colors. :P
There's the door. Out!
Quote from: garbon on May 14, 2013, 09:07:22 AM
11B - see above. This is how it's done. :)
Right, well, terribly sorry old boy. :blurgh:
Quote from: 11B4V on May 14, 2013, 12:28:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 14, 2013, 09:07:22 AM
11B - see above. This is how it's done. :)
Right, well, terribly sorry old boy. :blurgh:
We all make mistakes. :)
Quote from: merithyn on May 14, 2013, 09:53:34 AM
How many states will it take before the Feds will make it law? I mean, I assume that's kind of what they're waiting on.
I dont think there will ever be a federal marriage law.
The real issue at the federal level is DOMA and we could get a ruling on that next month.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-ec.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2Fenhanced%2Fwebdr01%2F2013%2F5%2F16%2F17%2Fenhanced-buzz-wide-16980-1368740548-13.jpg&hash=086ece8011a00695238f430891e43cb17334a745)
Hungary scores surprisingly high.
Austria seems to score low on protection from hate speech/crime (18%), anti-discrimination laws (26%) and 40% in family recognition.
Germany scores only 5% in protection from hate speech/crime. Whereas Hungary scores pretty high in that field.
Country score sheets:
http://www.ilga-europe.org/home/publications/reports_and_other_materials/rainbow_europe/score_sheet
Who knew Monaco was so anti-gay? If I was a gay man in Monaco I would be so outraged I would move across the street to France.
Quote from: Valmy on May 17, 2013, 10:30:03 AM
Who knew Monaco was so anti-gay? If I was a gay man in Monaco I would be so outraged I would move across the street to France.
It depends how rich a gay man I was :P
I was surprised by how low the Netherlands were and they fall down on protection against hate speech/crimes, anti-discrimination laws and gender laws. Hate speech/crime and gender recognition laws are also the UK's weakest areas apparently :mellow:
I'm a bit unclear about the protection from hate crime/speech bit. Are they asking for specific laws covering LBGTI community?
My knowledge of the German judicial system is rusty, but IIRC the law itself doesn't distinguish whether an assault was a guy beating up his wife, a skin beating up a Turk or a homophobe beating up a gay person (though it may influence the judges on how they view the case, how severe the verdict will be etc.). So I guess that warrants a low score?
With hate speech - Germany has laws against inciting to violence, or libel, but AFAIK no special laws that restrict calling a homosexual a "Schwuchtel" ("fag"). And quite honestly, I'm rather against regulating too much what people can say. Let idiots unmask themselves with their statements.
The constitutional court in Croatia has kicked sexual ed out of the school curriculum after protests from enraged Catholics that it would teach that homosexuality is normal. Official reasoning: there should have been a public debate before adding this module to the curriculum.
Quote from: Syt on May 22, 2013, 11:22:43 PM
The constitutional court in Croatia has kicked sexual ed out of the school curriculum after protests from enraged Catholics that it would teach that homosexuality is normal. Official reasoning: there should have been a public debate before adding this module to the curriculum.
And we are letting these shits into the EU?
Quote from: Martinus on May 23, 2013, 12:17:48 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 22, 2013, 11:22:43 PM
The constitutional court in Croatia has kicked sexual ed out of the school curriculum after protests from enraged Catholics that it would teach that homosexuality is normal. Official reasoning: there should have been a public debate before adding this module to the curriculum.
And we are letting these shits into the EU?
They let Poles in, didn't they?
Quote from: fahdiz on May 23, 2013, 12:19:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 23, 2013, 12:17:48 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 22, 2013, 11:22:43 PM
The constitutional court in Croatia has kicked sexual ed out of the school curriculum after protests from enraged Catholics that it would teach that homosexuality is normal. Official reasoning: there should have been a public debate before adding this module to the curriculum.
And we are letting these shits into the EU?
They let Poles in, didn't they?
Hey, I have always been saying that had I not been a Pole, I would have opposed Poland's entry into the EU tooth and nail. But only because they once let in a bunch of troglodyte religious nutjobs which coincided with my personal interest, it does not mean they should be letting in all the other troglodyte religious nutjobs out there.
See, while I pride myself on holding strong personal convictions, I would never let them get in the way of my self-interest. See: foie gras bans, raising the taxes on the 1% etc. :P
I suppose there's the argument that bringing them into the fold will possibly hasten the moderation of their views rather than the opposite.
Quote from: fahdiz on May 23, 2013, 12:24:53 AM
I suppose there's the argument that bringing them into the fold will possibly hasten the moderation of their views rather than the opposite.
Of course. The thing is, what if the troglodytes achieve critical mass and they begin to drag Europe back? We should not bite more than we can chew, and the moods even in the old Europe are not peachy either (have you read about the Golden Dawn party in Greece which just issued an ultimatum to Greek muslims to leave the country or be killed?)
Seriously though. We all know whats going on in the US in regards to the "Gay" question. Slowly advancing forward for you all. What about Europe. What's happening there?
Quote from: 11B4V on May 23, 2013, 11:06:24 AM
Seriously though. We all know whats going on in the US in regards to the "Gay" question. Slowly advancing forward for you all. What about Europe. What's happening there?
Tamas is checking his beet storage shed.
:hmm:
Looks like Supreme Court isn't announcing decision on gay marriage today.
Apparently that French anti-gay group is at it again.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlanticwire.com%2Fstatic%2Fimg%2Fupload%2F2013%2F07%2F11%2FScreen%2520Shot%25202013-07-11%2520at%252011.01.51%2520AM.png&hash=28c14095f3e3a24880bc0c4ab2160bd93b5182ad)
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/07/worlds-most-homoerotic-homphobes-are-storming-french-beaches-tiny-shorts/67077/
QuoteHommen, the French anti-gay group made famous by its members' flat abs, protesting shirtless, and being more "gay" than the gay men were protesting is back. With abs flatter than ever, the anti-gay group has set the bar for homoerotic hijinks higher than ever by taking five, wet, sinewy men in tiny swimsuits and cramming them into a tiny boat off of a beach in Montpellier, France. Yes, we're quite aware that there are parts of that last sentence that could resemble any weekend in Provincetown, but that would all be lost on Hommen:
:lol:
http://news.yahoo.com/calif-court-declines-stop-gay-125510245.html
QuoteCalif. court declines to stop gay marriages
he California Supreme Court refused Monday to order the state to immediately stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
However, the court still plans to consider whether the governor and attorney general correctly instructed county clerks that a voter-approved ban on gay marriages had become legally invalid statewide.
Without comment, the court denied a request made Friday by backers of the ban for an emergency order that would have required the state to keep enforcing Proposition 8 while they pursue a last-ditch legal effort to preserve it.
"Although we would have preferred for the California Supreme Court to issue a stay so that the state's marriage amendment would be respected sooner rather than later ... we remain hopeful that the court will recognize that Proposition 8 remains the law of the land in California and that county clerks must continue to enforce it," said Austin Nimocks, a lawyer for the coalition of religious conservative groups that qualified Proposition 8 for the November 2008 ballot.
Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin, who spearheaded the lawsuit that resulted in gay marriage returning to the nation's most populous state after 4 1/2 years, cheered the state court's decision allowing the weddings to continue without interruption.
"Our opponents have failed in a desperate attempt to deny happiness and protections to lesbian and gay couples and their children and no amount of legal wrangling is going to undo that joy," Griffin said.
The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for gay marriages to resume in the nation's most populous state on June 28 by dismissing the backers' appeal of a lower court ruling that found the ban unconstitutional. The high court decided the backers lacked authority to defend Proposition 8 after the governor and attorney general refused to do so.
The California Supreme Court still plans to separately consider whether the lower court ruling that invalidated the ban and a companion mandate prohibiting the state from enforcing it applied statewide or only in Los Angeles and Alameda counties. The two couples who sued to strike down Proposition 8 live in those counties.
Lawyers for Proposition 8 sponsors also have argued that because the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule directly on Proposition 8's constitutionality, state officials are bound by state law to abide by the measure.
The state high court has asked for additional written arguments on those issues by Aug. 1.
Don't these people have anything better to do? <_<
http://news.yahoo.com/britain-legalizes-gay-marriage-133757426.html
QuoteBritain legalizes gay marriage
Britain on Wednesday legalized gay marriage after Queen Elizabeth II gave her royal stamp of approval, clearing the way for the first same-sex weddings next summer.
Lawmakers cheered as House of Commons Speaker John Bercow said royal assent had been given — one day after the bill to legalize same-sex marriage in England and Wales cleared Parliament.
The queen's approval was a formality and is the last step necessary for a bill to become law.
The law enables gay couples to get married in both civil and religious ceremonies in England and Wales, provided that the religious institution consents. The Church of England, the country's official faith, is barred from performing such ceremonies.
It also will allow couples who had previously entered into civil partnerships — which were introduced in 2005 and carry similar rights and responsibilities to marriage — to convert their relationships to marriage.
The British government introduced the bill in January.
Prime Minister David Cameron had backed it, but it divided his Conservative Party and touched off strident debates in the House of Commons and House of Lords.
Numerous attempts to derail the legislation failed as it wound its way through Parliament, with traditionalists arguing it would undermine the sanctity of marriage.
On Tuesday, Conservative lawmaker Gerald Howarth accused the government of having "bulldozed" the legislation through Parliament, "offending large swatches" of his party.
But in the same debate, shadow women and equalities minister Yvette Cooper said it was the "time to celebrate and not discriminate."
:swiss:
Alright so now I need to find a English or Welsh man who wants to marry me next year so I can finally do the whole move to the UK bit.
You can marry josq.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 17, 2013, 11:57:38 AM
You can marry josq.
My mother said okay, sounds fun. Just don't stay in England too long.
Hmm, apparently Hommen has competition.
http://news.yahoo.com/worlds-most-homoerotic-homophobes-now-mounting-giant-pole-144850531.html
QuoteThe World's Most Homoerotic Homophobes Are Now Mounting a Giant Pole in Tiny Pink Shorts
In France, there wages a (bizarre and perhaps unintentional) war among the country's anti-gay groups. In this war, there is apparently a race to to be, at once, more homoerotic and more homophobic than the next anti-gay group. Today we meet La Manif Pour Tous, who decided a bunch of very fit shirtless men straddling a giant pole is the best way to flaunt their anti-gay stance.
"Shirtless guys ... on top of one another ... clutching a giant pole ... in pink shorts and those guys are protesting gay marriage? This has to be some kind of joke," your brain is probably telling you. But we kid you not. Those men are holding the logo La Manif Pour Tous, an anti-gay group in France, and are featured on the group's Facebook page. And while those boys look like an ad for a gay adult summer camp, this trend of homoerotic homophobia is actually going on in France.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/q77/s720x720/450_665612343468916_402392418_n.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/q73/s720x720/1000118_666056046757879_468748585_n.jpg)
http://news.yahoo.com/nj-court-agrees-allow-same-sex-marriages-monday-183328605.html
QuoteNJ court agrees to allow same-sex marriages Monday
Same-sex marriages will begin within days in New Jersey after the state's highest court ruled unanimously Friday to uphold a lower-court order that gay weddings must start Monday and to deny a delay that was sought by Gov. Chris Christie's administration.
"The state has advanced a number of arguments, but none of them overcome this reality: Same-sex couples who cannot marry are not treated equally under the law today," the court said in an opinion by Chief Justice Stuart Rabner. "The harm to them is real, not abstract or speculative."
A judge on the lower court had ruled last month that New Jersey must recognize same-sex marriage and set Monday as the date to allow gay weddings. Christie, a Republican who is considered a possible 2016 presidential candidate, appealed the decision and asked for the start date to be put on hold while the state appeals.
The state's top court agreed last week to take up the appeal of the lower-court ruling by Judge Mary Jacobson. Oral arguments are expected Jan. 6 or 7.
In Friday's opinion, Rabner wrote that the state has not shown that it is likely to prevail in the case, though it did present some reasons not to marriage to move forward now.
"But when a party presents a clear case of unequal treatment, and asks the court to vindicate constitutionally protected rights, a court may not sidestep its obligation to rule for an indefinite amount of time," he wrote. "Under these circumstances, courts do not have the option to defer."
Rabner also rejected the state's argument that it was in the public interest not to allow marriages until the court has had more time to rule fully on the issue.
"What is the public's interest in a case like this?" he wrote. "Like Judge Jacobson, we can find no public interest in depriving a group of New Jersey residents of their constitutional right to equal protection while the appeals process unfolds."
On Thursday, some communities started accepting applications for marriage licenses from same-sex couples so that they would pass the 72-hour waiting period by 12:01 a.m. Monday.
Several communities, including Asbury Park and Lambertville, are holding ceremonies for multiple couples then.
Meanwhile, the gay rights group Garden State Equality said it was lining up judges who could waive the 72-hour waiting period. Also, the state's marriage law says there is no waiting period for couples already married to reaffirm their vows. Some couples wed in New York or other places that already recognize gay marriages are expected to do that.
Despite the uncertainty before Friday's ruling, couples — some of whom have been together for decades — have been planning to have ceremonies as soon as they would be recognized by the state government. Lambertville Mayor David DelVecchio said he's planning to lead one of the state's first legally recognized same-sex weddings, between Beth Asaro and Joanne Schailey. DelVecchio also performed the ceremony in 2007 when the couple became among New Jersey's first to be granted a civil union.
"The applications should be flowing and the licenses should be granted and people should be allowed to marry freely," said Hayley Gorenberg, a Lambda Legal lawyer who is working on the case. "The court has unanimously said my clients and the people of New Jersey don't need to wait."
The court did not address the question of what would happen to the status of same-sex marriages entered into next week if it later decides that the state does not have to grant the marriages.
Whether gay couples should have the right to marry in New Jersey has been the subject of a battle in the state's courts and Legislature for a decade. There has been a flurry of movements in both venues since June, when the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated key parts of a federal law that prevented the federal government from recognizing same-sex unions.
Since then, gay rights advocates have asked New Jersey judges to force the state to recognize same-sex marriage, arguing that the state's current policy of granting gay couples civil unions but not marriage licenses amounts to denying them federal protections such as Social Security survivor benefits and the right to file tax returns jointly.
Since July, gay rights groups have also engaged in an intense campaign aimed at persuading lawmakers to override Christie's 2012 veto of a bill that would have allowed gay marriage. To get an override, the Legislature must act by Jan. 14. The bill spells out details that likely would not be covered in a court ruling. For instance, civil unions would automatically be converted to marriages unless couples opted out and dissolved their civil unions, and there would be a religious exception that would allow not only clergy but also others such as caterers or florists not to be involved with gay weddings.
Thirteen other states, including most in the Northeast, recognize gay marriage.
Christie says he favors civil unions and says that allowing same-sex marriage is something that should be done only by a public vote, not the state's judges or lawmakers.
He didn't immediately comment on the ruling.
Sheila Oliver, speaker of the state Assembly, issued a statement blaming Christie for not having gay marriage sooner in New Jersey.
"It's a shame it took this long to get to this point and that it took a court fight for same-sex couples to gain equal rights," she said. "New Jersey could have had marriage equality already if it wasn't for Gov. Christie, who has done everything he could to prevent this from happening, including wasting money and time continuing this court battle."
Another one down. How many more blue states are left?
Illinois. :glare:
Quote from: garbon on October 18, 2013, 03:00:04 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/nj-court-agrees-allow-same-sex-marriages-monday-183328605.html
It's about bloody time. The whole point of instituting civil unions was that they were supposed to be a 1:1 equivalent of marriage in NJ. The beef was that since the feds didn't recognize civil unions, there was no way for it to be a 1:1 match.
I just wish I had seen the oral arguments for this. Rabner and Albin in particular don't exactly suffer fools gladly. :lol:
Quote from: garbon on October 18, 2013, 03:00:04 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/nj-court-agrees-allow-same-sex-marriages-monday-183328605.html
does that mean you can marry a NJ man instead of a UK man?
Quote from: viper37 on October 21, 2013, 12:42:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 18, 2013, 03:00:04 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/nj-court-agrees-allow-same-sex-marriages-monday-183328605.html
does that mean you can marry a NJ man instead of a UK man?
:huh:
He thinks that you're into rednecks. :Embarrass:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sportsposterwarehouse.com%2FcatImages%2Fkentuckylogo02sl-1.jpg&hash=10acc1d756d8bd0fccddb9faf3386d4b45c95aa3)
Quote from: garbon on October 21, 2013, 12:47:22 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 21, 2013, 12:42:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 18, 2013, 03:00:04 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/nj-court-agrees-allow-same-sex-marriages-monday-183328605.html
does that mean you can marry a NJ man instead of a UK man?
:huh:
Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2013, 11:56:54 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/britain-legalizes-gay-marriage-133757426.html
Alright so now I need to find a English or Welsh man who wants to marry me next year so I can finally do the whole move to the UK bit.
If all you want to do is get out of New York to be married, it seems New Jersey is a tad closer... no?
I think you misunderstood that post of mine and I can already get married in New York.
Quote from: viper37 on October 21, 2013, 12:42:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 18, 2013, 03:00:04 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/nj-court-agrees-allow-same-sex-marriages-monday-183328605.html
does that mean you can marry a NJ man instead of a UK man?
Have someone in mind? :shifty:
Oh, since I haven't seen anybody else mentioning it, I see Christie's finally realized that he's coming up on an election year- he dropped his appeal on the gay marriage issue this morning, and still managed to get a backhand swipe at the judiciary into it. :lol:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/21/gay-couples-wed-as-nj-recognizes-nuptials/3141655/
Quote"Although the governor strongly disagrees with the court substituting its judgment for the constitutional process of the elected branches or a vote of the people, the court has now spoken clearly as to their view of the New Jersey Constitution and, therefore, same-sex marriage is the law," the governor's statement said. "The governor will do his constitutional duty and ensure his administration enforces the law as dictated by the New Jersey Supreme Court."
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 21, 2013, 07:56:51 PM
Have someone in mind? :shifty:
derspiess, duh! Er, actually I forget which one is in North Jersey, DGuller or derspiess. :blush:
Guller's in Jersey, Spiess in WKRP land.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 21, 2013, 08:20:21 PM
Guller's in Jersey, Spiess in WKRP land.
:face: Figures I'd get it backwards. D is for Lysdexia.
I agree with Christie :mellow:
Quote from: garbon on October 21, 2013, 06:23:07 PM
I think you misunderstood that post of mine and I can already get married in New York.
ah, sorry. I'm not up to speed with US marriage laws. :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 21, 2013, 09:42:59 PM
I agree with Christie :mellow:
You've got it backwards. Christie tried to make it a fig leaf- voters want gay marriage, they have to say so. The court told him not only that a referendum isn't necessary to codify every single right given to citizens, it was actually already
done by the decision that resulted in NJ granting civil unions in the first place (they came about because The Powers That Be™ told NJ they needed to give homo couples an equivalent option to marriage. All that happened was that the issue was revisited and it was decided that civil unions weren't doing that job.
If he had succeeded in getting that challenge all the way to SCOTUS, they look at very, very narrow topics when they do hear a case. They basically would have looked at that: civil unions were implemented to equivocate marriage, they did not, so marriage needed to be opened up to homo couples. That's a pretty hard topic to argue, and Christie would have ended up being the Republican governor that brought a case to SCOTUS that opened the floodgates across the country.
Long story short, he took a known loser way too far, and he found himself without a way to withdraw gracefully. It's all politicking with that dude.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 22, 2013, 01:37:09 AM
You've got it backwards. Christie tried to make it a fig leaf- voters want gay marriage, they have to say so. The court told him not only that a referendum isn't necessary to codify every single right given to citizens, it was actually already done by the decision that resulted in NJ granting civil unions in the first place (they came about because The Powers That Be™ told NJ they needed to give homo couples an equivalent option to marriage. All that happened was that the issue was revisited and it was decided that civil unions weren't doing that job.
If he had succeeded in getting that challenge all the way to SCOTUS, they look at very, very narrow topics when they do hear a case. They basically would have looked at that: civil unions were implemented to equivocate marriage, they did not, so marriage needed to be opened up to homo couples. That's a pretty hard topic to argue, and Christie would have ended up being the Republican governor that brought a case to SCOTUS that opened the floodgates across the country.
Long story short, he took a known loser way too far, and he found himself without a way to withdraw gracefully. It's all politicking with that dude.
I think you have it somewhat wrong; Christie couldn't pretend that he hadn't vetoed the legislature's law recognizing gay marriages, so he used euphamisms in his statement about "the court substituting its judgment for the constitutional process of the elected branches." It was really the court substituting its judgement for his judgement.
But you are correct in that this was a quixotic, partisan-motivated quest on his part. Once the USSC had ruled that the feds had to recognize gay marriage but not necessarily civil unions, the jig was up on the old NJ law.
Illinois should be bringing it to a vote again in January. At least, I hope they will. I'd much rather this be voted into law than forced on the state by judges. Not because I necessarily care, but the end-result will change how the population feels about it, I think.
The conservative down-staters are fighting this tooth and nail, and I think it would be better if their legislators do the deed. They're more likely to accept it sooner than if a judge declares it necessary.
Quote from: grumbler on October 23, 2013, 06:29:14 AM
I think you have it somewhat wrong; Christie couldn't pretend that he hadn't vetoed the legislature's law recognizing gay marriages, so he used euphamisms in his statement about "the court substituting its judgment for the constitutional process of the elected branches." It was really the court substituting its judgement for his judgement.
True. That's something important to not forget.
Quote from: viper37 on October 22, 2013, 12:52:41 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 21, 2013, 06:23:07 PM
I think you misunderstood that post of mine and I can already get married in New York.
ah, sorry. I'm not up to speed with US marriage laws. :(
I think you missed this part. :contract:
Quoteso I can finally do the whole move to the UK bit.
And Illinois makes 15.
QuoteSPRINGFIELD --- The General Assembly today narrowly approved a gay marriage bill, clearing the way for Illinois to become the 15th state to legalize same-sex unions.
The bill got 61 votes in the House, one more than the bare minimum needed to send the measure back to the Senate, which quickly signed off. Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn has said he would sign the bill into law should it reach his desk.
Reaction is rolling in tonight from the White House to City Hall.
President Barack Obama issued a statement praising the General Assembly.
"As president, I have always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally under the law. Over time, I also came to believe that same-sex couples should be able to get married like anyone else," he said in the statement. "So tonight, Michelle and I are overjoyed for all the committed couples in Illinois whose love will now be as legal as ours – and for their friends and family who have long wanted nothing more than to see their loved ones treated fairly and equally under the law."
Mayor Rahm Emanuel issued a statement following the House vote.
"Today is a critical moment in history for Illinois and for the entire LGBT movement. Finally, gays and lesbians across our state are guaranteed the fundamental right to marry, and countless couples with children will be acknowledged for what they are under the law – families just like everyone else," said Emanuel in the statement.
The House vote followed more than two-and-a-half hours of debate in which supporters said it's time for Illinois to make marriage equal for all and opponents raised concerns about protecting the institution of marriage and the religious beliefs of those who say marriage should be between a man and woman.
Sponsoring Rep. Greg Harris told colleagues that a series of "proud moments and difficult decisions that have brought honor upon the people and the state of Illinois, and we find ourselves at another one of those moments today."
The openly gay Democratic lawmaker from Chicago said the state's civil union law has saddled Illinois with "inequality, unfair burden and harms added layer by layer to people simply because they live in the state of Illinois."
"To treat all our citizens equally in the eyes of the law, we must change this," Harris said.
Rep. Mary Flowers, D-Chicago, pointed to a passage in the book of Genesis that a man leaves his father and mother to "cleave to his wife."
Same-sex couples will "not be truly married in God's eyes" and that neither the church nor the legislature has the ability to overturn the basic tenets of the Bible, Flowers said.
"This debate is a joke," Flowers said.
Near the end of the debate, Speaker Michael Madigan spoke in support, saying that civilization has been based on two people finding each other. "Who am I to judge that they should be illegal?" Madigan said of same-sex couples.
State Rep. Ed Sullivan of Mundelein, one of the few Republicans expected to vote in favor, said he was voting for gay marriage because of the influence in his life of his mother-in-law, who he said is a lesbian.
Opponent Rep. Tom Morrison of Palatine said he supports "natural marriage" between a man and a woman. Morrison, a Republican, said redefining marriage could have far-reaching social implications. "Why is the state concerned with personal relationships anyway?...Real marriage is the building block of human civilization," he said.
Morrison said a vote against the bill does not mean a lawmaker is a bigot.
Rep. Jeanne Ives, a Wheaton Republican, questioned whether religious beliefs would be protected. She called the bill "the worst in the U.S." for protecting such freedoms.
Rep. David Reis, a Downstate Republican, contended the bill would not protect individual religious beliefs for people like judges who might be asked to perform gay marriages in counties where churches decline to do so.
Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2013, 08:45:41 AM
I think you missed this part. :contract:
Quoteso I can finally do the whole move to the UK bit.
Well, I thought that was because you desperaterely wanted to get married. I never tought you liked England, I always figured your for the sunny californian coast type, not the wet and foggy weather of that part of Europe. Had you said you wanted to move to Southern France, I would have understood immediatly ;)
Hawaii joins the party. :swiss:
Quote from: viper37 on November 06, 2013, 02:26:17 AM
Well, I thought that was because you desperaterely wanted to get married.
:lol:
Quote from: viper37 on November 06, 2013, 02:26:17 AMI never tought you liked England, I always figured your for the sunny californian coast type, not the wet and foggy weather of that part of Europe.
:huh:
I think I've been fairly positive about England and next year I'll finally be making my long planned trip.
I like New York too and I hate both humid climates and snow. ;)
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/scotland-legalises-marriage-equality
QuoteScotland's first same-sex marriages are set to take place later this year.
The Scottish parliament on Tuesday voted to pass the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill by a margin of 105-18, with the first unions set to be conducted in the autumn.
"I believe this bill will have a hugely positive impact on our society and on the health and well-being of LGBT of people in our country," MSP Jim Eadie said during the debate. "Scotland now has one of the most progressive equal marriage bills in the world. Allowing the option of gender-neutral marriage ceremonies will provide genuine equality for all, including transgender people."
"This is a profound moment in our nation's history," he added.
Politicians cheered as the parliament gave its approval to the bill. It received cross-party backing, despite opposition from both the Scottish Catholic Church and the Church of Scotland.
Religious groups and officials authorised to conduct weddings will not be required to hold same-sex ceremonies. Instead they will have the freedom to opt-in to the law and conduct such ceremonies if they so which.
Same-sex marriage legislation for England and Wales was passed by the Westminster parliament in 2013, with the first marriages in those countries set to take place next month.
The exact date for the first same-sex marriage in Scotland depends on when the Westminster parliament amends existing legislation to ensure officials who refuse to conduct same-sex marriages are protected under the law.
Following a successful campaign by transgender activists the Scottish law will also end the so-called "spousal veto", which required transgender people to receive written permission from their spouse before their gender can be recognised in law. This rule remains in place across the rest of the United Kingdom.
There was limited opposition to the motion in the chamber, with a handful of MSPs failing in their attempt to push last-minute amendments that would increase legal protections for those who oppose same-sex marriage.
Scottish National Party MSP Richard Lyle, unsuccessfully tabled an amendment that aimed to ensure that those who want to adopt children are not refused on the basis of their opposition to same-sex marriage. He told the chamber that opponents of the law had received "vitriolic abuse" in recent months.
"Marriage is on the cusp of being changed forever," he said. "It is my conviction that marriage is a unique relationship between a man and a woman."
Fellow SNP politician John Mason voted against the bill and said he feared that "we are opening the door for more discrimination against religious people".
Scotland decriminalised homosexual acts between two consenting adults in 1980, thirteen years after England and Wales. Civil partnerships have been legal in the country since 2005.
Northern Ireland is now the only part of the United Kingdom where same-sex marriage legislation has not been passed, with few signs that the devolved assembly at Stormont will debate the matter in the near future.
I'll need to use my vacation now to troll for a marriage. :scots:
Hey, Virginia.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/13/virginia-same-sex-marriage/5473687/
QuoteVirginia judge strikes down gay marriage ban
Ruling by U.S. District Judge Arenda Wright Allen sets the stage for a possible Supreme Court showdown, though cases from Utah and Oklahoma also are headed that way
A federal judge in Virginia has struck down the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage, joining a growing list of state and federal courts that have granted gay and lesbian couples the right to marry following two landmark Supreme Court rulings in June.
District Court Judge Arenda Wright Allen's ruling had been expected since the case was heard in her Norfolk courtroom Feb. 4. Also as expected, she blocked it from taking immediate effect until appeals are heard, meaning gay marriages in Virginia cannot begin yet.
Her decision follows similar rulings in Oklahoma and Utah, even more conservative states, where federal judges recently struck down gay marriage bans. Those cases are scheduled to be heard by a federal appeals court panel in April; the Virginia case now joins them in a race toward the Supreme Court.
And in recent days, Nevada state officials decided they could no longer defend the state's same-sex marriage ban, and a judge in Kentucky ruled that the state must recognize gay marriages from other states.
Seventeen states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage. Since the high court last June restored gay marriage rights in California and struck down a portion of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, Hawaii and Illinois joined the passed new laws, and state courts in New Jersey and New Mexico legalized the practice. Nearly four dozen lawsuits remain pending in 24 states.
Wright Allen's opinion, like others in recent months, made note of the high court's ruling last year that the federal law denying benefits to legally married same-sex couples violated the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process.
The Court is compelled to conclude that Virginia's marriage laws unconstitutionally deny Virginia's gay and lesbian citizens the fundamental freedom to choose to marry," Wright Allen wrote. "Government interests in perpetuating traditions, shielding state matters from federal interference, and favoring one model of parenting over others must yield to this country's cherished protections that ensure the exercise of the private choices of the individual citizen regarding love and family."
The Virginia ban, passed by voters in 2006, had suffered several blows in recent months. First came the decision by Theodore Olson and David Boies, high-powered litigators who successfully challenged California's Proposition 8 ban last year, to join the legal team representing two gay and lesbian couples. Then came the announcement by newly elected state Attorney General Mark Herring, a Democrat, that Virginia would stop defending its law and join those seeking to defeat it.
Olson, Boies and state Solicitor General Stuart Raphael joined forces at the hearing in Wright Allen's court. They compared the ban on same-sex marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships to Virginia's discriminatory history of blocking school integration, interracial marriage and the right of women to attend Virginia Military Institute.
"Marriage is a fundamental right. The United States Supreme Court has said that something like 14 times, by my count," said Olson, a former U.S. solicitor general under George W. Bush. The ban "denies them equal dignity because of who they are."
Stripped of the state's backing, the ban was left to be defended by lawyers for two local circuit court clerks whose jobs include issuing marriage licenses. They raised myriad issues, ranging from Virginia's 400-year tradition of heterosexual marriage and states' jurisdiction over domestic matters to the contention that marriage should be reserved for couples that can procreate.
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race," said Austin Nimocks of the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom. "Every child has a mother and a father."
The couples at the center of the case are Timothy Bostic and Tony London, who filed the lawsuit in Norfolk last July, and Carol Schall and Mary Townley, who joined up later. Schall and Townley, whose marriage in California isn't recognized by Virginia, have a teenage daughter.
Another lawsuit in western Virginia, filed by Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union, was certified last week as a class action by federal District Court Judge Michael Urbanski. That means all gay and lesbian couples seeking to marry or have their marriages recognized could be affected by the outcome.
They seriously tried the "couples that can procreate" tack? They'd better be glad that didn't go through before somebody asked the killer question: if that's the government's interest in permitting marriages, why is fertility testing not a prerequisite for granting a marriage license?
Answer: that argument is bullshit. The government isn't interested in denying marriage certificates to barren couples, remarried couples where one partner has already undertaken voluntary sterilization, or couples that choose to remain childless. It's just a bullshit way of trying to define your way into the bride always having the right lady bits and the groom always having the right man bits, functional or not.
Sorry, the procreation argument is a pet peeve of mine since it's so blatantly disingenuous.
Precreation test?
I say we should enforce the "Hott" test. Only couples who are certified hott by a jury of their peers can get married. :D
Or maybe it should be the other way around - only couples who are not hott should be allowed to be married. :hmm:
http://time.com/94825/arkansas-judge-strikes-down-gay-marriage-ban/
QuoteArkansas Judge Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban
An Arkansas judge on Friday struck down the state's ban on gay marriage, opening the door for gay couples to wed.
Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza said the 2004 amendment's definition of marriage as allowable only between a man and a woman is unconstitutional and violates the rights of same-sex couples.
The ruling came nearly a week after state Attorney General Dustin McDaniel announced he personally supports gay marriage rights but that he will continue to defend the constitutional ban in court.
McDaniel's office is expected to quickly appeal Piazza's ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
The 2004 constitutional amendment was passed with the overwhelming support of Arkansas voters.
The U.S. Supreme Court last year ruled that a law forbidding the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages was unconstitutional. Since then, lower-court judges have repeatedly cited the Supreme Court decision when striking down some of the same-sex marriage bans that were enacted after Massachusetts started recognizing gay marriages in 2004.
Since late last year, federal judges have ruled against marriage bans in Michigan, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Texas, and ordered Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.
In all, according to gay-rights groups, more than 70 lawsuits seeking marriage equality are pending in about 30 states. Democratic attorneys general in several states — including Virginia, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Oregon and Kentucky — have declined to defend same-sex marriage bans.
McDaniel, a Democrat in his final year as attorney general, is the first statewide elected official in Arkansas to support marriage equality. The state's other top Democrats, including Gov. Mike Beebe and U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor, have said they still oppose gay marriage rights.
The plaintiffs argue that their rights to due process and equal protection can't be superseded, even by a state constitutional amendment. Attorneys for the state have argued that an amendment to the state constitution can't itself be deemed unconstitutional.
A group of same-sex couples have also challenged Arkansas' ban in federal court.
Yahoo News had an article* about this being a bad weekend for the anti-gay crowd between Arkansas, Conchita and Michael Sam. The yahoo commenting crowd was very angry going so far as to label Yahoo as giving up "any shred of credibility". :o
*article from The Wire :unsure:
The "outrage" about Micheal Sam's kiss was amazing, if Twitter survived that I think it is unbreakable.
My favorite one was 'what if my kids were watching, what would I tell them!?!' Any parent who can't answer that question in 2.2 seconds should have their kids impounded.
Quote from: sbr on May 12, 2014, 09:20:58 PM
My favorite one was 'what if my kids were watching, what would I tell them!?!' Any parent who can't answer that question in 2.2 seconds should have their kids impounded.
That fun Louis CK bit. :)
Quote from: sbr on May 12, 2014, 09:20:58 PM
The "outrage" about Micheal Sam's kiss was amazing, if Twitter survived that I think it is unbreakable.
My favorite one was 'what if my kids were watching, what would I tell them!?!' Any parent who can't answer that question in 2.2 seconds should have their kids impounded.
I am not sure my kids could take the shock of something memorable happening in the later rounds of the NFL draft.
Quote from: garbon on May 12, 2014, 09:24:26 PM
Quote from: sbr on May 12, 2014, 09:20:58 PM
My favorite one was 'what if my kids were watching, what would I tell them!?!' Any parent who can't answer that question in 2.2 seconds should have their kids impounded.
That fun Louis CK bit. :)
I know who he is but I don't know any of his bits.
Quote from: sbr on May 12, 2014, 09:25:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 12, 2014, 09:24:26 PM
Quote from: sbr on May 12, 2014, 09:20:58 PM
My favorite one was 'what if my kids were watching, what would I tell them!?!' Any parent who can't answer that question in 2.2 seconds should have their kids impounded.
That fun Louis CK bit. :)
I know who he is but I don't know any of his bits.
http://youtu.be/eb-JZSyhWSc?t=1m4s
Oregon struts in.
QuoteFederal Judge Strikes Down Oregon Same-Sex Marriage Ban, Weddings Can Start Immediately
State officials have said they will not appeal the ruling. Judge's order is effective immediately.
How is Teh Gay Community going to react when Sam gets cut?
Probably wouldn't be hard to fall back on the general "we don't care about sports" narrative.
Penn too! :w00t:
Oh and Yi I guess we'll just switch to WNBA now that they are marketing to LGBT. :lol:
Fat lady waddling onto the stage :P
I saw an article that said Pennsylvania is the 19th state where gays can marry. Does that mean that the other 31 states have laws banning it that just haven't been overturned yet?
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 21, 2014, 06:28:13 PM
Fat lady waddling onto the stage :P
We are not even at half the states as was just pointed out.
Though I think I'll still demonize the opposition like I do racists.
Quote from: sbr on May 21, 2014, 06:30:11 PM
I saw an article that said Pennsylvania is the 19th state where gays can marry. Does that mean that the other 31 states have laws banning it that just haven't been overturned yet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States
Map on that with status.
There are now 7 appeal petitions before the Supreme Court relating to gay marriage issues.
Quote from: garbon on May 21, 2014, 06:37:10 PM
We are not even at half the states as was just pointed out.
Though I think I'll still demonize the opposition like I do racists.
Seems reasonable.
So with Indiana's "Freedom of Religion Restoration Act," I have couple of questions:
- If a business owner refuses service to someone (say, someone he believes is gay) because it would be an undue burden on his religious conscience, how does the burden of proof work? After all, many times you can't tell from someone browsing your store whether they're gay or not.
- How far can this law go? If you think adulterers are sinners, can you refuse service? If you're devout Hindu and come into contact with an "untouchable" caste? Or as devout Muslim, can you refuse service to women who are not dressed appropriately or wear no hijab?
- And what if you feel you've been wrongfully denied service?
Quote from: Syt on March 29, 2015, 12:13:51 PM
So with Indiana's "Freedom of Religion Restoration Act," I have couple of questions:
- If a business owner refuses service to someone (say, someone he believes is gay) because it would be an undue burden on his religious conscience, how does the burden of proof work? After all, many times you can't tell from someone browsing your store whether they're gay or not.
I don't believe that anyone has ever used FRRA to justify denial of service.
Quote- How far can this law go? If you think adulterers are sinners, can you refuse service? If you're devout Hindu and come into contact with an "untouchable" caste? Or as devout Muslim, can you refuse service to women who are not dressed appropriately or wear no hijab?
None of those have ever been successfully justified under any version of FRRA.
Quote- And what if you feel you've been wrongfully denied service?
FRRA doesn't change this at all.
And that's three questions, not "a couple." :P
The Indiana version of the FRRA is the same as the federal version, which passed the HoR unanimously and the Senate 97-3. It has been enacted in something like 20 states. It is hardly controversial in actual fact, and hasn't lead to denial of service on religious grounds. I find the widespread belief that it is something new and controversial to be a powerful condemnation of the American media system.
I was under the impression that the Federal version applied only to governmental interactions, whereas the Indiana version is about private citizens/businesses. The Federal version has also lost a lot of its original clout in a series of SCOTUS decisions.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on March 29, 2015, 04:45:46 PM
I was under the impression that the Federal version applied only to governmental interactions, whereas the Indiana version is about private citizens/businesses. The Federal version has also lost a lot of its original clout in a series of SCOTUS decisions.
The SCOTUS rulings stated that the Federal law couldn't apply to the states - Congress didn't have that power. That's why states have been enacting their own versions of the law. The Federal law still applies to Federal jurisdictions.
Quote from: grumbler on March 29, 2015, 01:21:56 PM
Quote from: Syt on March 29, 2015, 12:13:51 PM
So with Indiana's "Freedom of Religion Restoration Act," I have couple of questions:
- If a business owner refuses service to someone (say, someone he believes is gay) because it would be an undue burden on his religious conscience, how does the burden of proof work? After all, many times you can't tell from someone browsing your store whether they're gay or not.
I don't believe that anyone has ever used FRRA to justify denial of service.
Quote- How far can this law go? If you think adulterers are sinners, can you refuse service? If you're devout Hindu and come into contact with an "untouchable" caste? Or as devout Muslim, can you refuse service to women who are not dressed appropriately or wear no hijab?
None of those have ever been successfully justified under any version of FRRA.
Quote- And what if you feel you've been wrongfully denied service?
FRRA doesn't change this at all.
And that's three questions, not "a couple." :P
The Indiana version of the FRRA is the same as the federal version, which passed the HoR unanimously and the Senate 97-3. It has been enacted in something like 20 states. It is hardly controversial in actual fact, and hasn't lead to denial of service on religious grounds. I find the widespread belief that it is something new and controversial to be a powerful condemnation of the American media system.
I'm sorry, maybe FRRA isn't the right term. I meant the State Senate Bill 101. Full text is here: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indianas-religious-freedom-law/70539772/
Unfortunately, English is my second language and I'm not a lawyer, so I find it difficult to understand.
Quote from: Syt on March 29, 2015, 11:58:59 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 29, 2015, 01:21:56 PM
Quote from: Syt on March 29, 2015, 12:13:51 PM
So with Indiana's "Freedom of Religion Restoration Act," I have couple of questions:
- If a business owner refuses service to someone (say, someone he believes is gay) because it would be an undue burden on his religious conscience, how does the burden of proof work? After all, many times you can't tell from someone browsing your store whether they're gay or not.
I don't believe that anyone has ever used FRRA to justify denial of service.
Quote- How far can this law go? If you think adulterers are sinners, can you refuse service? If you're devout Hindu and come into contact with an "untouchable" caste? Or as devout Muslim, can you refuse service to women who are not dressed appropriately or wear no hijab?
None of those have ever been successfully justified under any version of FRRA.
Quote- And what if you feel you've been wrongfully denied service?
FRRA doesn't change this at all.
And that's three questions, not "a couple." :P
The Indiana version of the FRRA is the same as the federal version, which passed the HoR unanimously and the Senate 97-3. It has been enacted in something like 20 states. It is hardly controversial in actual fact, and hasn't lead to denial of service on religious grounds. I find the widespread belief that it is something new and controversial to be a powerful condemnation of the American media system.
I'm sorry, maybe FRRA isn't the right term. I meant the State Senate Bill 101. Full text is here: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indianas-religious-freedom-law/70539772/
Unfortunately, English is my second language and I'm not a lawyer, so I find it difficult to understand.
Don't sweat it, you had it right.
Grumbler is just pointing out that the significant controversy over the enactment of this law (which you have no doubt read) is unjustified.
The reason it is unjustified: the same law exists federally and in several states already, without any of the bad effects on minorities that have been proposed as arising from this law in Indiana actually occurring; so it is reasonable to assume it won't have those bad effects in Indiana, either.
That said, I haven't myself actually compared the texts of the various laws.
Quote from: Syt on March 29, 2015, 11:58:59 PM
I'm sorry, maybe FRRA isn't the right term. I meant the State Senate Bill 101. Full text is here: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indianas-religious-freedom-law/70539772/
Unfortunately, English is my second language and I'm not a lawyer, so I find it difficult to understand.
Senate Bill 101 is substantially identical to the Federal law which, as I noted, was passed almost without opposition (total 3 votes against in both houses of Congress combined):
Federal law:
QuotePUBLIC LAW 103-141—NOV. 16, 1993 107 STAT. 1489
(a) IN GENERAL.—Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) EXCEPTION.—Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest;
and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) JUDICIAL RELIEF. A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-107/pdf/STATUTE-107-Pg1488.pdf (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-107/pdf/STATUTE-107-Pg1488.pdf)
Indiana law (from your cite):
QuoteSec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.
Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that: (1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person: (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: (1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter. (2) Compensatory damages. (c) In the appropriate case, the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.
None of the awful, dreadful things that supposedly will happen to gays and lesbians under the Indiana law have happened under the federal law, even when it was believed to apply to state laws. Twenty other states have adopted this law, and none of the awful dreadful things happened there, either.
This is a non-story, made into a story by ignorance and the willful promulgation of untruths. I didn't realize how very stupid actor Harvey Fierstein was until he started his ludicrous tweets about this, so I guess some good has come of this.
Syt:
The World's Most Well-Spoken Black Man discussed this on CNN.
He mentioned three issues with this law, compared to other states (or the US) that have a similar statute.
One is that the law applies to "any person," which he interpreted to include corporations.
Two is that the belief in question does not have to be central to a religion.
The third is that other states, specifically Illinois, where Obama voted for a similar measure, already have a statute protecting gays as a protected class.
On top of that there is the March Madness connection, which raises the profile. Not sure if the final is being held in Indianapolis this year, but rounds of 16 and 8 have been.
What is the justification for making a religious belief more worthy of being "unburdened" than, say, any other strongly held belief?
Quote from: Martinus on March 30, 2015, 12:13:52 PM
What is the justification for making a religious belief more worthy of being "unburdened" than, say, any other strongly held belief?
I would guess a larger number of voters in favor of it.
Thanks for the explanations, guys.
An Atlantic article on the same subject also just popped up in my news feed: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/?utm_source=SFFB
Quote"What Makes Indiana's Religious-Freedom Law Different?
[...]
If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to "the free exercise of religion." The federal RFRA doesn't contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina's; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.
The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: "A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding." (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.
[...]
So, let's review the evidence: by the Weekly Standard's definition, there's "nothing significant" about this law that differs from the federal one, and other state ones—except that it has been carefully written to make clear that 1) businesses can use it against 2) civil-rights suits brought by individuals.
[...]
In 2000 my sister in the U.S. suggested I should move over to the States and enroll in a law school. I'm glad I never did that. :D
Quote from: Martinus on March 30, 2015, 12:13:52 PM
What is the justification for making a religious belief more worthy of being "unburdened" than, say, any other strongly held belief?
The First Amendment.
Quote from: Syt on March 30, 2015, 12:35:49 PM
Thanks for the explanations, guys.
An Atlantic article on the same subject also just popped up in my news feed: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/?utm_source=SFFB
Quote"What Makes Indiana's Religious-Freedom Law Different?
[...]
If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to "the free exercise of religion." The federal RFRA doesn't contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina's; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.
The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: "A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding." (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.
[...]
So, let's review the evidence: by the Weekly Standard's definition, there's "nothing significant" about this law that differs from the federal one, and other state ones—except that it has been carefully written to make clear that 1) businesses can use it against 2) civil-rights suits brought by individuals.
[...]
In 2000 my sister in the U.S. suggested I should move over to the States and enroll in a law school. I'm glad I never did that. :D
I hadn't noted the bolded (by me) part. That changes my conclusions, I think. The businesses part isn't an issue, since the USSC has held that businesses are persons, but the fact that the religious burden defense can be applied to civil suits could be a difference. I am not sure how a government entity could not be involved in a civil rights case (the plaintiff is suing for damages resulting from a violation of a law, not for damages resulting from differing interpretations of a contract), so i don't know if there is a practical difference, but I'm going to step back from my assertion that there was nothing new here.
Quote from: Syt on March 30, 2015, 12:35:49 PM
Quote"What Makes Indiana's Religious-Freedom Law Different?
QuoteFirst, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to "the free exercise of religion." The federal RFRA doesn't contain such language
Not explicitly but the larger definition of "person" was written in by the Supreme Court in
Hobby Lobby
So, what does it mean to live in a democracy where Sodomite Suppression Act can even be put on the ballot?
Quote from: Martinus on March 30, 2015, 02:48:01 PM
So, what does it mean to live in a democracy where Sodomite Suppression Act can even be put on the ballot?
You think democracy should should just be about stuff you agree with and not about the will of the people?
Quote from: The Brain on March 30, 2015, 02:51:18 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 30, 2015, 02:48:01 PM
So, what does it mean to live in a democracy where Sodomite Suppression Act can even be put on the ballot?
You think democracy should should just be about stuff you agree with and not about the will of the people?
:lol:
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2015, 12:47:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 30, 2015, 12:13:52 PM
What is the justification for making a religious belief more worthy of being "unburdened" than, say, any other strongly held belief?
The First Amendment.
Frankly, I can't really see what the Federal law does or what behavior it protects that the First doesn't already do/protect.
Quote from: dps on March 30, 2015, 05:08:55 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2015, 12:47:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 30, 2015, 12:13:52 PM
What is the justification for making a religious belief more worthy of being "unburdened" than, say, any other strongly held belief?
The First Amendment.
Frankly, I can't really see what the Federal law does or what behavior it protects that the First doesn't already do/protect.
The federal law clarifies that religious beliefs can grant relief from federal laws, even if the federal law wasn't intended to have any religious impact at all. The federal law, in essence, over-rules a 1990 or so USSC decision to overturn their own precedent and require the plaintiff to show why he should get the exception, rather than the burden being on the government. Congress preferred the old regime, where the burden was on the government, and so enacted it into statute.
The major impact was on the Indians who wanted a religious exception to federal drug laws in order to use peyote in religious ceremonies. They got it (and it also was later codified into statute).
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2015, 05:17:23 PM
The major impact was on the Indians who wanted a religious exception to federal drug laws in order to use peyote in religious ceremonies. They got it (and it also was later codified into statute).
I find it sorta amusing that a law originally inspired in large part by outrage over the firing of Native American Church peyote-users has inspired, via its adaptation by state law, in the current controversy over gay rights. Unintended consequences indeed. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on March 30, 2015, 05:24:00 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2015, 05:17:23 PM
The major impact was on the Indians who wanted a religious exception to federal drug laws in order to use peyote in religious ceremonies. They got it (and it also was later codified into statute).
I find it sorta amusing that a law originally inspired in large part by outrage over the firing of Native American Church peyote-users has inspired, via its adaptation by state law, in the current controversy over gay rights.
I can't quite parse this sentence. Insofar as I know, the peyote issue wasn't firings, but rather imprisonments for interstate transportation of controlled substances.
If you are saying that it is amusingly ironic that the anti-gay fundies are adopting a law that looks suspiciously like it was inspired by hippies, I agree.
Anyway, whatever the law says, I personally think any private supplier should be free to deny service to anyone unless:
- the service is essential, or
- they have a monopoly/market dominance, or
- there is a network effect (so due to so many suppliers denying service to the same group of people, that group of people is effectively prevented or materially hindered in obtaining the service in a given area).
Otherwise, anyone should be free to advertise their bigotry how they like.
So, yes, I am against suing bigoted bakers and florists out of wazoo for refusing to cater to gay weddings. I wouldn't want to eat a cake baked by a homophobe forced to do so by the court in any event.
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2015, 06:14:18 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 30, 2015, 05:24:00 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2015, 05:17:23 PM
The major impact was on the Indians who wanted a religious exception to federal drug laws in order to use peyote in religious ceremonies. They got it (and it also was later codified into statute).
I find it sorta amusing that a law originally inspired in large part by outrage over the firing of Native American Church peyote-users has inspired, via its adaptation by state law, in the current controversy over gay rights.
I can't quite parse this sentence. Insofar as I know, the peyote issue wasn't firings, but rather imprisonments for interstate transportation of controlled substances.
]
I thought it was this case that was the direct inspiration:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/case.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act#Background_and_passage
The actual issue before the courts was denial of unemployment benefits resulting from firings.
Quote
If you are saying that it is amusingly ironic that the anti-gay fundies are adopting a law that looks suspiciously like it was inspired by hippies, I agree.
Yup.
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2015, 02:42:17 AM
I wouldn't want to eat a cake baked by a homophobe forced to do so by the court in any event.
I agree, I'm not sure I'd want to eat a cake a bigot was forced by law to bake for me. :lol: "Hey, what's that mystery flavour?"
Quote from: Malthus on March 31, 2015, 08:11:56 AM
:lol: "Hey, what's that mystery flavour?"
PURE HATE
Quote from: Malthus on March 31, 2015, 08:09:51 AM
I thought it was this case that was the direct inspiration:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/case.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act#Background_and_passage
The actual issue before the courts was denial of unemployment benefits resulting from firings.
Unemployment Division versus Smith was the USSC case that changed the burden of proof on demonstrating burden, but the peyote issue was much longer-standing and more widespread than the case of Smith and Black.
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2015, 09:24:22 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 31, 2015, 08:09:51 AM
I thought it was this case that was the direct inspiration:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/case.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act#Background_and_passage
The actual issue before the courts was denial of unemployment benefits resulting from firings.
Unemployment Division versus Smith was the USSC case that changed the burden of proof on demonstrating burden, but the peyote issue was much longer-standing and more widespread than the case of Smith and Black.
The peyote issue was longstanding, yes; I am merely saying that this particular case is often cited as one of the direct inspirations for the federal statute.
There's a whole book on this topic:
http://www.amazon.ca/Religious-Freedom-Indian-Rights-Oregon/dp/0700610642
Here's a legal blog post on it:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/drg28.htm
QuoteThis controversial decision by a divided Court has been heavily criticized by constitutional law scholars, religious leaders, and civil libertarians. In 1993, Congress overturned portions of the Smith decision by enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), Pub. L. 103-141, 107 Stat 1488 (42 U.S.C. 2OOObb et seq.,).
Quote from: Malthus on March 31, 2015, 09:39:48 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2015, 09:24:22 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 31, 2015, 08:09:51 AM
I thought it was this case that was the direct inspiration:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/case.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act#Background_and_passage
The actual issue before the courts was denial of unemployment benefits resulting from firings.
Unemployment Division versus Smith was the USSC case that changed the burden of proof on demonstrating burden, but the peyote issue was much longer-standing and more widespread than the case of Smith and Black.
The peyote issue was longstanding, yes; I am merely saying that this particular case is often cited as one of the direct inspirations for the federal statute.
There's a whole book on this topic:
http://www.amazon.ca/Religious-Freedom-Indian-Rights-Oregon/dp/0700610642
Here's a legal blog post on it:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/drg28.htm
QuoteThis controversial decision by a divided Court has been heavily criticized by constitutional law scholars, religious leaders, and civil libertarians. In 1993, Congress overturned portions of the Smith decision by enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), Pub. L. 103-141, 107 Stat 1488 (42 U.S.C. 2OOObb et seq.,).
:lol: Now we've come full circle back to my post #163.
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2015, 08:41:08 AM
This is a non-story, made into a story by ignorance and the willful promulgation of untruths. I didn't realize how very stupid actor Harvey Fierstein was until he started his ludicrous tweets about this, so I guess some good has come of this.
Well, the Federal law dates from 1993. Maybe it's a sign that the world has changed since then, when it comes to religious excess. In 1993, it was still ok to defend slavery as part of your religion. Any religious official today advocating slavery in the name of religion would be shunned by public opinion. But it was only in '95 that the Southern Baptist Church officially renounced their past position on slavery.
I think it's more that, than anything with how the law is written. All things being equal, the same law in the same place in 1994 might not have sparked outrage. And there was no Facebook, no Twitter, no Instagram then, it was harder to find something outrageous ;)
Quote from: viper37 on March 31, 2015, 03:05:13 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2015, 08:41:08 AM
This is a non-story, made into a story by ignorance and the willful promulgation of untruths. I didn't realize how very stupid actor Harvey Fierstein was until he started his ludicrous tweets about this, so I guess some good has come of this.
Well, the Federal law dates from 1993. Maybe it's a sign that the world has changed since then, when it comes to religious excess. In 1993, it was still ok to defend slavery as part of your religion. Any religious official today advocating slavery in the name of religion would be shunned by public opinion. But it was only in '95 that the Southern Baptist Church officially renounced their past position on slavery.
I think it's more that, than anything with how the law is written. All things being equal, the same law in the same place in 1994 might not have sparked outrage. And there was no Facebook, no Twitter, no Instagram then, it was harder to find something outrageous ;)
I don't think so. Very similar laws (with the caveat I noted in post #174, after Syt posted a note bringing it up) wherein the language is the same are in 20 other laws, passed between 1993 and 2005 (many in 2004, for some reason). It is true that social media has been able to spread the "outrage" much more quickly recently, but that's a comment about the nature of social media, not about the language of the law. As I noted earlier, this language has never, insofar as I know, been used successfully to defend against infringements on civil rights.
I also don't know why you think that "in 1993, it was still ok to defend slavery as part of your religion." Got a cite for that?
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2015, 04:04:16 PM
I also don't know why you think that "in 1993, it was still ok to defend slavery as part of your religion." Got a cite for that?
The Curse of Cain was used a justification for slavery, and later for segregation. Only in 1995 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain#Baptist_segregation) did the Southern Baptitst Church officially renounced that doctrine.
The Curse of Cain? I thought it was the Mark of Ham.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2015, 06:15:43 PM
The Curse of Cain? I thought it was the Mark of Ham.
Are you Able to click the link?
Quote from: viper37 on March 31, 2015, 06:10:57 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2015, 04:04:16 PM
I also don't know why you think that "in 1993, it was still ok to defend slavery as part of your religion." Got a cite for that?
The Curse of Cain was used a justification for slavery, and later for segregation. Only in 1995 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain#Baptist_segregation) did the Southern Baptitst Church officially renounced that doctrine.
Got a cite for your actual claim that "in 1993, it was still ok to defend slavery as part of your religion," though? Like, someone in the US in 1993 getting public approval for defending the existence of slavery for religious reasons? Not wikipedia, but an actual authoritative cite? Or are you just making this up based on something that some church didn't do?
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2015, 07:36:46 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 31, 2015, 06:10:57 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2015, 04:04:16 PM
I also don't know why you think that "in 1993, it was still ok to defend slavery as part of your religion." Got a cite for that?
The Curse of Cain was used a justification for slavery, and later for segregation. Only in 1995 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain#Baptist_segregation) did the Southern Baptitst Church officially renounced that doctrine.
Got a cite for your actual claim that "in 1993, it was still ok to defend slavery as part of your religion," though? Like, someone in the US in 1993 getting public approval for defending the existence of slavery for religious reasons? Not wikipedia, but an actual authoritative cite? Or are you just making this up based on something that some church didn't do?
Even if the Wiki article is correct, it doesn't say what he claims it says.
Looks like once again the most powerful and smart individuals at the helm of largest American companies are dumber than grumbler:
QuoteBig Business Is Leading The Charge On Gay Rights Now
Posted: 03/31/2015 6:46 pm EDT Updated: 03/31/2015 7:59 pm EDT
If Indiana's so-called "religious freedom" law goes down, you can thank Corporate America for killing it.
Big Business' outsized criticism of the state's coyly named Religious Freedom Restoration Act has galvanized fierce opposition to the law.
Under pressure from businesses -- including the state's largest employers -- as well as human rights groups and even other states, Republican Gov. Mike Pence said on Tuesday that he would seek to amend the law to ensure that businesses can't discriminate against anyone.
Pence vehemently denied accusations that the law would allow businesses to refuse service to gay customers, but said he would nevertheless support changes to the law in order to clear the air. Neither Pence nor GOP leaders in the legislature have detailed what the amendment will say.
That the business community was able to act so swiftly and decisively against the Indiana law is a sign of just how far Corporate America has evolved on gay rights -- from practicer of "Mad Men"-era exclusion, to protector of employee rights, to outspoken advocate. Improbably, the Fortune 500 somehow have turned into one of the country's most powerful social advocates for change.
"We're probably at a tipping point," said Irv Schenkler, a clinical professor of management communication at New York University's Stern School of Business.
Things have certainly evolved since 2012, when no Fortune 500 companies opposed North Carolina's proposed law banning same-sex marriage.
After Indiana's law passed on Thursday, the response from the business community was swift, loud and decisive.
Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff was among the first to denounce the law on Friday. His cloud computing company followed up by halting company travel to the state, and put the kibosh on events planned there. Other tech companies followed, with some eventually pulling out of a conference in Indianapolis in May.
On Sunday, Apple CEO Tim Cook published a piece in The Washington Post sharply criticizing the law. A spokesman from the Human Rights Campaign told The Huffington Post that Cook's op-ed was "a clarion call" for the opposition movement.
After Arkansas passed its own religious freedom law on Tuesday, the backlash extended to that state. Walmart, which is headquartered there, has already come out against the law and is asking Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) to veto it.
In a statement the company said the legislation "threatens to undermine the spirit of inclusion present throughout the state of Arkansas and does not reflect the values we proudly uphold."
The hits kept on coming. "The legislation in Indiana (and there are some bills being considered in other states) is not just pure idiocy from a business perspective, and it is that," Marriott CEO Arne Sorenson told a group in New York, as he accepted an award from a gay rights group for his company's work on equality. "The notion that you can tell businesses somehow that they are free to discriminate against people based on who they are is madness."
By Tuesday, a long list of companies were on the record against Indiana's law, including Nike, The Gap, Levi Strauss and PayPal. Big Pharma companies Eli Lilly and Co. and Roche Diagnostics are opposed, as is insurer Anthem. Angie's List announced it would halt a planned expansion in the state.
Corporate America's transformation on gay rights happened slowly, beginning in board rooms and trickling down to workers -- who now get better rights and protections from their employers than they do from their government. Eighty-nine percent of Fortune 500 companies have policies that specifically prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, according to a recent report from the Human Rights Campaign.
In contrast, there is no federal law prohibiting discrimination.
But it was the U.S. Supreme Court that truly forced companies out of the closet as gay rights supporters. A stunning 379 businesses, including many of the most respected companies in the U.S., signed onto an amicus brief at the court in support of gay marriage in a case to be argued next month that could make it legal nationwide.
In 2013, about 200 companies signed onto a brief urging that the high court overturn the portion of the Defense of Marriage Act that denies federal rights and benefits (like filing joint tax returns and inheriting money) to gay couples. It was overturned.
"Over the past couple of years, business support for LGBT equality has left the boardroom and entered the public square," said the HRC spokesman.
Several factors drove the change. First, there's the public's increasing support of gay marriage, in particular the support of the coveted millennial generation.
In a Pew survey released Tuesday, 62 percent of Americans ages 18-29 said they'd oppose a law like Indiana's that would allow, say, a wedding business like a photographer or a florist to decline services to a same-sex couple. For the general population, the percentage was 49 percent.
Companies also want to attract and recruit good people -- and that means having a diverse workforce. "Let's say you're a tech company in the Bay Area or anywhere. It's hard enough to find programmers," says Susan McPherson, who runs a consulting company focused on corporate social responsibility in New York. "If you limit them to be only heterosexual, you lose out. As much as I would like to think it's altruistic [to support gay rights]. It's about good business."
McPherson also notes that tech companies aren't going to want to move to states where the rights of their workers aren't protected. It's hard to attract workers to hostile territory. LGBT shoppers also have extraordinary purchasing power, she said. "Are you really going to alienate them as your consumers?"
The HRC spokesman notes that increasing numbers of LGBTQ Americans are coming out of the closet -- including Apple CEO Tim Cook, the first Fortune 100 CEO to reveal he was gay. (That was another Cook move that galvanized corporate support around gay rights.)
But perhaps The New Yorker's Andy Borowitz summed up the opposition to Indiana's law best: "Indiana Governor Stunned By How Many People Seem to Have Gay Friends."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/31/business-boycotts-indiana_n_6980388.html?ir=Gay+Voices&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000050
:huh: You think CEOs are dumb because they oppose the fag bashing law?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 01, 2015, 09:54:08 AM
:huh: You think CEOs are dumb because they oppose the fag bashing law?
Wasn't I clear enough?
Ohio is wanting to pick off some of those conventions and shit. Columbus is the gay capital of the Midwest after all.
I assume the Ohio legisature will fuck it up and be a Jonny come lately with some sort of anti-fag law.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 01, 2015, 09:54:08 AM
:huh: You think CEOs are dumb because they oppose the fag bashing law?
You missed the point. Read what grumbler has been saying in the thread about the law. I don't know if he is right. I have just skimmed the thread. But Grumbler appears to be making the argument that the law isn't a big deal. Corporate America seems to think otherwise.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 11:03:00 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 01, 2015, 09:54:08 AM
:huh: You think CEOs are dumb because they oppose the fag bashing law?
You missed the point. Read what grumbler has been saying in the thread about the law. I don't know if he is right. I have just skimmed the thread. But Grumbler appears to be making the argument that the law isn't a big deal. Corporate America seems to think otherwise.
I am not sure that I have seen Corporate America take a stance. Got a quote from the guy (or is it gal?) or is this just more idle speculation? Not HuffPo (whose pretense that it can speak for this Corporate America guy seems pretty silly on the face of it, but I guess HuffPo fans swallow that), but Corporate America himself.
And, of course, I have never argued that the law "isn't a big deal," which you would have known had you bothered to read the thread before rudely mis-stating what my position was (do you always have to be a prick?), I argued that the fuss about the law is more a result of social media than the wording of the law itself (with the caveat that the law explicitly applying even when no government was involved may make a difference).
You are having a bad week with your quibbles grumbles. Just a few pages back you were arguing "I find the widespread belief that it is something new and controversial to be a powerful condemnation of the American media system."
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2015, 07:36:46 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 31, 2015, 06:10:57 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2015, 04:04:16 PM
I also don't know why you think that "in 1993, it was still ok to defend slavery as part of your religion." Got a cite for that?
The Curse of Cain was used a justification for slavery, and later for segregation. Only in 1995 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain#Baptist_segregation) did the Southern Baptitst Church officially renounced that doctrine.
Got a cite for your actual claim that "in 1993, it was still ok to defend slavery as part of your religion," though? Like, someone in the US in 1993 getting public approval for defending the existence of slavery for religious reasons? Not wikipedia, but an actual authoritative cite? Or are you just making this up based on something that some church didn't do?
Was the Southern Baptist Church unpopular in 1993? Did they renounced their racist past at that point?
When did all southern churches authorized black ministers to receive confessions from white parishioners?
Quote from: dps on March 31, 2015, 09:59:17 PM
Even if the Wiki article is correct, it doesn't say what he claims it says.
Associating the Mark of Cain with black people as to justify slavery was never done in the US? :)
If that was never the case, why wait until 1995 to officially renounce the doctrine? :)
Quote from: viper37 on April 01, 2015, 01:22:53 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2015, 07:36:46 PM
Got a cite for your actual claim that "in 1993, it was still ok to defend slavery as part of your religion," though? Like, someone in the US in 1993 getting public approval for defending the existence of slavery for religious reasons? Not wikipedia, but an actual authoritative cite? Or are you just making this up based on something that some church didn't do?
Was the Southern Baptist Church unpopular in 1993? Did they renounced their racist past at that point?
When did all southern churches authorized black ministers to receive confessions from white parishioners?
I assume this weaseling is because you don't, in fact, have any citations or evidence to support your assertion that "in 1993, it was still ok to defend slavery as part of your religion." Questions are not citations. Questions are not evidence. What would constitute evidence is a citation that shows someone in 1993 justifying slavery on religious grounds, and some evidence that this statement received broad public support.
Why not just confess that you made up that statement out of whole cloth, and have no evidence? The weaseling just makes you look bad and fools no one at all.
Quote from: viper37 on April 01, 2015, 01:26:07 PM
Quote from: dps on March 31, 2015, 09:59:17 PM
Even if the Wiki article is correct, it doesn't say what he claims it says.
Associating the Mark of Cain with black people as to justify slavery was never done in the US? :)
If that was never the case, why wait until 1995 to officially renounce the doctrine? :)
Again, what makes you think that the US didn't "officially renounce the doctrine" until 1995?
Quote from: viper37 on April 01, 2015, 01:26:07 PM
Quote from: dps on March 31, 2015, 09:59:17 PM
Even if the Wiki article is correct, it doesn't say what he claims it says.
Associating the Mark of Cain with black people as to justify slavery was never done in the US? :)
If that was never the case, why wait until 1995 to officially renounce the doctrine? :)
Because after 1865 in the US, having a stance one way or the other on slavery was pointless, so there was no reason to waste time on the issue.
And what the Wiki article said was that in 1995, the Southern Baptists officially renounced their
past use of the doctrine to defend slavery. Past as in, say, before the 13th Amendment.
Quote from: dps on April 01, 2015, 06:21:00 PM
Quote from: viper37 on April 01, 2015, 01:26:07 PM
Quote from: dps on March 31, 2015, 09:59:17 PM
Even if the Wiki article is correct, it doesn't say what he claims it says.
Associating the Mark of Cain with black people as to justify slavery was never done in the US? :)
If that was never the case, why wait until 1995 to officially renounce the doctrine? :)
Because after 1865 in the US, having a stance one way or the other on slavery was pointless, so there was no reason to waste time on the issue.
And what the Wiki article said was that in 1995, the Southern Baptists officially renounced their past use of the doctrine to defend slavery. Past as in, say, before the 13th Amendment.
You know, I just realized that viper could be arguing that "in 1993, it was still ok to defend slavery as part of your religion" as in it was okay with him or his religion. Clearly, the Wikipedia article doesn't say anything about anyone defending slavery in 1993, so it must refer to something else. I don't know viper's religion, and so I sure don't know whether it supported slavery in 1993, but he could be okaying that stance as an individual. Him being okay with the defense of slavery makes a whole lot more sense than the idea that he actually thinks he can convince people like us, who were alive in the US in 1993, that we thought it was okay to defend slavery on religious grounds.
As far as I can tell, the Arkansas and Indiana laws do not change the status quo as far as potential discrimination against gay people. That is because private discrimination against gay people was legal in those states BEFORE these laws were enacted. Consequently, a provision in a law expressly allowing discrimination is pretty meaningless since discrimination against gays was already legal.
In Arkansas and Indiana, there was no law expressly or implicitly permitting discrimination against gay people for religious reasons (or other reasons). However, just as important, there was no law forbidding private discrimination against gay people. Since there was no law forbidding private discrimination against gay people, businesses in those states would have been free to discriminate against gays.
You have to keep in mind that the original RFRA law was designed to protect religions from federal government regulations in response to a Supreme Court decision which effectively limited the scope of protection available under the First Amendment. So it was a statutory response to a constitutional issue and did not involve discrimination by private businesses whatsoever.
Now, as a general matter, most or all states have statutes forbidding discrimination. Each state's statute is a little bit different, but they typically forbid discrimination against "protected classes" of people, i.e. racial minorities, women, disabled, etc. Not every state statute out there includes gay people as a protected class.
At some point, a court in the state of New Mexico interpreted its anti-discrimination statute to include protection for gays. So to fix that "problem," the legislature passed its version of RFRA included language effectively permitting private businesses to discriminate for religious reasons.
Arkansas and Indiana presumably borrowed the New Mexico language, even though to my knowledge there have not been any judicial decisions interpreting Arkansas or Indiana anti-discrimination statutes to protect gays against discrimination. So as a result, even if the Arkansas and Indiana private discrimination provisions are eventually taken out, it will still be legal to discriminate against gay people in those states for any reason under the sun, unless (1) the legislatures pass an affirmative statute protecting gay people, or (2) the courts in those states begin to interpret their anti-discrimination statutes to protect gay people.
Actually, stjaba, the New mexico Religious Freedom restoration blah blah act was passed BEFORE the NM Supreme Court ruling, not after it (the ruling was in 2013, the act passed in 2000), and it did not allow private businesses to discriminate for religious reasons. So, again, these laws have had no detrimental effects on gay rights. As you note, other laws may have, but these laws have not.
Ultimately, gays will either be a protected class in a state or they won't, but that won't be determined on religious grounds nor is discrimination against a protected class different on religious grounds than on any other grounds.
Quote from: grumbler on April 01, 2015, 08:56:16 PM
Actually, stjaba, the New mexico Religious Freedom restoration blah blah act was passed BEFORE the NM Supreme Court ruling, not after it (the ruling was in 2013, the act passed in 2000), and it did not allow private businesses to discriminate for religious reasons. So, again, these laws have had no detrimental effects on gay rights. As you note, other laws may have, but these laws have not.
Ultimately, gays will either be a protected class in a state or they won't, but that won't be determined on religious grounds nor is discrimination against a protected class different on religious grounds than on any other grounds.
Ah ok, I must have mis-read an article about the timeline of the New Mexico law. In any event, so long as a state's anti-discrimination law is interpreted to not forbid discrimination against gays, it is of no consequence if a state subsequently passes a law condoning private discrimination against gays since it is already lawful.
Quote from: stjaba on April 01, 2015, 11:00:29 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 01, 2015, 08:56:16 PM
Actually, stjaba, the New mexico Religious Freedom restoration blah blah act was passed BEFORE the NM Supreme Court ruling, not after it (the ruling was in 2013, the act passed in 2000), and it did not allow private businesses to discriminate for religious reasons. So, again, these laws have had no detrimental effects on gay rights. As you note, other laws may have, but these laws have not.
Ultimately, gays will either be a protected class in a state or they won't, but that won't be determined on religious grounds nor is discrimination against a protected class different on religious grounds than on any other grounds.
Ah ok, I must have mis-read an article about the timeline of the New Mexico law. In any event, so long as a state's anti-discrimination law is interpreted to not forbid discrimination against gays, it is of no consequence if a state subsequently passes a law condoning private discrimination against gays since it is already lawful.
This may be true in the ivory tower of lawyer logic, but in practice, there is a sociological difference between law that expressly allows something and one that only does not forbid it.
Quote from: Martinus on April 02, 2015, 12:39:05 AM
Quote from: stjaba on April 01, 2015, 11:00:29 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 01, 2015, 08:56:16 PM
Actually, stjaba, the New mexico Religious Freedom restoration blah blah act was passed BEFORE the NM Supreme Court ruling, not after it (the ruling was in 2013, the act passed in 2000), and it did not allow private businesses to discriminate for religious reasons. So, again, these laws have had no detrimental effects on gay rights. As you note, other laws may have, but these laws have not.
Ultimately, gays will either be a protected class in a state or they won't, but that won't be determined on religious grounds nor is discrimination against a protected class different on religious grounds than on any other grounds.
Ah ok, I must have mis-read an article about the timeline of the New Mexico law. In any event, so long as a state's anti-discrimination law is interpreted to not forbid discrimination against gays, it is of no consequence if a state subsequently passes a law condoning private discrimination against gays since it is already lawful.
This may be true in the ivory tower of lawyer logic, but in practice, there is a sociological difference between law that expressly allows something and one that only does not forbid it.
What do you mean by "sociological difference." There is certainly case law out there that expressly states that gays are not afforded protection under state anti-discrimination statutes. It's an issue that has actually come up and is not just a theoretical ivory tower issue. If people are legitimately concerned about discrimination against gays, they need to lobby for laws that protect gays.
I agree there it is bad from a public relations standpoint to expressly allow discrimination against gays as opposed to implicitly. But if the goal is to provide actual protection to gay people, a state has to pass a statute protecting them.
Quote from: viper37 on April 01, 2015, 01:22:53 PM
Was the Southern Baptist Church unpopular in 1993? Did they renounced their racist past at that point?
They did not so much renounce it as just ignored it after awhile. Which is why that little 'doctrine' remained on the books anachronistically for a few decades before they changed it. Sort of like that town in Spain which was at war with Sweden for a few centuries without anybody noticing. We have things like that all over the place. Did you see when Mississippi finally ratified the Constitutional Amendment that ended slavery? Pretty sure even in Mississippi they were not hoping to restore slavery.
QuoteWhen did all southern churches authorized black ministers to receive confessions from white parishioners?
Confessions? :unsure: I don't think Baptists do that.
Quote from: stjaba on April 02, 2015, 06:18:02 AM
What do you mean by "sociological difference." There is certainly case law out there that expressly states that gays are not afforded protection under state anti-discrimination statutes. It's an issue that has actually come up and is not just a theoretical ivory tower issue. If people are legitimately concerned about discrimination against gays, they need to lobby for laws that protect gays.
I agree there it is bad from a public relations standpoint to expressly allow discrimination against gays as opposed to implicitly. But if the goal is to provide actual protection to gay people, a state has to pass a statute protecting them.
Well, if the law does not expressly state something, then this has often chilling effect on some activity (in this case anti-gay discrimination) even if lawyers are clear about it, because ordinary people are often unclear and prefer not to go too far (especially if there are legal differences between states). On the other hand, an express license to discriminate enshrined in law encourages people to be dicks.
Now it looks like the planned amendment to the Indiana law will actually put LGBT people in a better position than the one before the law was originally adopted. :showoff:
This culture war crap is getting old. Both sides needs to chillax.
http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2015/04/02/were-in-hiding-pizzeria-owner-doesnt-know-if-they-will-re-open-following-backlash-over-gay-weddings-comment/
The persecution of heretics can never be allowed to stop, lest the forces of darkness make progress. Be vigilant!
This morning I literally had back-to-back Facebook posts in my feed from different friends who are on differing sides of the issue, talking about un-friending people over the Indiana thing. They don't know each other-- it was just a coincidence.
Going back a couple years, my friend's brother un-friended her a while back when she checked in to Chick-fil-A and would not speak to her for the better part of the year. I guess you can't simply disagree these days.
Yeah it is pretty ridiculous. Social media takes petty self-righteousness to new levels.
Yeah crazed internet backlash needs to die down. Quite a bit of nonsense got posted on their business's yelp page (though I did like the one referencing AbFab). Though at the same time, I don't mind a little, if done fairly politely, calling out of people with bigoted opinions when they are giving an interview to support bigoted laws. If you don't want attention, don't seek out a camera.
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2015, 11:31:24 AM
Yeah crazed internet backlash needs to die down. Quite a bit of nonsense got posted on their business's yelp page (though I did like the one referencing AbFab). Though at the same time, I don't mind a little, if done fairly politely, calling out of people with bigoted opinions when they are giving an interview to support bigoted laws. If you don't want attention, don't seek out a camera.
My understanding was that this was a bit of an ambush interview and the restaurant did not seek out the camera. They asked the gal several questions and focused on one answer to make it sound like they wouldn't serve gays in their restaurant. When in fact she said they serve everyone in the restaurant but did not want to cater at a gay wedding (which IMO is a non-issue itself because pizza at a gay wedding??).
And this high school teacher/coach has been suspended for this related tweet:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwsjv.images.worldnow.com%2Fimages%2F7335085_G.jpg&hash=02f7814ca13cc0976db3f34ea6967cb6e4a843ed)
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2015, 11:31:24 AM
Yeah crazed internet backlash needs to die down. Quite a bit of nonsense got posted on their business's yelp page (though I did like the one referencing AbFab). Though at the same time, I don't mind a little, if done fairly politely, calling out of people with bigoted opinions when they are giving an interview to support bigoted laws. If you don't want attention, don't seek out a camera.
Well if you are addressing those bigoted opinions with the idea of winning hearts and minds than sure. But that is not what we are talking about. But it is more about making the bad people suffer for their crimes and basking in your glorious righteousness.
Quote from: derspiess on April 02, 2015, 11:26:27 AM
Going back a couple years, my friend's brother un-friended her a while back when she checked in to Chick-fil-A and would not speak to her for the better part of the year. I guess you can't simply disagree these days.
Why would anyone check in to a Chik-Fil-A on Facebook? :hmm:
I thought the point of checking in to restaurants was to show what a badass you are for going there, so typically you're going to be checking in to expensive restaurants and stuff. :mellow:
Quote from: derspiess on April 02, 2015, 11:45:22 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2015, 11:31:24 AM
Yeah crazed internet backlash needs to die down. Quite a bit of nonsense got posted on their business's yelp page (though I did like the one referencing AbFab). Though at the same time, I don't mind a little, if done fairly politely, calling out of people with bigoted opinions when they are giving an interview to support bigoted laws. If you don't want attention, don't seek out a camera.
My understanding was that this was a bit of an ambush interview and the restaurant did not seek out the camera. They asked the gal several questions and focused on one answer to make it sound like they wouldn't serve gays in their restaurant. When in fact she said they serve everyone in the restaurant but did not want to cater at a gay wedding (which IMO is a non-issue itself because pizza at a gay wedding??).
And this high school teacher/coach has been suspended for this related tweet:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwsjv.images.worldnow.com%2Fimages%2F7335085_G.jpg&hash=02f7814ca13cc0976db3f34ea6967cb6e4a843ed)
Gotcha.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2015, 11:47:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2015, 11:31:24 AM
Yeah crazed internet backlash needs to die down. Quite a bit of nonsense got posted on their business's yelp page (though I did like the one referencing AbFab). Though at the same time, I don't mind a little, if done fairly politely, calling out of people with bigoted opinions when they are giving an interview to support bigoted laws. If you don't want attention, don't seek out a camera.
Well if you are addressing those bigoted opinions with the idea of winning hearts and minds than sure. But that is not what we are talking about. But it is more about making the bad people suffer for their crimes and basking in your glorious righteousness.
I think I noted that I thought it shouldn't be this way and then noted what I thought was okay. :mellow:
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2015, 12:01:08 PM
I think I noted that I thought it shouldn't be this way and then noted what I thought was okay. :mellow:
Fair enough.
Quote from: derspiess on April 02, 2015, 11:00:24 AM
This culture war crap is getting old. Both sides needs to chillax.
http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2015/04/02/were-in-hiding-pizzeria-owner-doesnt-know-if-they-will-re-open-following-backlash-over-gay-weddings-comment/
The most appalling part of this story is that there is apparently a demand for pizza at people's weddings...
Quote from: Caliga on April 02, 2015, 11:56:18 AM
Why would anyone check in to a Chik-Fil-A on Facebook? :hmm:
She was posting pics of the kids. Was one of the rare occasions our kids got to hang out together. I guess technically she wasn't checking into the location, just posting the pics as being taken at that location.
Anyways, people get swept into culture war furores because it gives me a sense of belonging and accomplishment. It beats having nothing but a dreary job and frustrating life 24/7.
Edit: ok not editing it out since it is admittedly one hell of a Freudian slip. :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
Quote from: Martinus on April 02, 2015, 12:09:14 PM
The most appalling part of this story is that there is apparently a demand for pizza at people's weddings...
We technically had pizza at ours. The reception/party/whatever ran from 8:00pm to 6:00am (go big or go home when you're in Argentina) and we started out with steak & champagne. Then around 1:00am the younger crowd starts swinging by and that is when you put the pizza and beer out.
Quote from: derspiess on April 02, 2015, 12:15:52 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 02, 2015, 12:09:14 PM
The most appalling part of this story is that there is apparently a demand for pizza at people's weddings...
We technically had pizza at ours. The reception/party/whatever ran from 8:00pm to 6:00am (go big or go home when you're in Argentina) and we started out with steak & champagne. Then around 1:00am the younger crowd starts swinging by and that is when you put the pizza and beer out.
Don't take any flak from Ice Cubes in My Wine.
I would agree that if you're having pizza as *the* food at a wedding you're doing it wrong.
Quote from: derspiess on April 02, 2015, 11:45:22 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2015, 11:31:24 AM
Yeah crazed internet backlash needs to die down. Quite a bit of nonsense got posted on their business's yelp page (though I did like the one referencing AbFab). Though at the same time, I don't mind a little, if done fairly politely, calling out of people with bigoted opinions when they are giving an interview to support bigoted laws. If you don't want attention, don't seek out a camera.
My understanding was that this was a bit of an ambush interview and the restaurant did not seek out the camera. They asked the gal several questions and focused on one answer to make it sound like they wouldn't serve gays in their restaurant. When in fact she said they serve everyone in the restaurant but did not want to cater at a gay wedding (which IMO is a non-issue itself because pizza at a gay wedding??).
And this high school teacher/coach has been suspended for this related tweet:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwsjv.images.worldnow.com%2Fimages%2F7335085_G.jpg&hash=02f7814ca13cc0976db3f34ea6967cb6e4a843ed)
The responses are just blown way out of proportion. As someone said, both sides need to chillax.
He would have been fine if he had just ditched the aviators.
Mart keeps reminding me of Rodger from American Dad.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jrj-socrates.com%2FCartoon%2520Pics%2FFox%2FAmerican%2520Dad%2FRoger_300.gif&hash=9aee1f16f0cf5f1f7fb02bed94e63a7bdc2d2658)
Incidentally, the anti-gay pizza place also got $55k in donations, so they can now climb off that cross.
Quote from: Martinus on April 02, 2015, 01:55:23 PM
Incidentally, the anti-gay pizza place also got $55k in donations, so they can now climb off that cross.
Over $250k now. The culture wars are the worst thing and, as with everything American, we're now getting the shit version :bleeding:
I now refuse my logistics and supply chain knowledge to the gays. Plz give me money.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 02, 2015, 07:10:21 PM
I now refuse my logistics and supply chain knowledge to the gays. Plz give me money.
Do the opposite. Become a Buzzfeed martyr. M. Butt with doges.
Quote from: Martinus on April 02, 2015, 01:55:23 PM
Incidentally, the anti-gay pizza place also got $55k in donations, so they can now climb off that cross.
I guess that'll take the edge off of some of the death threats.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 02, 2015, 07:10:21 PM
I now refuse my logistics and supply chain knowledge to the gays. Plz give me money.
Actually, that's one hell of an idea for a start-up :hmm:
Quote from: derspiess on April 03, 2015, 08:14:25 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 02, 2015, 07:10:21 PM
I now refuse my logistics and supply chain knowledge to the gays. Plz give me money.
Actually, that's one hell of an idea for a start-up :hmm:
Money is tied up in the new lawn service.....
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstream1.gifsoup.com%2Fview3%2F3522325%2Fgay-lawn-service-o.gif&hash=118e990174bec99f8e1d0e9a6c2ce252a6ec694e)
:lol:
Holy shit, $500K http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2015/04/03/gofundme-campaign-raises-nearly-500g-so-far-for-indiana-pizzeria/
I'm gonna check to see if www.nogayspizza.com is taken yet. Serious business opportunity here.
The RFRA controversy is just more fallout from Hobby Lobby . RFRA wasn't hugely controversial as long as it was protecting individuals from government action, but if it can become a cudgel in the hands of a corporate enterprise it is a different situation.
Is pizza delivery really a common wedding catering option these days?
Quote from: derspiess on April 03, 2015, 09:39:21 AM
Holy shit, $500K http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2015/04/03/gofundme-campaign-raises-nearly-500g-so-far-for-indiana-pizzeria/
I'm gonna check to see if www.nogayspizza.com is taken yet. Serious business opportunity here.
I like it. You can still cater one gay wedding because it says no gay
sQuoteIs pizza delivery really a common wedding catering option these days?
I can at least respect people not wanting to blow too much money on their wedding.
Quote from: derspiess on April 03, 2015, 09:39:21 AM
Holy shit, $500K http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2015/04/03/gofundme-campaign-raises-nearly-500g-so-far-for-indiana-pizzeria/
I'm gonna check to see if www.nogayspizza.com is taken yet. Serious business opportunity here.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fb%2Fbd%2FNogay_Horde.svg%2F2000px-Nogay_Horde.svg.png&hash=b7f135c6c27c863d1a0e3dd71f4f2f28c0285e3d)
:unsure:
They kicked out all the male blood elves.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 03, 2015, 09:46:30 AM
Is pizza delivery really a common wedding catering option these days?
:D
Quote from: Martinus on April 03, 2015, 12:02:48 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fb%2Fbd%2FNogay_Horde.svg%2F2000px-Nogay_Horde.svg.png&hash=b7f135c6c27c863d1a0e3dd71f4f2f28c0285e3d)
:unsure:
I bet you hate that horde.
Perfect summary of the groundbreaking nature of the anticipated ruling from the SCOTUS. Courtesy of the Onion:
QuoteNation On Edge As Court Votes Whether To Legalize Gay Marriage Now Or In A Few Years
NEWS IN BRIEF • Marriage • Government • Supreme Court • Gay & Lesbian • Courts • News • ISSUE 51•17 • Apr 29, 2015
WASHINGTON—Anxiously anticipating the Supreme Court's decision on the issue, the nation was reportedly on edge Wednesday as it waited to see whether the court would legalize gay marriage now or in a few years. "Americans are standing by with bated breath while the justices decide whether to recognize same-sex couples immediately or in two or three years when public opinion has shifted even more overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage," said legal analyst Jermaine Masse, adding that whether the court would legalize gay marriage at once or merely very soon was still too close to call at this time. "At this very moment, nine individuals are deciding whether to fundamentally alter this country's definition of marriage right away or by the end of 2018, latest. What's at stake is nothing less than a 24- to 36-month delay on same-sex marriage being the law of the land." Masse went on to say that the fact that the nation's highest court agreed to hear the case in the first place signaled that it was prepared to reject the more conservative notion that gay marriage could wait until the end of the decade.