We have all heard the glorious shouts of “Equality!” and angry screams of “Bigot!”, with those singing them blissfully unaware that they beg the question. (The argument is whether SSMs should be equal or is right, therefore equality and bigotry cannot be used as premises; but logic has never been a prerequisite for political agitation.) The other side, traditionalists appealing to thousands of years of custom about the very fabric and foundation of society, beg “Leave us alone!” “Submit!” comes the reply. “What was shall not be. You must submit.”
The tension, as the saying goes, is palpable. Lordly decisions handed down from on high à la the Supreme Court do not and will not satisfy. The fix must needs comes from us. Here it is:
Let government marriage be called gmarriage and those that partake in these civil ceremonies be called gmarried.
Isn’t that great! The “g” can stand for “government” or “gay” as you like; the “g” is silent, like in gnocchi and gnat, which is its brilliance. You say gmarriage, but people hear marriage. It sounds like married, but it’s really gmarried!
The “Silent G Solution” acknowledges the “tide of pride”, the open and gleeful displays of sexuality that so fascinates a growing proportion of citizens. How can entire (literal and figurative) parades of non-dressed people displaying with whom or what they would seek their physical pleasure be stayed? Answer: they cannot. Traditionalists must retreat on this point. Retreat, I say: not surrender. But the “orientations” crowd must compromise, too. Good manners alone dictates acknowledging that the concerns of the other side are important.
In one camp we have the notion of free contracts, living arrangements set down on paper and agreed to by (the line goes) “consenting adults.” In the other, lovers of freedom who don’t want to be forced to call marriage what it isn’t, folks who don’t want to lose their liberty and livelihoods just because they won’t compromise their faith or reason.
Gmarriage satisfies both. If a group of five men want to call themselves gmarried, and they can agree to a contract which specifies the limitations and responsibilities of that arrangement, let them! If a church insists on performing only marriages and not gmarriages, let them be! If two or more ladies want to elevate their coffee klatch to the highest (or lowest) levels, fine! If a florist beholden to her conscience would cater solely marriages, say “Live free or die!”
Let the Silent Gs negotiate with the government for the monies and services they desire. It is, after all, these monies and services which we are told form the basis for their demands of same-sex “marriage.” Far be it from us to deny anybody anything they can squeeze out of government (slogan: “Taking From Others To Give To You“™). Therefore let people who are gmarried petition the government for whatever they want. The government is certain to acquiesce.
I don’t know how the government will split an individual’s social security benefits among his (say) four gmarriage survivors, but that is a mere bureaucratic detail. Bureaucracies have proven themselves infinitely creative in dispersing other people’s money. They’ll work this out.
SSM proponents should accept the Silent G Solution eagerly and gratefully. It gets them the money they wanted, it allows the government to “bless” their living arrangements, it sets up the mechanism to grant them every social right except one; it denies them just one very small thing. They may gmarry at will, but they must agree not to harass or to demand resignation from those who say that marriage is only between one man and one woman.
Is this not fair? Should we not allow a full half of the population some scrapings from the table? Should we not heed at least a whisper from thousands of years of tradition? The only complaint will be that gmarriage is not marriage. Yet Omnipotence itself cannot make the two equivalent. The scientifically natural man-woman mating for life for the purposes of procreation and rearing of children just isn’t the same as other living arrangements. If it were we’d never have had this argument in the first place.
Permission is given to repost this article as long as a link to the original is included.
Update
Update
Jodi Rose, Australian Artist, Marries 600-Year-Old French Bridge Le Pont du Diable. Gmarriage for everybody! Shall I translate the French for us? (Thanks to Gary Boden for link.)
Update
Priest says, “I would also advocate a change in terminology. From now on I will refer to a Catholic marriage as ‘Holy Matrimony’.” Link.
So does that mean you are fine with “AdoptionG”?
Mr. Briggs,
They should? Eagerly and gracefully?! How nice of you to give them such privileges!
Isn’t it nice that you, a heterosexual, get what you want without having to ask? Isn’t it nice you don’t have to justify why you are attracted to your wife and want to get married? Isn’t it nice that people think your sex-life is none of their business?
JH,
The scorched earth campaign for you, eh, JH? No charitable compromise possible. Your view, and your view alone, shall rule; that it? That anyone dared opposed you was an intolerable affront. You thought all you had to do was demand, that your position the only reasonable one. All your enemies vanquished: leave them nothing.
Well, that is war, isn’t it.
Luis,
That’s gadoption.
yeah I know but that wouldn’t make it possible for the G to be mute.
Briggs,
then LEARN and scorch the earth the other way.
Luis,
it’s Prey-doption. JH and crowd wants to amuse himself with them, and it’s none of your business. What are boy scouts for anyway but to serve the needs of adults?
>>>See? It’s not hard. <<<<
PS – Briggs – it's not supposed to be happy, or end well, or be for that matter lighthearted and carefree. They were born, they exist, and we're all gonna suffer for it. The sex life is merely the logic of the person. To inflict maximum discomfort, shock and dismay on all they meet as the price for their existence.
If that description doesn't fit you, you aren't lighthearted, carefree or GAY. **** whosoever of adult age you wish, it's none of our concern. However keep your business down low. Yes the only public airings of family are to be traditional. No compromise, no backing down, no peace. Justice is something children protest the lack of…not adults. Adults are usually wise to live and let live.
But live and let live isn't the point Briggs. Ask JH.
Edited
Briggs,
“The scorched earth campaign for you, eh, JH? No charitable compromise possible. Your view, and your view alone, shall rule; that it? That anyone dared opposed you was an intolerable affront. You thought all you had to do was demand, that your position the only reasonable one. All your enemies vanquished: leave them nothing.
Well, that is war, isn’t it.”
Pot meet Kettle.
MattS,
Something like this?
Pot: “Hello, Mr Kettle. I thought about your arguments and see that I do not have enough support, therefore I agree to everything you ask for. Everything except for the definition of one word. Agreed?”
Kettle: “Never! I must have all. There shall be no compromise. You will not only accept everything I demand, but you must love Big Brother.”
And we have confirmation that SSM IS about demanding homosexuality be declared moral. As we have said all along. Okay, but then we have to declare ALL sexuality as moral. There is no justification for excluding anything. All forms of marriage must be adopted. If marriage isn’t a man and a woman, but rather it can be man-man, then it can be man-manywomen, man-beast, man-child. These are all things some people want. And your argument is it is unfair to deny people what they want. Welcome to allowing people to have everything they want.
While you don’t see that you are arguing for all of the above, you are. There is no line after male-female.
Oh, and as for children: First, we taught them two mommies are okay. If we can blur biology that way, how hard can it be to blur adult/child relationships. I was once told by a psychiatrist that in some areas of the US, older brothers have sex with younger sisters to “practice for marriage”. Incest was completely acceptable and expected. So we can indeed teach children that ANY form of sex and marriage is acceptable. We just have to do it so no one is unhappy. No one can be “wrong” when all sex and marriage is allowed, except those silly people who did not want SSM in the first place. Right?
Wow… I’d say people worry too much about who **** with whom.
If you think about it, why on Earth we have to inform the government who we have sex with? or when we stop having sex with that person? Why should we acquire any benefit out of it? Shouldn’t this be an entirely private issue? Just like being ordain Jedi Master?
If the purpose is for the Government to help people to raise children then let’s help the children in whatever family they are.
Sheri
You teach your children whatever you want. You seem to believe that anything that is legal has to be taught as moral to your children. That’s not so in a free society.
For example, KKK and Black Panthers have legal rights recognized by the US government but it does not mean you have to teach their dogmas as morally sound. Only dictatorial system have an official morality imposed by force in schools.
A sate recognizing that there are communities that think differently does not mean that it subscribes their moral standards.
Edited. And tsk tsk.
This whole discussion is about demanding that society recognize that homosexuality is moral and equal to heterosexuality. That was made clear by refusing to call a legal contract between two individual men or two women “civil union” or gmarriage. Plus, if children attend public school they WILL be forced to learn that gay marriage is normal. California is in the process of passing a law concerning “gender identity”–as in if a kindergartener says she feels more like a boy than a girl, she can use the boy’s restroom and play on male sports teams. So, the only choice here is have your kid indoctrinated by the school system or go with a private school or home school. I don’t have to teach the kids gay marriage is moral but I do have to actively work around the demand from SSM advocates that all children in public schools be indoctrinated to the idea that SSM is equal in every way to marriage, including morality. It may be a “free” society, but if you don’t want children to be taught SSM is moral, you cannot send your child to the school your tax money paid for. You cannot use government services in most instances.
And most people do equal moral with legal. From http://www.str.org/articles/legal-vs.-moral#.UdcedhaiihY
They say abortion is legal, therefore a woman has a right to such a thing; and since it is legal and it is a right, then no one else is justified in attempting to restrict this action. Do you follow that? They have a right because it’s legal, is the point. This kind of argumentation is used, oftentimes, to substantiate abortion and to condemn attacks and attempts to restrict abortion. After all, this is a legal procedure. There is a subtle type of argumentation here that basically is saying that if it is legal, it is moral; and if it is legal and moral, then it is immoral to oppose it.
Note: Throughout this discussion we have focused on how SSM infringes on my rights. The reality is if I believe SSM is immoral and then send my child to public school, he/she will learn that SSM is moral and will not be allowed to protest because “SSM is legal and homosexuality is natural”. As stated above, then I have to send the child to private school or home school. This is the government dictating what is moral to school children. That most certainly infringes on my right to have my child educated with the money I paid in taxes. In fact, public education is pretty much considered a right, one I am no denied.
Sheri
Then you should focus on that problem. That is, you should make sure that no indoctrination is going on in public schools and the the 1st amendment stays healthy, and that moral standards are set by parents and no by government.
Instead you simply wave off entirely the rights of a community you disagree with because you feel threaten. Have you thought that people who agree with SSM feel their children are being indoctrinated against it in public schools? That they might have the same worries about the public system they also pay with their taxes?
What will you do next? Ask to ban The Internet because your children might read unmoral content? How about banning books? Pro SSM blogs? And why not Pro SSM comments in blogs? We have to protect the children!! right? We should focus on freedom, and tolerance.
Besides, you cannot isolate you children from every piece of information out there, specially in these times we live in, get over it. So don’t you think it would be better to focus all the efforts you place in fighting SSM in sharpening your moral tools and arguments so that your children can protect themselves from indoctrination? Don’t you think it would be better to provide them with moral swords instead trying to build a shelter for them to hide?
They want to get married? Who cares… I don’t give four asterisks. Just live and let live.
Okay, I believe that everyone should be allowed to carry a gun. I think schools should teach gun handling and have shooting teams like they used to. If your child is bothered by this, he can just get over it or go to another school. Live and let live, right?
I certainly agree that parents should be the major moral source for their children.
Again, freedom and tolerance. I want my guns, you want SSM. So we’re all good with that, right?
Sheri
That’s right. You want your children to be Ninja Warriors? I am totally fine with that. As long as you don’t force the other children to participate in events their parents don’t want to we are cool. As I said just live and let live.
By the way, there are people in both sides that they don’t want to “let live” but to force the other side into their ways, that’s simply intolerance disguised as 1st amendment rights. But again, this is something we should deal with directly instead trying to ban other people lifestyles.
Isn’t it nice that you, a heterosexual, get what you want without having to ask?
Notice the implicit Statist belief that it is from Governmentâ„¢ that we “get” such things. But Government marriages date only to 1868 (Austria), spreading to Italy (1873), Switzerland (1874), the German Empire (1875), and France (1881), etc.* How on earth did people get married for the preceding millennia? With no Benefitsâ„¢!
(*)Stipulated: the First French Republic did impose civil marriages and guillotined those who married religiously or baptized their children.
The Governmentâ„¢ intervened and regulated heterosexual relationships only because in the common course of nature such relationships oft resulted in children, and the Governmentâ„¢ had a “compelling state interest” in ensuring that such children did not end up as a burden on the public purse. Civil marriage was therefore a contract between the Governmentâ„¢ and the copulating couple that the latter would take care of raising any offspring that might result. Hence, the need for a “license,” the outlawing of adultery, fornication, divorce except for just cause (such as sterility), and (rather later) paying tax rates based on joint income. This latter is beneficial only if one partner is supported by the other. If both earn income, they will pay higher taxes than if they were single.
Ancient laws that addressed the married state did not require permission from the Prince and simply took cohabitation for granted. They regulated only such things as inheritance by the children and joint liability for debts and/or crimes. See the Code of Khamurapi for details.
It has only been in recent times, after the institution of marriage had been wrecked that anyone else has come to play in the ruins.
Okay, Fran, you do indeed believe in live and let live.
Once upon a time a reef knot wanted to become a sheet bend. The sheet bend replied “it won’t reliably hold together, and could be more difficult to untie.”
If SSM becomes equivalent to traditional marriage, will SSM divorce, spouse support, child custody, etc comply with the laws and practices which have been constructed for traditional marriage? And if the divorce is in a state which doesn’t recognise SSM, then …. ?
Mr. Briggs,
Why do you insist on missing my points in my comments and email communication? Maybe my ChingEnglish is in the way.
I meant to attack your tone in which you convey the compromise. I have not made any comments about your proposed compromise.
You have derailed the conversation from the get-go by dismissing and trivializing and missing SSM supporters’ points as “I want it.†What a way to invite SSM supporters to partake in the discussion. I admire Mr. Allard’s patience.
I only participated because I couldn’t to get you to answer my question that I mentioned in the previous post.
I believe that we have different moral values and priorities, which indicates that I understand your perspectives, but what’s important to me is just different.
This is not a war. If it is, it’s yours, not mine.
Gary,
“And if the divorce is in a state which doesn’t recognise SSM, then …. ?”
Several states that don’t recognize SSM have had this issue come up. In at least one of those states the court ruled that they couldn’t issue a divorce decree for a marriage that wasn’t recognized in that state.
YOS, oh, yes, I was also a certified socialist back home.
Briggs,
“Pot: “Hello, Mr Kettle. I thought about your arguments and see that I do not have enough support, therefore I agree to everything you ask for. Everything except for the definition of one word. Agreed?—
Bull ****. I don’t believe for one minute that after all your posturing on the morality of SSM that you actually intend that as a real compromise.
If you intended a real compromise, than all government legal benefits to “marriage” would be repealed up front and replaced automatically with gmarriage for all, whether traditional, SSM or poly. Any hetero couple would also need a gmarriage for the legal benefits.
Your so called compromise leaves those you disagree with begging separately for benefits you automatically get.
Edited.
Not even close.
What’s to prevent someone from forcing, via lawsuit or law, a fundamentalist Christian wedding photographer to provide services to a gmarriage? What’s to prevent the government from forcing Christian charities to provide adoption services to the gmarriage?
Sorry, but your solution is inadequate.
is it like the g in “gnocchi?”
Briggs,
There is a precedence.
Let’s start with a person. I claim a person is that which has been conceived — sperm, egg, and all that. That is a strict definition. Others adopt definitions that are loose, so as to remove personhood from some of those conceived — a less offensive, more enlightened way (in their view) to deny rights and destroy life.
But I think we all agree that a person is, at minimum, flesh and blood.
Enter government and its courts. Not all legal persons are flesh and blood. Some are nothing more than documents submitted and recognized by the state.
To governmemt, you and I are natural persons, distinguishing us from corporations, the legal fictions that also have been granted personhood by the state.
I am not offended by such fictions. Nor do I believe that a corporation is a person. If a corporation is aborted after conception, I wince not — not a tear do I shed.
We are quickly moving toward a federal adoption of another legal fiction: marriage not confined to two members of the opposite sexes (we need to be very general with our definitions).
Your terms are valid — though I would use legal marriage and marriage.
A legal marriage is a legal fiction — it is no more real than a legal person. It is simply another example of the state — the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion — expanding its powers into realms where it has no business.
Pingback: Sharks. Tornadoes. SHARKNADOES! | William M. Briggs
Does this mean you admit defeat?
Haven’t you notice that when people talk about gay marriage they never say strictly marriage but gay marriage.
John Moore,
Un professional photographer is free to accept or not a contract. No one can claim property over a person. So a photographer cannot be forced to cover something he doesn’t wish. Beside do you think he would do a good job if he was forced to.
This is different from a product you sell. For example, it the same photographer was selling a picture he took previously and to which he fixed a priced to. He cannot choose to not sell the product to the buyer because of is life style. In this case, anyone who is ready to pay the price can claim property over a picture.
In New Mexico, a photographer declined to photograph a lesbian marriage, and was sued for this, and so far, has been losing in court. http://www.aei.org/article/politics-and-public-opinion/gay-marriage-fight-now-becomes-a-religious-liberty-fight/
Also, I see no reason why one’s liberty only applies to one’s labor and not one’s possessions? That seems to be a very socialist way of looking at things.
Sylvain,
“In this case, anyone who is ready to pay the price can claim property over a picture.”
This is a nonsense statement. I assume by the use of “claim,” you mean the buyer has some property right over that which he doesn’t own. Nonsense!
Please read some books on the philosophy of property rights, etc.
The court begs to differ with Sylvain:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/06/elaine-huguenin-photograp_n_1572676.html
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/06/christian_photographers_sued_f.ph
Jim,
The way the economy works is with the exchange of money. If you have something that you would be ready to sell to person A, than you can refuse to sell the same thing to person B because you disagree with that person.
A person as a right of property over something that is to sell, as long as the person as the money to pay for it.
Sheri,
On the first link,
Unless the defendant has a really incompetent layer she should win on appeal, but she should have already won. I suspect she lost because her lawyer didn’t frame the debate correctly.
Since in this case she is the product, she is not selling pictures, she is selling herself, her talent. Since she is selling her own person she does not have any obligation to accept any contract.
This case is not about freedom of religion or even gay marriage. It is about the freedom of a person to accept or not a work offer.
New Mexico is a special case because of their Human Rights Act that goes further than other act I know of including the US Bill of rights.
The act states:
“F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person’s ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation;
G. any person to:
(1) refuse to sell, rent, assign, lease or sublease or offer for sale, rental, lease, assignment or sublease any housing accommodation or real property to any person or to refuse to negotiate for the sale, rental, lease, assignment or sublease of any housing accommodation or real property to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person’s ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation;…”
She seems to have been found guilty because of what is written in point F. If it reach SCOTUS though I think it will be struck down at least in part. Point G, clearly explains what I was saying about the obligation to sell.
Sylvain–the courts do not agree with you. For whatever reason.
Silvain, this case is just one example of the tyranny that will absolutely happen in the name of “equality.” There will be many others.
Sylvain,
“If you have something that you would be ready to sell to person A, than you can refuse to sell the same thing to person B because you disagree with that person.
A person as a right of property over something that is to sell, as long as the person as the money to pay for it.”
Question: Do you even realize you just contradicted yourself?
I gave you the reasons they disagree and why their decision will be overturned.
Of course, if her lawyer is stupid enough to make it about religion and gay people, then she will lose. This is possibly why they have lost at this point.
BTW I found the commission decision and the reason she lost is point F, which is very specific to New Mexico.
Here:
http://www.volokh.com/files/willockopinion.pdf
After reading the decision it is now clear that she lost because she made improper argument. They made the argument around a publicly own business, instead of arguing the fact that the photographer was an individual. Since the company has hired photographer in the past they could have hired someone to do the job for them.
This judgment actually confirms a lot of the thing I said. This judgment is not applicable to other state who don’t similar laws.
Jim
Sorry I meant can’t refuse.
Sylvain,
“If you have something that you would be ready to sell to person A, than you [can’t] refuse to sell the same thing to person B because you disagree with that person.”
Why? Based on what reasoning? Again, spend some time reading before writing.
Silvain, the United States has unusual legal recognition of religious conscience, to the point of excusing people from carrying weapons in warfare if they have a religious (and *only* a religious) objection.
A religious objection to being forced to perform an act is thus strongly within American tradition and culture. This case is a clear example where the politically correct try to punish people who, out of religious conscience, refuse to perform a deed that the PC people want them to do.
It’s called loss of freedom, disrespect for religion, and.. a clear and obvious example of the many consequences of the state sanctifying homosexual marriage.
John,
From reading the court decision in the case it is easy to see where the layers for the photographer failed.
In this case, it is ELANE PHOTOGRAPHY, LLC, a publicly old company and not Elaine Huguenin, the photographer, that is brought to court. The layer failed to individualize the case to Elaine.
A company is a moral person under the law, but not an individual. A moral person cannot have a religion, even if the owners have one. For example, if they had said in the email reply that they could not accept the contract because no photographer accepted the job there would have been no case. Instead they said “as a company” illegal, at least under NMHRA.
Whether the pleading was appropriate or not, the clear intent of the gay rights folks was maliciously clear.
The issue of the religious conscience of the owners of companies is under significant dispute (and ongoing litigation) right now regarding Obamacare.
I find it ironic that NMHRA is so named, when in this case it is clearly being used to deprive someone of a fundamental right: not to be a slave.
It is unfair to claim that the gay folks acted maliciously. They acted to have there individual right respected. In this case the court gave them reason.
The gay folks only requested that the fee for their layers while they could have asked for more.
The issues is not the religious consciences of the owner, but of its company, which are two different entities. And a moral entities doesn’t have feelings and\or religion.
In the case brought by Sheri, the court didn’t say that Elaine had to accept to take the contract but that the company who hires photographer had to take it. On that matter, the law in NM is clear.
Can you provide me an example from the New Testament where Jesus would have said that it is okay to discriminate against people you disagree with.
No, they acted maliciously. They found someone else who provided the services. But even so, afterwards, they sought to punish the person who did not want to provide the service. They did not have a right to compel a person to do labor for the. The fiction that it was a company and not a person doesn’t cover up the essential malice and the loss of religious liberty.
The New Testament is irrelevant, since it is not the government’s nor anyone else’s place to decide what form the photographer’s religious conscience should take. It is a clear and dramatic change in precedent, and an obvious first amendment violation.
It is a sad time we live in, when people (and courts) think it’s the government’s role to compel peoples’ services in the name of political correctness or “equality.” It’s a sad time we live in when the concept of marriage is distorted so badly as to “equate” a homosexual and heterosexual union, a logical absurdity. It is positively Orwellian.
They acted maliciously definitely. Usually this is because they think they have the right to exact revenge against people who called their behaviour immoral–which is what this is. Gays will continue to “punish” religious people for disagreeing for as long as possible using the courts to deprive religious people of their first amendment rights. This is about revenge, pure and simple. Nothing more, no great “rights” statement, nothing. Revenge, revenge, revenge. The purest of evil motivations. So much for the great cry for equal rights–just as women and minorities used that cry to exact revenge for things they did not like, so goes gays. It’s never equality, just revenge.
I have to disagree with you both. This is not about revenge or forcing people to do things they don’t want. Exacting revenge is not going to court asking for reparation. Exacting revenge is going violent against people we disagree with.
When you say it is immoral, it is base on some line in the bible written over 2000 years ago. But, Jesus never discriminated against anyone. He lived his life according to his belief and left other live their life according to their belief.
Although I’m born Catholic and baptized I have quit long ago following its doctrine or dogma, because I felt they distorted what Jesus meant.
I was talking with a student of mine the other day (diving lesson) and she explained to me how her sister married a guy from Texas last year and that they will be moving back to Quebec soon because she feels oppressed in Texas. I hear that expression often from people who went to live for a while in different state in the US. Why do people who are not gay feel oppressed when they go to the US?
You are arguing theology. Neither of us said anything about the morality of gay marriage. We are discussing the crushing of religious freedom, maliciously, by the gays with the assistance of the state. And yes, it is about revenge. Otherwise, why go to court at all?
As a conservative, I feel oppressed also. Why do people who are not gay feel oppressed? Well, I feel oppressed by those who would use the force of government to control what I say, who I associate with, and when my Church and its members can act on their deeply held beliefs.
John,
Sheri has said that it was immoral when she said:
“…who called their behaviour immoral–which is what this is.”
Freedoms and rights have to be brought to the lowest common denominator, i.e. the individual.
Their are no absolute freedom or rights. Every freedoms and rights have to be balanced between individuals. The individual meaning the physical person. For example, your right to kill someone is pre-empted by the other person rights to live.
NM Human Rights Act has a disposition that goes further than any civil law I ever saw, so the verdict the photographer received there could have been different somewhere else who does not have such an explicit law.
“F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person’s ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation;”
I wouldn’t be surprised to see SCOTUS strike down this article, or part of it. This is the article under which the company and not the photographer who was found guilty.
” I feel oppressed by those who would use the force of government to control what I say, who I associate with, and when my Church and its members can act on their deeply held beliefs.”
This is exactly how the gays are feeling. Why do they win? because they are actually the one that see their freedom limited.
Perhaps the polygamists will not longer feel oppressed when polygamy is legalized.
You really have no concept of why it’s wrong for the government to force businesses to follow the morality of the court, without regard to religious freedom, do you? It’s all about getting what you want just as we have maintained from the beginning. You can take away people’s rights but others dare not limit yours. Forcing people to participate in activities they disapprove of or lose their livelihood is limiting their freedom due to their beliefs (just like you protest is wrong with the treatment of gays). How is that fair? Violate your moral beliefs or the government will shut down your business. Sounds vindictive and intolerant to me.
As to who sees their freedoms limited, I don’t see much limiting gay freedom today. Gays have a legitimate historical beef, but times have changed. I do see constant attacks upon any civic institution that doesn’t approve of their agenda. The Boy Scouts finally caved in, which will destroy that very good organization.
I don’t think requiring someone to provide a service is furthering any sort of freedom.
I wouldn’t be surprised if SCOTUS struck it down, but, sadly, I wouldn’t be surprised if the upheld it. The idea of protected classes has grown like a cancer in our society. Once upon a time, we had freedom of association. We had freedom of property. Anti-discrimination law has way overshot the necessary and temporary needs of blacks. It’s time for Americans to stop going down the Orwellian group-think path and back towards freedom, which should include freedom to insult or demean – even as we disapprove of those activities. Today, the only folks with real freedom to insult and demean are the “protected” groups. After all, who can say the “N-word” without getting into trouble? Who can use the anti-white equivalent?
Sheri.
No I don’t see anything wrong with the government preventing company to discriminate against any group of people.
In the case you provided, no where did the court said that Elaine Hugenin had to accept to take the picture. But her company, under NMHRA, could not refused the contract. The fact that they hired free lancer on occasion didn’t help their case. A free lancer might not have had a problem with it.
In the other thread, Briggs brought the case of Mr. Whatcott claiming that the court ruled again his religious freedom, and that verses from the Bible constituted hate speech. When I read the actual decision I discovered that the court did not conclude that the use of the Bible verses constituted hate speech. They even ruled out 2 of the pamphlet has not constituting hate speech. What constituted hate speech was to say that gays were spreading disease among children, and that people should discriminate against them.
BTW, Sheri I’m not gay so it is not about my personal right, it is about individual rights.
Sylvain, you are getting too lawyerly about this. It obscures the real issues.
John,
The US is in a special situation because of the long culture of slavery. Slavery may have ended in 1865, yet it was replaced by segregation. Black people are not today treated as equal in the US, and laws are needed to protect them from discrimination.
I have similar discussion with people around here and what seems difficult to understand is the individuality of freedom. There are people who misunderstand from both sides but one things is certain, society is moving away from the right to insult and demean other people. You have the right to be treated with respect, so does everyone else.
Sorry to be to lawyerly but court is where we settle legal question.
I understand that court is where we settle legal questions. However, it is not where we decide what is right – only what is legal, hence my objections.
I don’t believe anyone has a right to be treated with respect, except perhaps from the government. I believe everyone has a duty to treat others with respect, when it is due (which is almost always).
But society is *not* moving away from a right to insult and demean, it is simply shifting the acceptable targets of whom you can insult and demean.
Hence, today, it is just fine to insult and demean conservatives – even the President does it to great excess. It is fine to insult the religious. It is fine to insult gun owners. In general, it is fine to insult anyone who does not go along with what falls under the general category of “PC.” It is fine not only to insult, but to coerce the religious. Sebelius’ war on the Catholic Church (through the unnecessary contraception/abortifacient mandate) is just fine with our opinion makers – it is certainly just fine with the same folks who react with lawsuits at the first whiff of criticism of gay marriage.
John,
Here is an example that court decision goes both way
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2013/05/27/montreal-saguenay-jean-tremblay-religious-court-of-appeal.html
John / Sheri,
I am not certain what system of ethics Sylvain bases his arguments on, but he commits a liberal amount of logical fallacies.
As John correctly noted, this statement is nothing less than a tautology, “Sorry to be to lawyerly but court is where we settle legal question.” And it is false — as in untrue.
Through sophistry, Sylvain conflates legal with justified. But he certainly doesn’t believe that courts justify laws. Witness his implied argument that slavery has always been wrong, in spite of decades of court rulings justifying it.
Sylvain also conflates positive rights with negative rights. This statement, “You have the right to be treated with respect, so does everyone else,” is actually a claim on the rights of others.
Why is this so? All rights confer obligations.
Given that positive right, all Sylvain needs to do is capture the political definition of respect and the world is his ouster, so to speak.
Sylvain’s belief — unfounded — that the right to a good transfers before the actual exchange is nonsensical. But is loudly declares his lack of support in property rights.
To have a right to property is to have the right to dispose of it or exchange it as I see fit. That right doesn’t end when I form a company — I cannot lose my right to property.
The system of property that Sylvain appears to support is one where ownership is nominal, but control is held by the state. That system is a tenet of fascism.
But, if I were to guess the underlying system of ethics that permeates his posts, I would suggest some variant of Marxism.
Regardless, I see no need to continue arguing with him. His goal is to control the state in order to control you and me. Sadly, he obviously missed the history lesson that shows the state will ultimately turn on him as well.
Note: Like many believers in Marxism, he may suffer from the Fourier Complex. I suspect that to be the case.
Exacting revenge is not going to court asking for reparation. Exacting revenge is going violent against people we disagree with.
No, revenge need not be physical.
When you say it is immoral, it is base on some line in the bible written over 2000 years ago.
Then why was it condemned by the ancient Romans who had not the Bible. Why was it regarded as shameful by the ancient Greeks if the submissive was an adult? Why is there no such thing as gay “marriage” in any other time or place?
Although I’m born Catholic and baptized I have quit long ago following its doctrine or dogma, because I felt they distorted what Jesus meant.
Why are such declarations always one of feeling and not of thought?
YOS,
I actually meant 3000 years ago when the Torah/ancient testament started to get written.
Homosexuality both in ancient Rome and Greece was a banal phenomenon that was rarely punished and when it was, it was done locally. Judaism and Christianity was much persecuted than gay people. There were such things as gay marriage in the Roman Empire. There is even a historian that claims that the Fall of the Roman Empire was caused by homosexuality:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/8438210/Fall-of-Roman-Empire-caused-by-contagion-of-homosexuality.html
“Why are such declarations always one of feeling and not of thought?”
Why do you think that feelings are not accompanied by thought?
Jim,
I respect that we might have a difference of opinion, but it seems that you have reached the end of your argument since you feel the need to misrepresent my views. This pretty much prove that I won the argument.
My principal code of ethics is the CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS. Law is a language that I understand better than most people for some reason, which means that when I had to go to court I never lost a case against an employer or the government. I have also helped people that had been wronged win their cases.
Jim, can you explain where legal questions are resolves if not Courts? I’ll have you notice that not everyone have the same religious beliefs, so the Bible, the Sharia and the Talmud are of little help in the matter.
I find it funny that the right that you complain to lose is the right to insult and demean other people. While other people have to respect your right and freedoms, you feel the need to impede on theirs. The reason you are losing the debate is your failure to understand that you are one individual amongst many others who all have the same rights and freedoms.
You claim the states is forcing you to do things you don’t want. This is not true unless you work for the state.
This is actually a good explanation of what I said about the obligation to sell, and the right of property that is guaranteed under the constitution. This clause is pretty much standard in most human right law.
“G. any person to:
rental, lease, assignment or sublease any housing accommodation or real property to any person or to refuse to negotiate for the sale, rental, lease, assignment or sublease of any housing accommodation or real property to any person”
I suggest you educate yourself on what the right of property really means before embarrassing yourself.
Sylvain: “Why do you think that feelings are not accompanied by thought?”
Pretty much because they are defined that way, especially when you put feelings first and thought second. At that point, they are almost mutually exclusive.
Pingback: Marriage, Homosexuality, and The Children Special - BigPulpit.com
Sylvain, I think you addressed me as Jim.
So… questions can be resolved in other fora than courts. As I said, courts are for resolving legal questions, not moral or ethical ones. A court cannot tell us if a law is right or just.
I will not bother to address your remaining points, because they are illogical in further some are arguing with positions I have not held. Use your bragged about legal brilliance to reread what I said and understand that.
Finally, you are arguing from a modernist, crypto-Marxist point of view. One in which the courts define what is right; one in which one’s rights to property are severely hindered; one in which state coercion is invisible to you. There is not much point in wasting time arguing with one whose views are so distant from American (United States) legal and cultural traditions and values.
John,
I was in deed addressing Jim.
It is probably the first time anyone ever called me a Marxist. Anyhow when I argue with a leftist I’m called a conservative and vice versa. Since I’m not very good at falling to peer-pressure or groupthink, My position is pretty unique.
The right of property means that you have the right to sell something. So if you own a store and where you sell goods in the US, you cannot refuse US official money even if it would be in quarter, dime or cent, from who ever want to buy it. There are some limitation like you can’t sell alcohol to a teenagers, or medical drugs without a prescription from a doctor. Important to notice that I’m not taking about an individual selling is car, I’m talking about a store. Which is covered by the section 201, 202, 203 of the Civil rights acts.
Before the Civil Rights Act a person/commerce could discriminate against other and refuse to sell something to someone. After the act they couldn’t. The act doesn’t mention gay. The same logic applies here than the one that said that every person was born free and equal. Which meant to the founding father white male, and did not include women, and black people. Even if the act is silent about gays, they are still covered by it because they are person.
The civil rights act is what defines the right of property in the USA.
here is an example of a person I helped:
A guy spent 5 years in prison during which his ex-wife didn’t pay the taxes on his property. He received a notice that he had to pay about $15,000 within a month or his house would be ceased.
He wasn’t working and had no revenue but the house was almost paid out. I first encouraged him to go to his bank to loan the money. Which it refused. Which made no sense since his house had much more value than the amount of money he asked for. I then suggested that he want to a bank in another city and a mortgage of $40k was granted within a week.
Soon after he received a letter that he was expropriated and the city paid him $150K for his house valued at $120k. This means that the first the expropriation was planned long in advanced and that some people wanted to make quick money on his back which is why his usual bank refused to loan him the money.
“The civil rights act is what defines the right of property in the USA.”
How can one debate with someone so confused as to make that assertion?
“SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal Equal access. enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,
and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as de-
fined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the
ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”
John,
As you can see in this excerpt, the civil rights act clearly define the right of property as to give anyone access to any good or services offer in public accommodation. This means that you cannot discriminate against people. If you are ready to sell flower to an hetero-sexual couple than you can not refuse to sell the same or similar flower to a gay couple.
No wonder that you guys think that your freedom is attacked since you request the freedom to demean other people and to tell other people what they can or cannot do.
Already, let’s cut to the chase, here:
1) You have no concept of the origin or meaning of rights in the US, as indicated by your assertion that rights are defined by a law. You can brag all you want about how you have assisted someone in the courts, but your statements show a pathetically bizarre and twisted view of US legal concepts.
2) Refusing a service is not demeaning, it is refusing a service.
3) Demeaning someone is a right, as it should be, even though it is not in general a prudent or nice thing. It’s called “free speech” and may have escaped your reading of the law, since it’s defined in something we call a “Constitution.” Look it up in the dictionary. I am demeaning your knowledge and reasoning right now, and it is within my rights, and because your bizarre arguments are deserving of ridicule.
4) The public accommodations act you cite does not apply to sexual orientation or behavior; nor should it.
5) The right to property is an ancient one, and is far more complex than your trivialization through citing an obligation to sell – an obligation never in our Constitution.
1) You know that the Constitution is a law right! Any other law has to respect it.
This is what the Cato institute, a conservative organisation, says about right of property:
‘if rights of acquisition, enjoyment, and disposal
were not legally protected.’
“In a nutshell, the basic rights they have recognized, beyond the rights
of acquisition and disposal, are the right of sole dominion”
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-handbook-policymakers/2009/9/hb111-34.pdf
You notice these words ‘right of acquisition’ and ‘were not legally protected’. ‘Legally’ meaning law.
I guess that my concept is not so twisted after, or maybe your concept is the one that is twisted.
2) For a company to refuse to render a service, or to sell to someone is demeaning, illegal, and goes against the principle of capitalism, and free market. Capitalism only care that people are free to acquire goods and services. It requires that the money has value and that it will be accepted regardless of who owns it.
What you are claiming is that if it is a gay couple that possess the money then it has no value in your store. This is what the CRA protect.
3) Free speech has its limit. Take for example the 2 examples of red scare characterized by Palmer and McCarthy. Where was their liberty of free speech. I’m pretty sure that most people on this blog approved or would have approved what was done.
Have you notice that I never said that you couldn’t ridicule what I said. I also not care much that you do since it shows how little you actually understand your own country.
4) The CRA apply to homosexual, unless you want to make the claim that they are not person. The CRA apply to all person.
5) Note that I’m not talking about an individual, but a company, what the CRA calls a public accommodation. Thus the flower example, and even the example provided by Sheri.
Pingback: Big Pulpit – Marriage, Homosexuality, and Children Special | Catholic Defender Daily
My corner I have to retreat to will be even smaller as I can’t even concede that marriage is only “one man/one woman”…my corner can only acknowledge the TRUE meaning of marriage as between “one man and one woman who are having natural sexual relations (i.e. not deliberately sterile sexual relations caused by infertility or old age!)…I’ve been for years already distancing myself from most of my fellow “conservative” Catholics who don’t understand marriage either! It truly is a lonely world with all this madness…especially the madness created by well meaning, but nonetheless misguided, marriage tradionalists!
The government should be about the business of the common good, so secular marriage must be for something more than the gratification and happiness of only two individuals, more than passing out rights, more than just accommodating a “special interestâ€, more than government acknowledgment for the sake of government acknowledgment.
Procreation is the rational basis for marriage (not love, not rights). Defining marriage as one man and one woman, and the way humans reproduce, isn’t just some weird coincidence.
Pingback: Submit! | William M. Briggs
Pingback: Unraveling The NYT’s “Unraveling the Church Ban on Gay Sex” | William M. Briggs
Pingback: Status Of Christianity (And Pizza Parlours) | William M. Briggs