good luck getting married in Virginia if you are an atheist

[Corsair 115]

A gay person's right to cake ends where the baker's right to practice their religion begins.

I'm curious. Please cite the verse in the Bible which commands bakers not to bake cakes for persons who are gay. (While you're at it, perhaps you can explain why all the many, many other things the Bible commands can be conveniently ignored by these supposedly pious Christians.)

Again, why do gay people (in the current cases) get to force bakers and photographers to work for them against their will?

If a single one of those bakers or photographers works on the Sabbath, then they've got no moral leg to stand on to complain about gays. The Old Testament was very clear on keeping the Sabbath holy—violations warranted the death penalty.

 

[uke2se]

It's imaginary that allowing the discrimination that this fellow engaged in will lead to some horrible outcome.

The strawmen begin. Nobody said this would lead to some horrible outcome. That was all in your head. We are still talking about an action that is contrary to US law.

The clear-cut results of this case is that some couple got offended (and by their own admission, they were offended by his manner, not his actual refusal itself), but were able to get married by someone else with no problem. I don't consider the offense that they took to be of great importance.

I think we are all lucky that the law isn't based on what you find important.

Look up the numbers yourself, if you're convinced it was ever otherwise.

Dodge noted.

That's not the issue.

It most certainly is the issue.

The issue is whether we should use the coercive power of the state to prevent the forms of discrimination that YOU find unacceptable (because I promise you, there are forms of discrimination that you would find acceptable).

That is not the issue. The courts disagree with your stance on this. This has nothing to do with what I find acceptable or not, and everything to do with what is legal and not.

It's not that I think every form of discrimination is OK, it's that I don't think the state is the solution to every problem.

In this case, the state is the solution.

Some things are bad but the state should still not try to prohibit them. And I really don't think that this specific problem is serious enough to merit state intervention to solve.

Again, the courts disagree that discrimination shouldn't involve the state.

First off, you're confused about the role of the courts. The courts do not rule on what the law should be. They rule on what the law IS. I have spoken about what I think the law should be.

How about we limit the discussion to what the law IS? Because as the law IS, what this guy did was discrimination.

Any conflict is therefore not between me and the courts, but between me and the legislature.

Fair enough. Take it up with the legislature.

Second, the courts have not ruled in this case.

They have ruled in similar cases.

There is no government sanction against this man for his discrimination. You may imagine that the case you refer to is relevant precedent here, but your opinion is clearly not informed by any expertise in the matter.

I'd say my expertise is the same as yours.

At the end of the day, it seems like you distrust society but trust government.

Wut?

Perhaps where you live, society is sufficiently debased so that it is not, in fact, worthy of trust, but needs the constant paternal control of the state to keep its baser instincts in check. But I do not feel likewise about the society in which I live.

Wow, your country sure sounds like an utopia. Surely you can manage without any laws at all.

 

[Ziggurat]

The strawmen begin. Nobody said this would lead to some horrible outcome. That was all in your head. We are still talking about an action that is contrary to US law.

In my head, from your own mouth, same difference really.

Let me ask you this: would you think it's legally ok for a business to only serve whites? How about morally?

Well, the need did arise, and it was made unlawful to discriminate based on race. Are you pining for the good old days of separate drinking fountains?

I think we are all lucky that the law isn't based on what you find important.

Yup. Because if this man is allowed to not marry this couple, we'll soon have different drinking fountains for blacks and whites again.

That is not the issue. The courts disagree with your stance on this.

Again, your lack of legal expertise is showing. The case you refer to was in New Mexico. The ruling is not applicable to Virginia.

This has nothing to do with what I find acceptable or not, and everything to do with what is legal and not.

And yet, you kept harping on about what is and is not acceptable. In fact, you specifically asked me what I found acceptable (see above). To now claim that this is irrelevant to our discussion is nonsense.

Again, the courts disagree that discrimination shouldn't involve the state.

No. The courts have ruled that some forms of discrimination permit state interventions. They have not ruled that all forms do, and they have not ruled that THIS form does. Nor are they likely to any time soon, since this case is unlikely to ever see the inside of a court room.

How about we limit the discussion to what the law IS?

Why on earth should we do that?

Because as the law IS, what this guy did was discrimination.

Again, your opinion on the matter is clearly uninformed.

They have ruled in similar cases.

I don't believe state courts in Virginia have.

I'd say my expertise is the same as yours.

Clearly not. You were, for example, ignorant that the case you cite has no controlling force in Virginia.

Wut?

You are afraid that permitting discrimination will lead to horrible consequences.

Wow, your country sure sounds like an utopia. Surely you can manage without any laws at all.

Holy strawman non-sequitor, Batman!

Some actions are extremely harmful even when performed by a small minority. If 0.1% of the population wanted to kill other people and we let them, the consequences would be terrible. But if 0.1% of the population wants to discriminate, well, the consequences really won't be very bad.

You evidently distrust the majority, and think that extreme discrimination will become the norm if permitted.

 

[pgwenthold]

It's pretty amazing to what extents people will go to defend discrimination.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's pretty amazing to what extents people will go to defend discrimination.

It's amazing to what extent people will go to intrude the state into the lives of individuals.

Oh, look, two people can play this game!

 

[uke2se]

In my head, from your own mouth, same difference really.

I never said this case would lead to a horrible outcome, but nice try at dishonesty.

Yup. Because if this man is allowed to not marry this couple, we'll soon have different drinking fountains for blacks and whites again.

Never said that. All in your head. I'd venture a guess that most people understood me just fine.

Again, your lack of legal expertise is showing. The case you refer to was in New Mexico. The ruling is not applicable to Virginia.

Are you saying discrimination is legal in Virginia? Please cite.

And yet, you kept harping on about what is and is not acceptable. In fact, you specifically asked me what I found acceptable (see above). To now claim that this is irrelevant to our discussion is nonsense.

It doesn't matter what you find acceptable, although it is interesting that you find discrimination to be acceptable. Not really surprising, but interesting that you would admit it.

No. The courts have ruled that some forms of discrimination permit state interventions. They have not ruled that all forms do, and they have not ruled that THIS form does. Nor are they likely to any time soon, since this case is unlikely to ever see the inside of a court room.

That entirely depends on whether the couple decides to sue or not. If they do, I'd say the outcome is likely to be the same as the one in New Mexico. This case is even more blatant than that one.

Why on earth should we do that?

Because that's what we have been discussing. This isn't a thread about what laws Ziggurat would like to have, but about laws that already exist.

Again, your opinion on the matter is clearly uninformed.

No more so than yours.

I don't believe state courts in Virginia have.

As I said, this case is even more blatant than the one in New Mexico. If the couple sues, I expect a similar outcome.

Clearly not. You were, for example, ignorant that the case you cite has no controlling force in Virginia.

No, I wasn't ignorant of that. I am aware that the relevant anti-discrimination laws are federal.

You are afraid that permitting discrimination will lead to horrible consequences.

It isn't a case of me being afraid of it (as in, irrationally afraid of it). It is a case of it having been the case historically.

Holy strawman non-sequitor, Batman!

I don't think you know what either of those words mean.

Some actions are extremely harmful even when performed by a small minority. If 0.1% of the population wanted to kill other people and we let them, the consequences would be terrible. But if 0.1% of the population wants to discriminate, well, the consequences really won't be very bad.

Except for the people discriminated against. By the way, you're going to have to cite your numbers, as you'll no doubt want to use them for an argument along the lines of "How can you think 0.1% of the population discriminating is bad?", and I think you drew the figure out of your posterior.

You evidently distrust the majority, and think that extreme discrimination will become the norm if permitted.

I think discrimination will become the norm in certain communities, given the fact that no country has a completely homogenous population distribution. I think you're clever enough to understand this as well, but would rather quibble about semantics as usual.

 

[Ziggurat]

I never said this case would lead to a horrible outcome, but nice try at dishonesty.

Then why did you keep talking about horrible consequences?

Never said that. All in your head. I'd venture a guess that most people understood me just fine.

It's more than a little hypocritical of you to complain about the logical inferences that I drew from your posts when you accused me of supporting racial segregation.

Are you saying discrimination is legal in Virginia? Please cite.

Discrimination is legal everywhere. Only certain specified forms of it are prohibited. Where is the evidence that this specific form is prohibited? Which law prohibits it?

It doesn't matter what you find acceptable, although it is interesting that you find discrimination to be acceptable.

You do too. Do you not find it acceptable that smart people are admitted to medical school and stupid people are turned away? That's discrimination. Do you not find it acceptable that blind people are not allowed to be commercial pilots? That's discrimination.

You do not oppose discrimination in general, only certain forms of it. I do too.

Not really surprising, but interesting that you would admit it.

Why would it be interesting that I would tell the truth, rather than that you are in denial?

Because that's what we have been discussing. This isn't a thread about what laws Ziggurat would like to have, but about laws that already exist.

What utter nonsense. There is no reason to exclude discussion of our preferences from this or any other thread, unless the thread specifically calls for a narrower subject. Which this thread does not do.

Furthermore, if you look at the OP, there is in fact no reference to whether or not this case runs afoul of the law, but there is an expressed opinion that the events were outrageous.

No more so than yours.

Not true. See below.

No, I wasn't ignorant of that. I am aware that the relevant anti-discrimination laws are federal.

You are aware, then, of something which is not true. The suit alleged violations of the New Mexico Human Rights Act, not any federal statute.

You have now conclusively proven that you don't know what you're talking about.

It isn't a case of me being afraid of it (as in, irrationally afraid of it). It is a case of it having been the case historically.

Ahem. "I never said this case would lead to a horrible outcome"

Except for the people discriminated against.

And what was the terrible consequence that this couple faced? They had to get someone else to do the ceremony instead. Oh, THE HORROR!

By the way, you're going to have to cite your numbers

No I'm not. Those numbers are hypothetical numbers for illustrative purposes only, and I never suggested otherwise. That should have been obvious.

But then, it should have also been obvious that you didn't understand the legal issues involved, but you convinced yourself (without evidence) that you did.

 

[marplots]

It's pretty amazing to what extents people will go to defend discrimination.

I'll defend it.

* I don't think children should be allowed to drink alcoholic beverages.
* I don't think people without medical degrees should be practicing medicine.
* I don't think dogs should be able to vote.
* I didn't care for the sister, but fell in love and married just the one woman, forsaking all others.
* I prefer to buy and drive vehicles manufactured by Ford Motor Company.
* I do not transact business when I cannot communicate with clients in English.
* I think chess is a fine game, but dismiss checkers as the idiotic meanderings of simpletons.

Just let me know when I hit a type of discrimination you disagree with so I know when I've crossed the moral line.

Unless... is this one of those things where the word gets to mean whatever fits someone's preconceived notions, so it is pre-fitted to match certain distasteful acts? Is it a shibboleth, where underlying rational support isn't required because the function is to identify which tribe I am a member of?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

It's more than a little hypocritical of you to complain about the logical inferences that I drew from your posts when you accused me of supporting racial segregation.

Except he didn't.

He made a perfectly valid comparison to racial discrimination without once claiming that this is either what you support nor what will happen. You're making a tremendous leap of logic that defies...well logic.

 

[Loss Leader]

That it isn't considered a story is a story in of itself.

The story is that you consider it not being a story a story.

 

[uke2se]

Deleted, because what's the point? When the best conservatives can do is argue against the calling out of obvious cases of discrimination like this, they have already lost.

You can have the last word, Ziggurat.

 

[Dr. Keith]

How is that different?

One is slavery, the other is requiring your business to follow the rules of our society.

Both are supported by the bible, if that interests you.

All I'm saying is that the rules shouldn't unduly burden civil rights.

Agreed, and that line, what unduly burdens a business owners civil rights, is decided by the society and put into force by laws. We have many laws and regulations that people argue are unduly burdensome on their civil rights, would you like a list? You can start at the lunch counter and go straight out to the illegal dumping. Society has decided that we are going to curtail your absolute rights if you want to stay in business. By and large these laws have lead to a better society to live in, even if your God given dominion over the earth is slightly infringed upon.

Emotionally, I'm right there with all of you. But rationally, I can't get there. Christians have a Constitutional right to practice their religion. The rules should not abridge that right.

The rules do and will abridge those rights. The rule of law is not subservient to one's religious beliefs. If it were we would still have slavery and women would not be allowed to vote.

If a person's religion precludes them from serving certain people then they should not go into the service sector. Plain and simple. Just as many observant jews will not take a job that requires work on the sabbath. I have no problem with a religious person making sacrifices to live within the bounds of their religion, I do have a problem with them expecting me to make a sacrifice so that they can live within the bounds of their religion.

 

[Dr. Keith]

The story is that you consider it not being a story a story.

But the top is still spinning . . . .

 

[Ziggurat]

I didn't. I asked if you thought it was illegal or morally wrong to only serve whites, and implied that your arguments makes it sound like you are pining for the days of segregation.

Why would that question be relevant, when 1) this case won't lead to such results, and 2) according to you, this thread is only about what the law is, not about my opinions?

You didn't draw any logical inferences. You made **** up.

Sort of like how you made **** up about me pining for the days of segregation?

You're a hypocrite.

No, it isn't.

Of course it's discrimination. You are treating people differently on the basis of some characteristic. You find that kind of discrimination acceptable and other forms unacceptable, and that's fine that you do so, but it's pure, utter nonsense to pretend that it's not still discrimination.

No it isn't, but thank you for this excellent demonstration that you have no idea what discrimination is in a legal sense.

You have demonstrated already that you have no idea what the law is. Not all discrimination is illegal discrimination. That is why we have the term "illegal discrimination".

No, I oppose discrimination in its legal meaning in general.

Another nonsense position. Prior to 2003, it was not illegal in New Mexico to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Does that mean it was morally acceptable to do so in 2002 but not in 2004? That makes no sense.

Morality and legality have never been synonymous. You would do well to understand the difference between malum in se and malum prohibitum. And the law does not prohibit all forms of discrimination.

Since the question I posed that led to this discussion was concerning what was legal or not, and not what you'd wish was legal, I'd say your way off.

So the hell what? Does this mean you can prohibit me from expressing other opinions? No, it does not.

Do you think New Mexico based that law on nothing at all?

You were proven wrong, but you can't admit that you were wrong. How pathetic. You've got no argument here, no evidence, but you just can't believe it's even possible that you might not be right.

Talk about Dunning-Kruger.

I am not surprised you have no sympathy. Maybe next time it's you or your loved ones that are turned away for being too white, too Christian, too straight or whatever. Hopefully you'll realise your folly at that time. Like so many other conservatives, you seem unable to feel empathy unless you are directly involved.

If I go to a store and the owner is a jerk to me, I will be angry with him, I will likely take my business elsewhere, and I will encourage others to do so as well. But I won't go crying to the police, because not every problem, not every bad thing in life, needs to be fixed by government intervention. This problem doesn't either. Hell, the couple involved don't even seem to think so, as far as I can tell. And remember, their actual complaint is not that they were refused service. Their actual complaint is that they felt he was rude to them.

I do understand the legal issues involved.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

No, I wasn't ignorant of that. I am aware that the relevant anti-discrimination laws are federal.

 

[Ziggurat]

Except he didn't.

He made a perfectly valid comparison to racial discrimination without once claiming that this is either what you support nor what will happen. You're making a tremendous leap of logic that defies...well logic.

I asked if you thought it was illegal or morally wrong to only serve whites, and implied that your arguments makes it sound like you are pining for the days of segregation.

uke2se seems to disagree with you about what his own posts meant.

 

[Ziggurat]

I have no problem with a religious person making sacrifices to live within the bounds of their religion, I do have a problem with them expecting me to make a sacrifice so that they can live within the bounds of their religion.

So you want this guy to make the sacrifice of not marrying anyone, rather than you making the sacrifice of... not getting married by him. Which you also wouldn't be able to do if he didn't marry anyone.

I'm struggling to see the advantage that your preference provides in this case.

 

[xjx388]

One is slavery, the other is requiring your business to follow the rules of our society.

Well, in my view, when society starts ordering one private person to do specified work for another, that's not very different from slavery.

Both are supported by the bible, if that interests you.

Not being a Christian, not really.

Agreed, and that line, what unduly burdens a business owners civil rights, is decided by the society and put into force by laws.

So it's ok to trample on one person's rights (black people/Christians) in order to make sure someone else (plantation owners/gay people) has their rights taken care of -as long as society agrees and make a law about it?

I disagree. Slavery is wrong. Forcing people to violate their religious beliefs is wrong. Those things were so important that our society that we put them in our Constitution.

We have many laws and regulations that people argue are unduly burdensome on their civil rights, would you like a list? You can start at the lunch counter and go straight out to the illegal dumping.

I understand that. My rights end where yours begin and vice versa. I can't dump my trash anywhere I please because it uglies up the environment that everyone shares. Thus, we agree to make a certain area outside of town our official trash dump. Since it's publicly owned, the dump can't discriminate.

Consider it from an individual rights standpoint. Any person should be free to offer their labor on their own terms. If a person wants to take a job, they should be free to take it. If they don't want a job, they should be free to refuse it. If instead we are going to coerce that labor, as in, "do it or we will shut you down," you are taking away that freedom. And for what? If the gay couple has no cake at their wedding, will it diminish their vows or their marriage? Nope. It just isn't compelling enough of a reason. Now, if the OP were about a judge who refused to marry an atheist couple, I would have a problem with that because the judge is an impartial representative of the government. If you work for the government, you are agreeing to check your religious beliefs at the door. That shouldn't apply outside of the public sector.

Society has decided that we are going to curtail your absolute rights if you want to stay in business. By and large these laws have lead to a better society to live in, even if your God given dominion over the earth is slightly infringed upon.

And I agree with a lot of curtailments on rights. You have to pay taxes on your income, you have to respect your employees' religious rights, you have to sell certain items (alcohol, guns, drugs, tobacco, etc) within certain rules, you have to file certain information with the State, etc. But I don't agree with forcing people to act against their own religious beliefs.

I don't believe gay people should be barred from marriage just because it upsets Christian sensibilities. By the same token, I don't believe that Christians should have to do things that they see as supporting gay/atheist marriage, like officiate the ceremony, bake their cakes or take their pictures. Again, one person's rights end where another's begin.



The rules do and will abridge those rights. The rule of law is not subservient to one's religious beliefs. If it were we would still have slavery and women would not be allowed to vote.

If a person's religion precludes them from serving certain people then they should not go into the service sector. Plain and simple. Just as many observant jews will not take a job that requires work on the sabbath. I have no problem with a religious person making sacrifices to live within the bounds of their religion, I do have a problem with them expecting me to make a sacrifice so that they can live within the bounds of their religion.[/QUOTE]

 

[marplots]

So you want this guy to make the sacrifice of not marrying anyone, rather than you making the sacrifice of... not getting married by him. Which you also wouldn't be able to do if he didn't marry anyone.

I'm struggling to see the advantage that your preference provides in this case.

The advantage is that services offered to the public are standardized. If, at the outset, a service is only offered to a select segment, that's different. I wouldn't expect a rabbi to offer his services outside of his niche. But when something is offered to the public at large, the expectation is that the category in question is included.

In your example, his services are not withdrawn to public detriment, they are insufficient in the first place.

 

[Border Reiver]

Outrageous! Or not . . . Maybe if we apply a little skepticism and look a little deeper. . .

You and the article are misunderstanding what "court-appointed officiant," actually means. There is no such official designation. There are Marriage Commissioners in Virgina which are people (who can be ministers or lay people) authorized by the court to perform marriages. They are not paid by taxpayers; they are paid a fee by the couple ($50 max) to perform the ceremony. As such, they are not employed by the County or State. It amounts to a public listing of people who perform weddings outside traditional churches. Thus, those Marriage Officiants are still free to practice their religious beliefs as they see fit.

So do you think that, in America, people should be forced to violate their religious beliefs simply because they advertise services for hire? So, for example, a doctor should be forced to perform an abortion or prescribe birth control even if they are Catholic?

Actually, a Marriage Commissioner is a person authorized to perform marriages by the State of Virginia, via a circuit court - that would make them a State Official when carrying out duties of said office, especially since said officiants are carrying out Virginia laws. Counties are also supposed to ensure that there is a civil official able to perform non-religious ceremonies.

Essentially, either

a. Roth was discriminating against the couple due to their religious stance;
b. The county was derilict in not having an officiant who was prepared to carry our a non-religious ceremony; or
c. The clerk provided the name of someone who would be able to perform a civil ceremony, but the couple decided to be jerks and force Roth to perform the marriage when another avenue was readily available.

 

[Ziggurat]

The advantage is that services offered to the public are standardized. If, at the outset, a service is only offered to a select segment, that's different. I wouldn't expect a rabbi to offer his services outside of his niche. But when something is offered to the public at large, the expectation is that the category in question is included.

So then the problem is really that the court clerk who referred the couple to him didn't tell them that he didn't do atheist marriages.