or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by malax

 I sincerely doubt there is anyone here (participating in this conversation) who would take the position you are asserting in your second paragraph.  Remember, in the 60s and before there was government sactioned, government enforced discrimination against blacks and other minorities.  There were "whites only" drinking fountains in public (i.e., government) buildings.  That's disgraceful and RP and MLK are rightfully lauded for their brave efforts to address those...
 The most basic libertarian position would get the government out of the marriage business altogether.  And not require businesses to recognize marriages.  A marriage is just a  contract between 2 people to commingle assets for some duration and give each other certain mutual rights.  Don't really need the government to define that contract.  
Which state had the wedding photographer case?  I assumed it was AZ, but apparently not?
Please go look up the word democracy.  I don't think it means what you think it does.
Exactly.  That statement was politically correct gibberish.
Presumably because those are some of the few situations where there is any relevance to the business person.  If you go to the hardware store to buy nails, there's not much of a reason to explain that it's to build a house with your gay partner.
 You absolutely should have the right.  And others would have the right to protest and boycott your store.  Freedom is messy.  Oh well.
 That's right, there is lot of ambiguity in "race, color, religion or national origin."  If you squint really hard, can you see where it says "gender or sexual orientation?" This AZ law was about clarifying that people have rights to freely associate/do business with (or not) people based on their personal beliefs.  Saying that people don't have that choice is taking away rights not giving them. And courts should, in general, refrain from just making stuff up because times...
So do you think a wedding photographer should be compelled to take pictures at a gay wedding if they believe it's a sin (or for any reason)?  This (vetoed) law said 'no.'  That seems like the right answer to me even though I'll vote in favor of gay marriage in my state (if I ever get the chance; the judges seem intent on deciding this on their own).
I'm pretty sure that meets the definition of assault.  I don't think anyone here is suggesting that violence against gays or anyone else is acceptable.  And if Woolworth (do they still exist) tried that today, there would (rightfully) be a massive uprising and they would decide that policy immediately.
New Posts  All Forums: