When I said this might not be much discussion material, I had forgotten that Pig exists. So let's get crackin'.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
We are literally talking about removing one person's rights for someone else's benefit, how can you even say that?
The wording is a bit ambiguous, but based on your later posts, I assume you mean restricting someone's first amendment rights to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This is addressed in the edited portion of my first post.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
In a world where white people are assaulted or killed for stepping foot in the ghetto, you have to go with "imagine being a black person going into a store and being told you have to leave!"?
Let's really think out that scenario: a racist person has a shop and won't let in fags and niggers. What's the worse that happens? Well they get told to leave. This is the dystopic nightmare future that awaits people having the right to deny access to their property.
Is this really something that I should care about? Do you prefer the reality where people are sued out of everything they own for refusing to make a cake that supports something against their belief? Is that really the preferable future?
Not exactly sure why you even said this. Cowmeat says that he suppports the theory of the idea of refusing service for any reason, but because there are prejudiced people, this wouldn't be best for society. All you really did with the above quote is provide an example of what Cowmeat was saying, but then for some reason treated him like he was wrong about something.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
People are not machines, they have the right to deny service at their discretion
Not exactly true. You can't deny someone service for walking into the store with their left foot first, but you can deny someone service if they are disruptive and potentially causing the business to lose customers. There are laws that provide general rules about this, and some businesses refine the exact terms of denial of service even further.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
you are literally saying that X group of people should have the right to overrule the rights of Y group of people. Take a step back and put yourself in the shoes of the victims of these situations.
Edit of first post.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Originally Posted by cowmeat
Discriminating others is not a right........
But forcing someone out of their job is?
That's some very creative morality you have there.
In the particular case of Kim Davis, there was a law. She did not follow the law. She got arrested for breaking the law. Her termination of employment was considered. This is literally a non-issue. You're following the same type of logic that those "free inhabitant" fuckwits are throwing around. If you don't know what the free inhabitant movement thing is, go look it up. It's a hoot. Also, edit of my first post.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
lol if you really thought that then you wouldn't have had to make the ad absurdium argument that "Im not protecting/selling meds to that nigger, let him get killed."
It's not an absurd argument at all. It's the same situation, with different sets of people. County clerk offices are required to distribute marriage licenses. Hospitals are required to treat patients (once a physician-patient relationship exists [hospital cannot admit a patient and then refuse to treat once the doctor finds out the patient is gay]).
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Exactly how is "not getting married" more suffering than "loosing your job/business"? In what world is that correct? Exactly why is discriminating based on religion ok, but based on sexuality not ok?
This is not discrimination against religion. Edited portion of my first post.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Exactly why should someone be forced to do something they believe to be morally wrong when not doing so would cause absolutely no harm?
Then that person can either:
A) Find another job
B) Find a workaround so that marriage licenses do not need their approval
C) Move to a different department of the county clerk office
When laws change, processes for businesses and government offices need to change as well. If that stands in the way of someone's morals, it is their duty to make sure that they can do their job without getting offended.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
This concept can be extrapolated to any given set of beliefs. You cannot force a person to accommodate gays/transgenders/furries/bronies/dragonkin/whatever if they object to it. If you as a state attack them, the only thing you're doing is sowing the seeds of hatred.
As I beat the dead horse with Pig, I'll give it one more whack for you. Edited portion of my first post.
Originally Posted by T0ribush
Marriage shouldn't be a right, it sounds more like a privilege.
Also fools that want to get married, thinking the world is going to change with your prenups and documented love, hahaha.
If you aren't religious I seriously think you shouldn't even be thinking of getting married.
Can someone explain why Marriage is THE thing, that HAS to happen?
Please, actually contribute to the discussion. This was not a contribution. But I'll answer it anyways because why not.
1) Marriage is a privilege. There is a lot of paperwork and approval that needs to happen in order for people to get married. This is usually why people set marriage dates farther into the future, to make sure they've got everything done before the "big day."
2) Marriage isn't for everyone. Seems like it's not something you'd like either right now. You might change your mind when you get older.
3) Marriage isn't necessarily a religious thing anymore, while its origins were in religion. Married couples do get some tax breaks in the US, which makes it more than just a state of mind.
4) This has kind of been answered in bits and pieces through my other three responses. Like I said, not everyone wants to get married, but for those that do, it's a way to tell your spouse that you really do love them, especially since getting a divorce is more paperwork and more difficult than just a breakup.
As for Pig's most recent post that I'm too lazy to break up into quotes, he's mostly kinda right on most everything. Except the second bit. That's obviously a troll. And the third one is dismissive. And the first half of the last sentence is wrong if he's referring to the meow saying it was against the law. I greatly anticipate your response to all of this, Pig.
