Court watch: California gay marriage ruling…Upholds SF licensing scheme, 4-3 decision in a favor of a “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship”
A California Supreme Court decision on San Francisco’s gay marriage licenses is expected within the hour.
Gay marriage supporters are prepared to hold a “celebration of love.” Social conservatives are prepared to go to the ballot box:
More than four years after San Francisco defied state marriage laws by allowing nearly 4,000 same-sex couples to wed at City Hall, the state Supreme Court is set to decide today whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry in California.
But the decision, due at 10 a.m., may not be the last word. Conservative religious organizations have submitted more than 1.1 million signatures for an initiative that would amend the state Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage. If at least 694,354 signatures are found to be valid, a tally that is due by mid-June, the measure would go on the November ballot and, if approved by voters, would override any court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.
Californians have already voted once, in 2000, to reaffirm the 1977 state law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The 2000 initiative, Proposition 22, was not a constitutional amendment.
The marriage case is the most prominent and politically explosive dispute to come before the court in decades. The justices have largely managed to stay out of the public spotlight since 1986, when voters removed Chief Justice Rose Bird and two liberal colleagues who had joined her in overturning nearly all death sentences to come before the court.
The current court, with a 6-1 majority of Republican appointees, has a centrist record on social issues and has ruled in favor of gay-rights advocates in a number of cases, including three decisions in 2005 requiring equal treatment for same-sex parents in disputes over child support and custody. The justices seemed sharply divided at their hearing in the marriage case March 4.
Win or lose, supporters of same-sex marriage have scheduled a “celebration of love and family” at the San Francisco LGBT Center, 1800 Market St., at 5 p.m. today, with similar observances planned in Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Luis Obispo and Palm Springs.
The political consequences, summed up:
“If California issues a decision legalizing same-sex marriage, it will reinvigorate the fight for same-sex marriage” nationally, said Jordan Lorence, an attorney with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund. “But if they affirm that marriage is for a man and a woman, then what has happened is that Massachusetts is leading a one-state parade.”
***
Update: Here’s the ruling.
To the ballot box we go.
More from SFGate:
Gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry in California, the state Supreme Court said today in a historic ruling that could be repudiated by the voters in November.
In a 4-3 decision, the justices said the state’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship.” The ruling is likely to flood county courthouses with applications from couples newly eligible to marry when it takes effect in 30 days.
But it could be overturned in November, when Californians are likely to vote on a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. Conservative religious organizations have submitted more than 1.1 million signatures on initiative petitions, and officials are working to determine if at least 694,354 of them are valid.
If the measure qualifies for the ballot and voters approve it, it will supersede today’s ruling. The initiative does not say whether it would apply retroactively to annul marriages performed before November, an omission that would wind up before the courts.
The legal case dates back to February 2004, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the city clerk to start issuing marriage licenses to couples regardless of their gender, saying he doubted the constitutionality of the state marriage law.
The state’s high court ordered a halt a month later, after nearly 4,000 same-sex weddings had been performed at San Francisco City Hall. The court annulled the marriages in August 2004, ruling that Newsom lacked authority to defy the state law. But it did not rule on the validity of the law itself and said it would await proceedings in lower courts.
Some of the couples immediately sued in Superior Court and were joined by the city of San Francisco, which said it had a stake in ensuring equality for its residents. The case that ultimately reached the state Supreme Court consolidated four suits, one by the city and three by 23 same-sex couples in San Francisco and Los Angeles.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- The Whole Bird
- California Supreme Court Rules Ban On Gay Marriage Is Unconsitutional | Popehat
- Perverts in perverted California MUST be allowed to marry | The TIW Blog
- California aprobó el matrimonio gay!! « El Hogar de Victoria
- California State Supreme Court Says Same Sex Marriage Is A Constitutional Right | THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL™
- Gay Marriage in California « Axis of Right
- Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator
- Church and State
- This Goes to 11
- Obama or Clinton, the Pedulum Moves Left: « Riggword Weblog
- Michelle Malkin » Worst. Republican. Senator. Ever.
- California Gay Marriage Ruling « Truthseeker
- Michelle Malkin » Public school politicking and Proposition 8
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Uncategorized
Mudville Gazette
» The Red Pill (Part Two)
Patterico
» Alito Whacks BidenNewsBusters.org
» NYT: Make The Mormons Walk To Wal-MartStop The ACLU
» Where Should Obama Give His Great Middle East Speech?Gateway Pundit
» Sweet!... Danish Navy Sinks Somali Pirate Ship (Video)Riehl World View
» Breaking News On Obama SpeechJawa Report
» Danish Warship Sinks PirateNewsBusters.org
» Matthews: It's 'Really Hard' to 'Salute Sarah Palin'Stop The ACLU
» Lawsuit Over Obama’s Birth Certificate Goes To SCOTUS FridayRiehl World View
» Is Barack Hussein Obama Going All Native On Us Already?Marginal Revolution
» Why do so many more women study abroad?Right Wing Nut House
» ISRAEL GOING THROUGH THE MOTIONS OF PLANNING IRAN ATTACK?
Which she owns, which is her livelihood and which - under sane laws - would be run according to her principles and beliefs.
#391: exactly, Rusty.
Actually, duh me - I hit the button before I was ready and then thought I’d just leave it that I probably said too much already, but I’ll finish my thought here now.
I do not believe “marriage” as it was instituted can be shared by anyone other than one man and one woman. I’m sorry but that’s that! Those I care very much about who happen to be gay know I feel this way and they still care about me but I cannot be moved on this.
This battle re: those who believe in God vs those who do not has gone on since dirt. I’m just sorry that on both sides, it seems to bring the worst out in everyone. Reading some of this stuff - I can’t see where anyone has it over the other. I guess we are all “just people.” It does prove my point though that our desires for goodness and mercy for one another is not within us…though I truly believe most of us wish we were this or that, but woefully fall short.
MissEm, you’re incorrect. Sexual orientation is now protected by most states, New Mexico being one of them.
And a private business has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Happens every day, this photographer was targeted since it was a Christian photographer when the couple could have chosen any other photographer to take pictures. This woman lost her 1st Amendment rights. Even ultra-liberal Europe allows for people to refuse to do a job based on religous beliefs. In Italy the % of doctors refusing to do abortions is on the rise due to religous reasons they can choose not to do it. But I bet that is lost on you as well.
#400: the business was discriminating. it is no different than a muslim cab driver refusing service to someone carrying a bottle of alcohol. but according to you, under sane laws, the taxi service would run according to the cabbie’s principles and beliefs. right?
So you would be fine if I refused to take pictures of Jewish families and weddings because I don’t believe in Judaism? How about Catholics?
The woman did not lose her 1st Amendment rights. please, cut back on the hysteria and quit looking to canada and europe as your models.
Rusty, I was referring to federal, not state law. You’re right, if the NM woman sued under a state anti-discrimination law, sexual orientation may very well have been protected.
I’m with DougT on this one…he got it about right as usual.
fourstring, you challenged folks to call you out as a bigot, but I think you basically admitted to being a bigot as it relates to homosexuals. Answered your own challenge I guess, and you deserve props for owning your bigotry I suppose. However, while you avoided being a hypocrite, hiding behind Christian dogma as an excuse for your bigotry unfortunately makes you a coward as well.
Yep. I’d find another photog.
Still didn’t answre the other question: if business can’t discriminate, why should churches be allowed to do so?
From someone who understands neither rights nor freedom.
Doctors here can refuse to do abortions on religous grounds? Should they have to pay a fine if they own their own practice and refuse to do an abortion? Just because I used Italy with the rising % doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply here. But thanks for dismissing her claim so quickly, obviously she and the ADF think differently as do most sane Americans and they are appealing all the way to the Supreme Court if needed.
There’s a huge difference. There was nobody that said that the Muslim cashiers should be sued for refusing service. People rolled their eyes and said that the business should be ashamed to have them as cashiers and should fire them or deal with them in another way (don’t let them be cashiers). In other words, if your cashiers aren’t supporting the policies of your business, you have an issue.
This case is customers suing a small business (whether it’s a sole proprietorship or a small S-corp or LLC, I don’t know) to force the business to do something that the management says is against their value system and policies.
If the photo business had been larger, say, and the management was not also the photographer, then it would be reasonable for somebody to say (not my feelings) that that business should fire that photographer if they are not able to do the jobs that the business wants to get.
If the gay couple had already paid a deposit, it should be refunded in full and a “We’re sorry, we didn’t realize that this was what was happening, and we don’t take jobs like this.” If they tried to steal the deposit, they could be taken to court to recover the deposit.
But suing them because they wouldn’t take a job that they disagreed with is coercion plain and simple, and violates the very fundamentals of a society that claims it’s founded on liberty.
PersonalLiberty, thanks for answering the question exactly as I was going to.
According to liberals, yes.
The tone here is clear: religious freedom shouldn’t exist. Period.
Rather sad, really.
“On May 15th, 2008 at 3:11 pm, DougT said:
I hear all the arguments about marrying animals, and relatives, and multiple people. I see where the give an inch, give a mile thinking comes from, but they are separate battles. They are not the subject of the court case. Those arguments, while emotional and seemingly strong, have no relevance to the discussion of same-sex marriage.”
Exactly correct, Matty, for at least several reasons: the very same argument being made for same-sex “marriage” is the same one to be made for polygamy, incest-marriage, etc. “If people “love” each other they have a right to get married.”.
Also, at least one imprisoned polygymist cited the 2003 ruling that in effect made sodomy a “civil right” as justification for his own chosen lifestyle. The reason it didn’t fly on appeal was because he hadn’t used it before as part of his reasoning/defense for his crime; i.e. he didn’t think of it first.
It is a legal Pandora’s box waiting to unleash a multitude of social evils on the populace.
#411: you’re speaking to a libertarian. your claim is as laughable as AG’s.
Exactly EQ, but getting the liberals to admit it is a violation of the freedom of religion is like pulling teeth since they can barely hold back their hatred of all things God.
eq, I don’t mean to be dense, but who is saying that “religious freedom shouldn’t exist”?
If churches in states where homosexuality is covered under anti-discrimination laws want to discrimination, they should be allowed to do so as long as they give up their tax exempt status.
Rusty, khan, and anyone who says someone doesn’t have the right to object to or question homosexuality in a private business or elsewhere.
Oops, I meant “want to discriminate”. Sorry.
#415: another strawman
Mookie is right below you.
Fine. So long as PP, Code Pink and every other liberal 501(c)(3) that has violated the laws does the same.
Add Mookie to the list of those who think religious freedom shouldn’t exist, because removing the tax-exempt status from churches would all but guarantee their closure.
Question:
Answer:
I.e., churches can be treated like churches, as long as their teachings don’t go against the “progressive” agenda.
How is what I said taking away anyone’s religious freedom?
i’ll give anyone $10,000 if they can find where i’ve said “someone doesn’t have the right to object to or question homosexuality in a private business or elsewhere.” another $10,000 if they can find where i said religious freedom shouldn’t exist. no, all i’ve seen are strawmen, hypotheticals, and hysteria.
OK, so the church should be allowed to break the law?
dakine said:
Great, another empty headed pagan lowlife. If you’re going to shoot your idiotic mouth; have a point. Give the guy a break it’s his Christian belief that gays are wrong. Personally, I don’t care if gays marry, a very low percentage actually stay togehter anyway. They’re the most perverted subset of humans on the planet and can’t possibly know what commitment is. What, the average gay male has over 200 partners in his lifetime, and you expect
them to be commited to each other? Give me a break Carrot Top.
You said the woman didn’t have her 1st amendment rights violated. You thereby indicated that by her questioning homosexuality in her private business that she does not have the right to refuse service.
So when do I get my check?
I seriously doubt it.
there’s that brilliant logic from AG again. just like being sued = government taking away your freedom of religion.
Speaking out against homosexuality as a sin and refusing to condone or support it is not against the law. It’s called your first amendment right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Thanks for playing.
You’re absolutely right. Speaking out against homosexuality and refusing to condone it is freedom of speech and expression. But the rules regarding freedom of speech are completely different in relation to the workplace and/or businesses. I can’t go to work as a Christian and refuse to sell a product to a Jewish customer because they don’t believe in Jesus and that’s against my religion.
Mookie and/or eq, what would be an example of the type of “discrimination” you’re contemplating in your hypothetical?
undrseige, the quality and tone of your last post really speaks for itself, so I’ll refrain from taking you on. You’ve exposed yourself on numerous occasions for what you really are.
Disagreement with homosexuality is a bona fide religious belief of many people. The New Mexico woman was penalized for exercising her right not to participate in an activity she believed, based on her religion, was wrong. In other words, she was penalized for acting on her religious beliefs. Also, as Englishqueen pointed out, her exercise of religious beliefs did not substantially infringe on the lesbian couples’ rights, because there are plenty of other photographers available.
Honestly, the law aside, I do think there is a serious chilling of freedom of expression when private businesses can be sued for refusing to enter into contracts with anyone. Even, as in the case of racial discrimination, their reasons for not entering into the contract may be abhorrent, these laws basically force people to either contract with those whom they don’t want to, or to lie about their reasons for not doing so. Maybe not a direct attack on freedom of speech, but I find it kind of disturbing.
Freedom of religion means being able to practice the values the religion preaches, to put them into practice in one’s daily life. If one is punished financially or otherwise by government for following the dictates of their religion (as it applies to business, I’m not talking about honor killings or some other extreme), then no, they don’t have freedom of religion.
In a free nation, government should not be able to dicate how an individual runs their business. If a business owner wants to discriminate against certain groups or people, they should be free to do so. They should also be free to fail at their business when word gets out as to how they conduct their business.
Dakine you’re so above it all. Lol. You’re a joke.
Anyway, I’m not giving heterosexuals a pass either they have mocked the institution of marriage for over 50 years, divorce rates are at all time highs. Then they bang the drum saying gay marriage sullies the intitution of regular marriage when heterosexuals have been derailing it all along. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
English Queen has used the example of the wedding photographer as someone who has been punished for expressing their religious freedom and beliefs. Personally, I think the gay couple was wrong to sue. Pick your battles. But if we’re going to allow churches to discriminate based on religious freedom, that has to apply to all religions. You can’t bitch and complain about Muslim cabdrivers refusing to transport passengers that have alcohol with them. They’re expressing their religious freedom.
How is it then that doctors can refuse to do an abortion then based on their religous beliefs?
Rusty - I have been out of this conversation for a while, so I don’t know if this comment has been addressed, but I have to ask… Why are we back to the homosexuality = race argument? They are not equivalent.
I agree 100%. Like you said, the reasons may be abhorrent but why not just put it out there and let people decide who they want to serve and who they don’t want. The beauty of that would be finding out who really is racist or homophobic or anti-Christian or anti-semitic.
I don’t think and independent business deciding they don’t want to photograph covered women would be an imposition. I would just go to a different photographer. That is religious freedom and people can choose to use or not use the photographer’s services based on his policy.
Did you guys ever do that thing in school where all the kids line up and then have to whisper a message to the next person, and the object is to see how much the message gets distorted by the time it reaches the last kid? This thread kind of reminds me of that, when you look at what the original post was about. lol
Because doctors don’t have to perform abortions, period. There are dozens of different specialties for doctors that don’t involve abortion. Or women, for that matter. What doctor would put himself in the position of having to perform an abortion if it was against his religion? If you’re against abortion, you’re not taking a job at Planned Parenthood, not matter how good the pay is. But if I take a job at a bookstore and refuse to sell book to a customer that’s Jewish because their beliefs go against mine, I’d be fired in a heartbeat and rightfully so.
Weird, isn’t that what I’ve been saying all along? Anyhow, thanks MissEm for phrasing that way better than I could at the moment.
mistressjustice -
Did I miss your reply - so many comments here,lol - to my response to you in comment 286?
If you missed mine, here’s a rerun of #286:
MsJustice,
So your argument against incest-marriage is based on whether the parents can produce healthy children or not? i.e. exclude from marriage those who might produce children who might be born with some kind of “defect”?
So even if a doctor wants to be an OB, if he doesn’t want to perform abortions he has to choose another specialty? Why. Your bookstore analogy is equivalent to a doctor at PP not giving abortions, but not to a doctor at a hospital.
Guess I can now marry my dog huh?
He is my best friend - or so I hear.
So your saying Christians and Muslims shouldn’t become gynecologists?
PersonalLiberty:
Good analysis.
Rusty my views are obvious from my posts, but I agree with Eq and Pl on this narrow issue regarding the photographer. Personalliberty’s analysis is dead on here, in my opinion.
Thanks RaisedRight. Good call on the bookstore analogy.
Sambo, I think it behooves us, as guests here in Michelle’s house, to try to avoid tossing silly names and personal shots toward those with whom we may disagree.
ok, home now so a couple of points.
Rusty, you say in #44 that private institutions be penalized by governments for their beliefs. So you don’t believe in the right of assembly
#109 “But with that discrimination comes consequences. Private buildings who don’t buy the message don’t have to host them.” Apparently you failed to recognize that governments aren’t private institutions.
#124, you advocate Tyrany
“The will of the people was worthless and activist judges had to step in.”
You rear your head again in #319 to show that again you feel Freedom of religion is optonal. “There are anti-discrimination laws that have hurt Catholic adoption agencies (laws that I support), but those have nothing to do with marriage.”
#379 you demonstrate the willingness of youe law firm to argue the case of a 2father wanting to marry his 16 year old son. “Good. If she refused to photograph an interracial couple, she would have been in hot water too. If you have a business, you can’t discriminate. That isn’t too hard to understand.”
#391 you’ve now decided that private businesses *can’t* discriminate, so either someone else hads your nick or you’re bipolar. In fact Morning Rusty would argue that the grocery store (private business) could fire the muslim women.
in reply to #403, let me use the words of another poster. If these laws are overturned “The will of the people was worthless and activist judges had to step in.”
Oh, wait, that’s you! So i’m to take it that the will of the people isn’t ‘crap’ when you agree with them.
No, I’m not saying he has to choose another specialty. Not at all. There are thousands of OBs that don’t perform abortions. Under Federal conscience laws, no physician is required to perform an abortion on a patient.
thank you
I have to step out for a bit so please don’t think I’m ducking a question/being rude if I don’t respond right away. I hope it doesn’t sound patronizing when I say that I’m impressed with how level headed everyone has been. A few exceptions, sure, but on a topic like this, where beliefs run pretty passionate and deep, I think it’s been a really great discussion.
I’m driving past a Dunkin’ Donuts on the way home. I’ll pick up coffee and Munchkins for everyone.
Selawstuent.
The problem with the arguement “But that’s illegal” is that until Vietnam, people under 21 voting was illegal.
until the 80’s drinking at 18 -wasn’t- illegal.
and until noon EST in California, same sex marriage was illegal.
If the Judicial process allows for the law of the people to be subverted by 4 men in robes on Gay Marriage, then wny not on incest, polyamoury, or age of consent?
As I recall there was a LOT of hand-wringing on this board a while back about some Muslim cab drivers that refused to carry passengers with alcohol.
All up in arms about how they should just do their damn job, even if alcohol was against their religion. Back then it was all about “battling sharia.”
Please, someone explain to me the difference between your indigance at a Muslim refusing service to a customer based on their religious beliefs and your defense of a Christian doing the same thing.
#455, until someone sues an objecting OBGYN for not performing an abortion when she wanted one.
I know I know… It would be as unlikely as suing a photographer for not taking your picture.
chap, Taxi permits are issued by the state. They agree not to decline servie as part of having that medalion.
in doing so, they’re in breach of contract.
Heh, I needed a good laugh. Thanks. I’m headed out too, but for a few days. Have a good weekend.
And, by opening a business, you voluntarily subject yourself to state anti-discrimination laws that apply to businesses.
So in doing so, they are breaking the law.
#459: I raised that same example to englishqueen. taking a page from her book, i suppose she’s illiterate since she has yet to address it.
Ahhh…so you did. Sorry, khan. Hadn’t seen that.
All proper attribution goes to you.
Yeah, and elsewhere in the New Testament, God issued the dictum “Thou shalt not kill”. A bit of inconsistency there, if they were indeed blessed for killing the sodomites.
All I know is that the Old Testament, like the rest of the Bible, was penned by man, revised by man, translated by man, re-translated by man, and re-revised by man.
Who knows how much of it is now as God originally intended? I sure don’t, and I certainly wouldn’t use it to agitate against people who haven’t done you any harm.
So, what is the record for most comments on a single post here?
“All I know is that in the Old Testament, when they wanted God to bless them, they killed all the sodomites.”
Yashmak, I’m not sure where you or the person you quoted got your info from, but my guess is that you folks aren’t “bible literate”. You’d need to cite chapter and verse there (literally).
But if you check I believe you’ll find that it was God Himself who took care of the Sodomites. Citation: Genesis, chapters 18 & 19.
THAT is the meanest thing you could ever say to us here.
Yeah, see, I was doing a little something called picking up my son after work.
Forgive me, oh wise one, for stepping away from the PC for something so trivial.
Please direct me to what you want me to respond to.
In a sane world, that twisted logic would read “OK, so gay activists can trump the First Amendment rights of churches?”
The First Amendment clearly states the government shall pass no law regarding an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
In other areas of law, fines are imposed against criminals as a deterrent to breaking the law. Threatening a church, or a Christian private business owner, with lawsuits and fines is the same thing. It is meant to discourage behavior, in direct contradiction to the First Amendment.
How many times have we been reassured that gay marriage is just about equal treatment and the rights of others would not be infringed?
Well, here, Rusty, khan, Mookie and a few others have clearly shot that argument out of the water.
As Livewire said, the state issues taxi licenses, so there is a difference. Also, it has been widely accepted for years that alcohol and seeing eye dogs are an acceptable part of American culture.
The same cannot be said for same sex marriage.
In the same vein, the Muslim clerk who wouldn’t touch bacon was not an independent, private business owner. The Christian photog was. Additionally, don’t you think it’s more important to be able to buy food as opposed to have pictures taken?
As I said above, I’m calling all of you who disagree with this ruling to flood Congress with calls for a law protecting churches, private business, groups and individuals from being harassed, sued, or arrested for adhering to religious beliefs.
Let’s get the ball rolling on a law before I’m tossed in jail for daring to be a practicing Catholic.
I can’t help but find it pathetic and hypocritical that some here are saying discrimination is bad, unless it’s directed at religious groups they disagree with - then it’s merely “defending civil rights”…geez.
Yashmak - more specifically:
Genesis 19
englishqueen01 -
Apparently some folks have never seen all those signs that read: “No shirt, no shoes - no servuce”.
Khan and Chap
Good points and I tend to agree, but I disagree with the anti-discrimination laws that would apply to a solo practitioner like a wedding photographer, and how those laws can violate their religious beliefs. I wouldn’t agree that a Burger King, or even a MonnPop establishment should be allowed turn away homosexuals. However, if I open my own solo business, be it photographer, or karaoke machine DJ, I don’t feel good about telling that individual who he or she has to provide services for, if it disagrees with their religion. I can’t imagine a forcing a photographer(sole practitioner) to take pictures of ANY type of wedding if it violates their religion. Also, imagine forcing a private christian/Muslem DJ to work an Scientology seminar, or gay Stonewall event.
I’m against organized religion altogether, but this is America. I believe in protecting ones right to practice their faith in this type of situation.
I know I’m drawing things very narrowly, but this scenario doesn’t sit right with me. I’m sure laws are never written this way, but I’m just bouncing my thoughts around. Lastly, why would a gay couple want a photographer who finds their actions repugnant, to work their wedding anyway. I wouldn’t expect very good, inspired images. Find another photog. Sorry about the long sentences. Out.
If there were a Baptist in the house s/he would probably respond with a self-deprecating “I’m not a part of organized religion - I’m a Baptist”.
Old joke - but I recycle.
There are some good ole’ jokes floating around.. Thanks again.
The state also issues certificates of incorporation or certificates of organization that allow one to legally operate a business as a separate entity, so really there is no difference.
If you want to run a business, you gotta follow the rules. Remember how all of you were so upset that Al Franken’s corp. hadn’t paid its franchise taxes? It broke the law and paid the price. Same as with the photographer who discriminated based upon the sexual orientation of her potential client. We all respect the rule of law here, right? At least that is what I always hear (actually, read) from you.
Mistress, I got no problem with one, such as you, that thinks such anti-discrimination laws should not apply at all in the certain situations you give. It is a close issue and I think that reasonable people can disagree. I’m not even sure where I would stand. All I want is a little intellectual consistency.
people weren’t complaining about the muslim cabbie because he was licensed by the state or municipality; people were complaining because an individual was forcing his religious beliefs on others or refusing service to customers because of his beliefs. that is where the comparison lies.
Change the name of America to Sodom, and be done with it!
For what it’s worth..
“In New Mexico, a government body - a court - ruled a photographer had to pay a lesbian couple $7,000 because she declined to shoot their ‘commitment ceremony’, on the basis of her religious beliefs.”
When I learned of this, I thought it was SO WRONG. A private business owner ought to have the right to refuse service to anyone. That’s freedom. I blogged about this.
#469: englishqueen, if only you hadn’t made numerous posts not long after mine. you were certainly near a computer then and weren’t picking up your child. look, you made the jab at me, i made it back. if you’re going to dish it out, be prepared to take it as well.
Almost right. It was because they were forcing their MUSLIM religious beliefs on others.
Trop, it is wrong: it wasn’t a court; it was a commission, and the complaint wasn’t against the photographer but against the business.
Our dad had a pretty goofy sense of humor and bequeathed me a good set of groaners to add to my collection.
“Thanks again?” - oh, refering to suggesting a commentor be a bit more adult earlier? If so, you’re most welcome, mistressjustice.
Some heat will be generated when good folks passionately disagree, that’s natural and we all fall prey to it; sometimes we have a lapse of our better judgment. I often have to remind myself I’m a guest in “Michelle’s house” and hope we can police ourselves & give one another a friendly nudge if needed.
(But the non-sensical, uncalled-for shots really shouldn’t have a place.)
Um, I made a post at 5:45 pm, I do not post again until 7:26 pm , after your post at 7:00 pm.
So please show me how I posted several times after your 7 pm post and please explain how you *know* I wasn’t away from a computer.
I’m more than willing to take it and dish it out. But if you want me to address something, please reiterate it because I missed it.
Speaking of dishing it out:
THE PHOTOGRAPHER IS THE BUSINESS. She wasn’t an employee, she is the owner and the photographer.
So it was against her and not the business.
But can you not be bothered by fact?
“I just want to highlight that compassion for gays is not inconsistent with a firm conviction of what marriage is.”
I agree with you.
But how does that explain why laws make it harder for me to be personally responsible for my family, like in my real-life situation regarding health insurance where I have to buy family AND solo coverage? What does that situation have to do with anything written in the Old Testament?
One of the most fundamental principles of our corporate law is that the corporation and the owners ARE NOT THE SAME. That is the entire point of limited liability which is the entire (or at least principle) point of corporations, LLCs, LLP, etc…
If you want to destroy this then you have basically completely rewritten corporate and commercial law.
I seriously doubt many business owners would be willing to give up their limited liability so as not to have to serve gay people.
Individuals can discriminate in their private life. Feel free to never speak to a gay person or let one enter your house. A business, which is a separate entity that derives its separate existence from the state does not have that right.
That is the fact. Be bothered by it if you will.
Yeah, that was a bit of a tease.
If it’s any consolation, I didn’t get any either. It’s free Iced Coffee day and the line at the drive-thru was way too long.
I was thinking about this on the way the way home and I think there’s truth in the idea that you can’t take away freedom from one to give it to the other. With that in mind, let me put this out there for the folks against gay marriage. What would you think if gay civil unions became national law, with benefits (tax, property, etc) identical to straight marriages with the provision that a church cannot be held legally responsible for refusing to marry a gay couple?
The federal government has no business holding churches “legally responsible” for engaging in homosexual celebrations or whatever else they may be called. The people of California will not have a vote to amend their constitution just as we did in SC to state that marriage is between one man and one woman.
#486 Mooke,
If such a thing were made law, by the legislative process, I’d not have a problem. Or to be more precise, I’d accept that it was the direction society wants to go.
Heh, I can’t help it if people I quote don’t know what they’re talking about.
I hate iced coffee, so no big loss. Besides, I’m eating the best cookie ever.
I would be open to the possibility, so long as the law made it clear no person, church, organization, or private business owner was held legally responsible for the same.
You CAN give rights to some and take them from others. While Canada doesn’t have our First Amendment verbatim, it has created laws that favor certain groups over others. That could happen here, too.
Penalizing or forcing private businesses, individuals, churches or organizations to condone something they morally and ideologically oppose violates the First Amendment.
That is also fact.
I’m not against civil unions for the states who want them, but I absolutely think that the federal government has no business imposing them on the people of states that do not support it.
The business issue is where it gets dicey for me. While I think letting everyone serve/not serve whoever they want would makes things a lot more honest, do you think our country is ready to go back to the days of “fill-in-the blank only” restaurants, stores and transportation?
But if you check I believe you’ll find that it was God Himself who took care of the Sodomites. Citation: Genesis, chapters 18 & 19.
ah well, these things happen….
Again, please explain to me how one is to determine a corporation’s, (an entity that exists solely by operation of state law; state law that, btw, also says one cannot discriminate against gays) morals or ideology?
Seems to me that an entity that exists by virtue of the state should embody the virtues of the state, i.e. its anti-discrimination laws.
EQ,
As an aside, I agree with the rest of your categories (individuals, churches, etc..)
I just have a real issue with ones that want all the goodies that come with limited liability entity and none of the consequences.
Do you really think that would happen? I don’t think so - especially big business like restaurants, stores, and transportation.
If a private business chooses not to serve a particular segment of society, that should be their choice. But we also have the choice not to patronize that business and let them fall or succeed on their choices. It is safe to assume a big business that’s interested in profits won’t discriminate because it would, well, put them out of business.
Photographing a same-sex commitment ceremony or performing a same-sex commitment ceremony is shows you are condoning or supporting it in some way. If that violates one’s religious beliefs, it shouldn’t be allowed. It violates the “free expression of religion” clause of the First Amendment.
Why is that so difficult for people to understand?
I like it strong and hot with lotsa milk/cream (the Swedish heritage, y’know).
But sometimes I crave a large sized “cold one” - 1/3 water, 1/3 milk, couple spoons of sugar and 1/3 strong coffee (think: interchangable with turpentine), with ice.
Picked up one of those super-sized cookies at the supermarket checkout today. That was the best cookie ever. Well, at least til the next best cookie ever.
It is you that apparently does not understand. Because you insist on equating a business with the owner, which is simply incorrect and flies in the face of traditional corporate law. BY LAW THEY ARE SEPARATE ENTITIES AND THE CORPORATION OWES ITS ENTIRE EXISTENCE TO STATE LAW.
I take it you do not object to tradition and the rule of law, do you?