Reply With Quote
Um, what about the "Miller Test"? Wouldn't that apply in that situation?
Lol crawfishing
Um, what about the "Miller Test"? Wouldn't that apply in that situation?
The Court refusing the hear a case is not them making a ruling against it. That's especially true given the turmoil in the Court right now. It sure doesn't mean that extended the Commerce Clause to this situation. In fact, it implies the opposite, as the SCOTUS is essentially saying that this is a state affair rather than a national one.
Just looking at the census data online and spit-balling, I'd guess it would be close to 40 percent in MS and close to 65 percent in Austin.
Could see that being a template for a similar test, but that doesn't get you past hog-killing parties, which have scientific and cultural value, and have nothing to do with sex.
Why don't you leave progressive agendas to progressives because what you state here is not accurate.
What morals? What is their specific objection? Be specific in your analogy.Are we talking about custom cakes or -shaped cakes here? Obviously, if this was a store that sells penis-shaped cakes on the regular, then it would be absurd of them to deny a frat's money. But if this was a custom cake shop and they denied the request because of their morals, then yeah, it's a murkier issue than you're making it out to be.
As was yours.Pointless statement.
Except that it's not because your analogy doesn't use analogous situations. WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THATSo you've demonstrated that you struggle to understand what an analogy is supposed to be used for. I'm not arguing that killing animals is the same as getting married to someone of the same sex. I am arguing that objecting to photographing the killing of animals due to moral reasons is analogous to objecting to photographing a same-sex ceremony for moral reasons.
Never said killing animals is "Way worse" but rather that KILLING a living thing can actually been seen as objectionable whereas watching gay people get married is only objectionable to phobes. I know you want to protect their right to be phobes, which is fine, but that right shouldn't extend to discriminating others. This is where we differ.Your argument against that so far has been pretty much, "Come on, killing animals is way worse." And that's silly. Hog killing parties are people killing animals for food. You can think it's gross all you want, but slaughtering livestock is a fundamental part of human life, and unless you're a perfect vegan, you owe much of your existence to people who are willing to do it. That you try to brand the act as somehow unfit for normal people is pretty prejudiced.
Dude, I've stated that I don't believe it's an opinion too many times in this thread for you to not have seen it.You've said it's not an opinion yet you continue to maintain that this is merely a case of people DISAGREEING with gay people on their right to marry each other. That language implies it is an opinion.
You say this but I get the feeling you're not totally understanding it.They aren't.
They are saying it with their actions! They're not literally saying that unless they're complete morons. But what other reason would someone have if they cite "religious beliefs" as the reason they are refusing service?They're saying that when solicited, maybe. You make it sound like these folks are disrupting ceremonies to say gays are going to . They aren't. You won't ever be able to govern thoughts out of people's heads, so if your issue is the beliefs they have, you're gonna be SOL.
Long battle? I doubt it. You'll have to come here in a year or two and explain why you were on the losing side of this battle.The issue is that hasn't been completely established. Certain laws and court cases have limited the ways in which people can be discriminated against, but there are still more. There's a reason why people like Rush and Robertson haven't been censored. And there's a reason why the government wouldn't be caught dead endorsing discrimination in their own ranks. Those are the two bookends on the continuum of how involved the government is in deterring discrimination. Issues like what happened in Oregon and what's going on in Missouri are the current frontier in the fight to see where on that continuum our society sits right now. Even over this specific point, it's going to be a long battle.
Do you not understand there are multiple minorities in this situation? There are gay people who are the minorities in the general populace. And there are the bigots, who are also the minority, as the majority of people in this country (us being included) don't agree with their beliefs. Both groups need to have their rights respected.No, they don't. Or did segregationists and people who refused to marry interracial couples deserve to have their "rights" respected too?
It's not.You're only looking at this from the perspective of the group you support, but it's more complicated that than.
It's not a dissenting OPINION. When these people refuse services they go from opinion to action. Again, how do you not see this?Even when it sucks, the country has to stick to it's principles. The same thing is true when guilty people go free because our court system requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You can't go around squashing dissenting opinions. It will turn out badly for everyone in the end.
I don't know you. I'm going by what you say, which shows a severe lack of empathy.It seems like you're one of those people who tries to tell minorities how they feel and just ignore their opinions. You know nothing about me, so you don't know what type of discrimination I've had to deal with. The argument that the only way I can disagree with you is if I am callous to gay people is silly. If you only put yourself in one person's shoes, you'll end up making extremely biased decisions. That's why you don't see deontological systems based on such reasoning.
What's the scientific value? And I don't know of specific laws or regulations, but if it ever went to a higher court there is 0 chance someone would be forced to watch anything labeled a "killing party". Your analogies continue to suck.
If it's already implemented, then it's not new. If it's already established, it's not reform.2.(of a group, person, or idea) favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.
I was pretty specific. "Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose." Seems like a moral stance to me. Obviously the religion part is a moral stance. It simply doesn't matter that you don't support the latter side.What morals? What is their specific objection? Be specific in your analogy.
You say this like it's an objective difference, but it's not.Never said killing animals is "Way worse" but rather that KILLING a living thing can actually been seen as objectionable whereas watching gay people get married is only objectionable to phobes.
Um, yes, marriage equality is an issue with two sides. There has been and will be disagreement. The question of choice has nothing to do with it.
That's not good enough. You don't get to run up on someone say, "Accept me!" and then be offended when they decline.They are saying it with their actions!
The Court choosing to table this issue this year means it could well be a long battle yet.Long battle? I doubt it. You'll have to come here in a year or two and explain why you were on the losing side of this battle.
YES! MFing yes!. That's what it means to have freedom of opinion in this country. They are people who pay taxes and follow this country's laws. They absolutely deserve to have their rights respected when they represent themselves. Do they have the same rights when the represent the government? No. That's why the woman who refused to issue the marriage license was wrong.
Speaking is an action too. But in places that aren't Oregon, NM and Colorado where you aren't legally obligated to serve everyone, refusing to do so is just exercising your rights.It's not a dissenting OPINION. When these people refuse services they go from opinion to action. Again, how do you not see this?
I have a tolerance for people who disagree with me, and I know that you can't make a moral system by only looking at one side. Too often people pull that "what if it were you?" card, and you will end up making bad decisions if you get trapped into relying on that logic.I don't know you. I'm going by what you say, which shows a severe lack of empathy.
People need food to eat. Maybe scientific means only educational, but I think fulfilling a biological necessity should fit. Its lack of a sexual nature still means it fails the Miller test, though. So you have to come up with a better justification for your reasoning besides "everyone knows I'm right".
There may be.
The Miller Test relates to what can be determined obscene and protected by the First Amendment, so I'm not sure how it relates to a person's right to abstain from exposure to obscenity at a private event, if at all. But say it's a striptease, if that works better. Very PG-13.
I think you guys are getting too hung up on the hypothetical.
Damn, then there might be some people going to jail on felony charges.
As it is, in a public place, it would be indecent exposure. Not legal.
No, if you're going with the stripping hypothetical, go all out, rated xxx
It's a private reception. Parents can choose to bring their kids to a private event regardless of the content, in most cases.
Last edited by Spurminator; 03-14-2016 at 02:39 PM.
Roffffffllllll 65% in Austin
Lol no, you can't expose your kids to strippers under any cir stance. Good lord.
Guess you'll have to tell all the parents who bring their kids to Burning Man and that Juggalos party in the woods, among other things. Anyway, back to the photographer, who is not a child...
do you realize that you are basically dabom? only difference is he just says "lmao" at the end instead of the beginning and includes emoticons
I guess if I find someone else that tracks lol and emoticons stats, I'll call them a spurraider.
Lol
Doesn't matter, it's indecent exposure. I'm guessing if there's nudity at Burning Man, it's art.
I suppose the same that happens to religious freedom when a christian turns into an atheist???
If you want to call people walking around naked and having sex in the woods, art, I have no issue with that. Indecent exposure is only an issue when the parents of the exposed are not present or were unaware.
But like I said, back to the photographer who is an adult and doesn't want to photograph a wedding with legal nudity...
I don't know enough about Burning Man.
Back to the photographer......you can't force someone to take pictures of indecent exposure. Strip clubs are legal, stripping in public is not.
Hiring strippers for a private event is legal. Nobody said he was taking pictures of the strippers, just that strippers would be there and he is uncomfortable with that.
Det Christian gene tho
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions