SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that states can not prevent same-sex couples from marrying and must recognize their marriages from other states. In the majority opinion by Justice Kennedy it is stated:
The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.
...and:
It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered.
Original Submission
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday June 26 2015, @11:06PM
I found frojack's comment somewhat confusing, but I think I agree with his overall sentiment after thinking it over. He may have been a bit over-the-top, but, logically, why else would a gay couple demand a homophobic business service their wedding?
Gender and sexuality in my view are fundamentally different than race issues. With race issues we see many seemingly intractable problems stemming from generational socioeconomic inequality. Think about “urban culture” (or whatever is up next on the euphemism treadmill). Jim Crow laws were part of a system designed methodically disenfranchise blacks.
If you're black, you can't get away from it. Homosexuality is on the inside. I'm not saying homosexuals should stay in the closet. I believe strongly that homosexuals should be able to talk about their love lives as openly as straights (not sure how to get around bisexual erasure, but openness should help). What I'm getting at, perhaps clumsily, is that homosexuals are born to rich, poor, and middle-class alike. For the most part, they come from stable families. Their parents send them to college. Their social network includes middle-class and upper-class people.
While I see the need for sexual orientation to be a protected class when it comes to employment, mostly to enable the openness I described, however I question the necessity to force businesses to service homosexuals. Medical services? Yes, we should force doctors and nurses to provide services to homosexuals. Don't become a doctor or nurse if you aren't prepared to face the medical reality that sexual orientation isn't a choice. Bakers, bed and breakfasts, churches? Not so much.
This is an area where I think we can legitimately have faith in the free market. Whatever the reason for the poor service my friends and I experienced at that wings place, they've guaranteed we'll never return.
Speaking of wings, I have greenhouse test #2 cooling in front of me. Will it go critical? The suspense!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @05:58PM
I don't know, maybe because there's no other choice within hundreds of miles? That whole "separate but equal" thing you want to support is still discrimination.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Monday June 29 2015, @12:27AM
If you have a solution for all of the petty bigotries of humanity, I'd like to hear it.
While I've never gone to a “club” per se, I'd like to ask about the fate of an unattractive girl. We see this depicted on television all the time. A hot chick with measurements I only can wish I had gets waved past the entire line and immediately granted entrance. Meanwhile, more average women are relegated to a slow-moving line to get admittance.
There are three candidate solutions as I see it. Firstly, we can create the office of the Hanicapper General, who shall see to it that anyone who is more intelligent be drugged or otherwise hampered; anyone who is prettier be forced to hide their animal beauty; and anyone who is stronger be forced to carry around weights to compensate. This is unacceptable. Secondly, we can use our technology to ensure that everyone born may (and must!) become a living god or goddess with flawless intelligence and statuesque animal beauty. This is intriguing, but I believe the Twilight Zone provided a compelling argument about how this destroys individual uniqueness (see also Nine, Loquitus, et al).
Thirdly, we can ignore our innate differences and pretend they just don't exist. I see two different interpretations of this proposal. The first is the SJW/gender/race lunatic's beliefs: that we should look the other way if somebody cannot perform their job functions. This is a less radical way to implement the Hanicapper General and thus unacceptable. The other alternative is to force businesses to provide services that they'd rather not.
I once read a story about a scrivner named Bartleby. Bartleby the Scrivner one day preferred not to scribe, so he lost his job. Then he preferred not to pay the landlord. So, they sent him to jail. Then he preferred not to eat. Then he preferred not to live, and he died.
So it must be with the free market as concerns homosexuals. Homosexuals are able to attain comparative economic power (even if that amounts to little these days) to their straight brothers and sisters, so that makes them fundamentally different from blacks. A business may prefer not to service them, but then they will go to a business that does. We're not talking life-or-death services, such as hospitals and emergency first responders. We're talking wedding cakes, which may be transported from a distance. We're talking hot wings. It therefore behooves all businesses to service homosexuals, lest another business gain a slight advantage and eat their lunch.
These are my views. If a business doesn't want my money, well, too bad! I've got plenty of it, and I'm glad to give it to businesses that want it.
Businesses that refuse to service me because I appear female but have male ID are really no different from the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival. On the one hand, it is insulting that such a superficial thing would be a reason to deny me service or admittance. On the other hand, who am I to tell folks with superstitious views of the world that they're wrong? Even here in flyover country, there is always somewhere else to go. I believe, as an ostensibly transgendered person (and I suppose technically homosexual), that the way forward is to show bigots that they're wrong, not by putting the gun of government regulation in their face, but by showing them that they're starving themselves.