(July 14, 2015 at 10:25 am)Justtristo Wrote:

(July 2, 2015 at 10:45 am)Justtristo Wrote: Because it goes a long way to convince the “rubes” …

… the rubes need to convinced this behavior is not morally acceptable.

Name calling opposition. Got it.

I will take back the calling of those people who believe if the government makes something legal, then it is no longer immoral as "rubes". However these sort of people do exist alas.
[/quote]


HAhahaha,
Yes, I and I would agree with you fully.

Interestingly this country says separation of church and state but those two institutions are more entwined into one another in this country it is amazing!!. A non-American see's this country as very religious, for no other country has a church one almost every street.

What is also very viable is how the law is used as a way of salvation.(i.e. Salvation through the law) Here the mind set is if legal then moral right and if illegal then it is bad or morally wrong.
To non- Americans the law simply means that x is legal or illegal, if you are a good or bad person is entirely a different issue.

The use of the statements was to show robvalue: who had posted that there was a lot of bigoted writing being done; which is to say that they is a lot of anti-gay writing. To show his/her statement a blind and bias assessment because he/she sure was not talking about another other form of hate speech but anti-gay speech. I was basically saying in my post with the use of others statements, AH Hey, look who is calling the kettle black

Because those on the pro gay side are also writing bigoted things as well, so acknowledge that shit to. Hate speech was being used on both sides not just one. So come on down that b.s. cross. no one is trying to crucify any one here. Relax.

Personal I say, say what you want to say. All should know that debates can and do make people angry and in anger things are said. Shit happens!

But, in speaking your mind do not become all pious and claim the other is being rude when you (you universal, not you as in you Justtristo but you as in all) were also.

So please speak, I wont tell. I no one.

Ace;

You asked a lot in a single post so let me see if I can answer to the best of my knowledge. Grant me a slight re-categorization of your questions as pertaining to:
1. Contract for Service:
2. Contract for Goods:
3. Enumerated Vs. Substantive Right:
4. Enumerated Vs. Enumerated Right:
5. Small vs Big Business:
6. Protected Class:

1. Contract for Service: Your first question about the cake shop is in regards to contracts for services and is asked in two parts. In response to the first (under common law); a party may not be compelled to enter into a contract if there is a readily available substitute for the goods or services in question. This hold so long as the goods or service is not of such unique character that it cannot be performed by another party. Under this same argument a cake baker may enter into a contract to bake a cake and thereby assign the benefits of the baking (the pay) and the duty to bake to another baker. In general all contracts are presumed assignable and delegatable unless expressly prohibited in the contract or the goods or service to be provide is of such unique quality as to not be performed by any party but the original contractor. The same applies for the sale of goods under the UCC.

2. Contract for Goods: The second part of your question is framed in terms of a contract for goods rather than services. As such it may be said the terms of a contract for goods under the UCC do not need to be explicitly expressed as those terms will be supplied by those in accordance with the standard of the industry. With that said a party may not be compelled to enter into a contract for goods or services requiring them to perform acts which are not in keeping with the general course of business dealing if the party does not wish to enter the contract volitionally. Also, existing contracts are to be fulfilled in accordance with the general business practice exercised by the contracting parties as historically established unless expressly specified otherwise. So in this regard you would be correct that a party does not need to engage in business practices it does not normally engage in, unless it has agreed to do so from the start.

3. Enumerated Vs. Substantive: In regards to your 1st amendment question we are splitting it into two parts. Under constitutional law conflict between an enumerated right (expressly stated right) such as the freedoms stated in the 1st amen will override substantive (implied rights) derived from other amendments in the constitution. This is as a general rule and is not to say efforts are not made to accommodate both rights. But if one must stand the precedence is to hold the enumerated overrides the substantive.

4. Enumerated Vs. Enumerated: In regards to an enumerated right being pitted against an enumerated right. The Supreme Court has ruled and precedence on the matter has held the first 10 amendments (Bill of rights) override the remaining amendments should there be an unresolvable conflict among them. In regards to conflicts between the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights (meaning the first 10) both the Court and Legal precedence has held in general the rights are enumerated in order of priority where 1 is the highest priority and 10 is the lowest. Thus (without stating any specifics of the cases) the 1st amendment would override the 2-10 should there be a conflict which cannot be reconciled.

5. Small Vs. Big Business: This question required me to look up somethings. The courts are very mixed on the subject. The main distinction is in regards to the extent of the market the business avails itself or intends to avail itself of. A business which is intended to be local and to only engage in close proximity to a single or regionally proximate location is not treated as a large business which intends to transact across a broad spectrum of regions and clientele. The precedence of the majority is that a small local business need only conform to local laws and customs of doing business and may refuse service in accordance with those laws and customs. A large business on the other hand intending to engage in business across many regions must abide by the local laws and customs of a given business region and must adhere to the privileges and immunities of the Privileges and Immunities Clause (Art. 4 Sec. 2)

6. Protected Class: Finally in regards to your question of a protected class. To be defined as a protected class the:

"Courts consider four rough factors in deciding whether to treat a legislative classification as suspect and presumptively unconstitutional: whether the group has been historically victimized by governmental discrimination; whether it has a defining characteristic that legitimately bears on the classification; whether it exhibits unchanging characteristics that define it as a discrete group; and whether it is politically powerless" (Deboer V. Snyder; http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf...75p-06.pdf)

In this regard it was ruled by the 6th Circuit court of appeals that persons of same sex orientations at best only satisfy the governmental discrimination factor. The class does not have a defining characteristic, unchanging characteristic defining them a discrete group, and they are not politically powerless.

(July 14, 2015 at 10:25 am)Justtristo Wrote: I will take back the calling of those people who believe if the government makes something legal, then it is no longer immoral as "rubes". However these sort of people do exist alas.

Indeed they do. You are correct that they fail to distinguish morality from ethics. It is a reasonable mistake as the primary difference between the two upon manifestation is a virtual vs. and actual victim and arbiter.

R

(July 14, 2015 at 12:09 pm)Anima Wrote: Ace;

You asked a lot in a single post so let me see if I can answer to the best of my knowledge.  Grant me a slight re-categorization of your questions as pertaining to:
1.  Contract for Service:
2.  Contract for Goods:
3.  Enumerated Vs. Substantive Right:
4.  Enumerated Vs. Enumerated Right:
5.  Small vs Big Business:
6.  Protected Class:

1.  Contract for Service:  Your first question about the cake shop is in regards to contracts for services and is asked in two parts.  In response to the first (under common law); a party may not be compelled to enter into a contract if there is a readily available substitute for the goods or services in question.  This hold so long as the goods or service is not of such unique character that it cannot be performed by another party.  Under this same argument a cake baker may enter into a contract to bake a cake and thereby assign the benefits of the baking (the pay) and the duty to bake to another baker.  In general all contracts are presumed assignable and delegatable unless expressly prohibited in the contract or the goods or service to be provide is of such unique quality as to not be performed by any party but the original contractor.  The same applies for the sale of goods under the UCC.

2.  Contract for Goods:  The second part of your question is framed in terms of a contract for goods rather than services.  As such it may be said the terms of a contract for goods under the UCC do not need to be explicitly expressed as those terms will be supplied by those in accordance with the standard of the industry.  With that said a party may not be compelled to enter into a contract for goods or services requiring them to perform acts which are not in keeping with the general course of business dealing if the party does not wish to enter the contract volitionally.  Also, existing contracts are to be fulfilled in accordance with the general business practice exercised by the contracting parties as historically established unless expressly specified otherwise.  So in this regard you would be correct that a party does not need to engage in business practices it does not normally engage in, unless it has agreed to do so from the start.

3.  Enumerated Vs. Substantive:  In regards to your 1st amendment question we are splitting it into two parts.  Under constitutional law conflict between an enumerated right (expressly stated right) such as the freedoms stated in the 1st amen will override substantive (implied rights) derived from other amendments in the constitution.  This is as a general rule and is not to say efforts are not made to accommodate both rights.  But if one must stand the precedence is to hold the enumerated overrides the substantive.

4.  Enumerated Vs. Enumerated:  In regards to an enumerated right being pitted against an enumerated right.  The Supreme Court has ruled and precedence on the matter has held the first 10 amendments (Bill of rights) override the remaining amendments should there be an unresolvable conflict among them.  In regards to conflicts between the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights (meaning the first 10) both the Court and Legal precedence has held in general the rights are enumerated in order of priority where 1 is the highest priority and 10 is the lowest.  Thus (without stating any specifics of the cases) the 1st amendment would override the 2-10 should there be a conflict which cannot be reconciled.

5.  Small Vs. Big Business:  This question required me to look up somethings.  The courts are very mixed on the subject.  The main distinction is in regards to the extent of the market the business avails itself or intends to avail itself of.  A business which is intended to be local and to only engage in close proximity to a single or regionally proximate location is not treated as a large business which intends to transact across a broad spectrum of regions and clientele.  The precedence of the majority is that a small local business need only conform to local laws and customs of doing business and may refuse service in accordance with those laws and customs.  A large business on the other hand intending to engage in business across many regions must abide by the local laws and customs of a given business region and must adhere to the privileges and immunities of the Privileges and Immunities Clause (Art. 4 Sec. 2)

6.  Protected Class:  Finally in regards to your question of a protected class.  To be defined as a protected class the:

"Courts consider four rough factors in deciding whether to treat a legislative classification as suspect and presumptively unconstitutional: whether the group has been historically victimized by governmental discrimination; whether it has a defining characteristic that legitimately bears on the classification; whether it exhibits  unchanging characteristics that define it as a discrete group; and whether it is politically powerless" (Deboer V. Snyder; http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf...75p-06.pdf)

In this regard it was ruled by the 6th Circuit court of appeals that persons of same sex orientations at best only satisfy the governmental discrimination factor.  The class does not have a defining characteristic, unchanging characteristic defining them a discrete group, and they are not politically powerless.

On the issue of government discrimination. What is considered discrimination? If something is illegal and changes then those who were affected by the law are a protected group? For example drug users who were arrested, now are they a protected class? If so anyone who is a criminal can argue that the government has persiquted them can fight for protected class. Murders, robbers, car boosters? I.e what is government persiqution/discrimination

Hey is there a national blackout of power or something?

(July 15, 2015 at 10:33 am)Ace Wrote: Hey is there a national blackout of power or something?

Ha ha. It would seem no one wants to play anymore. Which is disappointing. I had hoped at least one person would have an argument in support which was not based upon fallacies

It would appear I am not the only one who adopts ostracism for those who cannot be cured or integrated

(July 14, 2015 at 9:10 pm)Ace Wrote: On the issue of government discrimination. What is considered discrimination? If something is illegal and changes then those who were affected by the law are a protected group? For example drug users who were arrested, now are they a protected class? If so anyone who is a criminal can argue that the government has persiquted them can fight for protected class. Murders, robbers, car boosters? I.e what is government persiqution/discrimination

Ace;

Regarding your questions:
1. Government discrimination may be consider any varying treatment of persons. With that said it is mistaken to believe the government cannot and does not discriminate. The government can and does so commonly and necessarily. Under the 10th Amendment and legal precedence the States have sovereignty over their citizenry, resources, and local policy. The only times the federal government may get involved is in regards to interstate or international commerce, suit, defense, or national unity. Otherwise the State may commonly discriminate according to rational basis scrutiny which defers to the judgment of the legislature. (Though this most certainly will be challenged given the recent Obergefell v. Hodges ruling arguing a federal right to dignity).

2. Grandfathering of persons in accordance with rule changes is common and applicable only if the act is complete prior to the rule change (so you cannot go back and sue for mistreatment as a slave when slavery was legal) it is unjusticiable to the parties involved to change the circumstances according to the revised law (so if you purchased something legally which is now illegal to purchase you are allowed to keep it because the seller cannot buy it back and it would be an injustice for you to be deprived of that property you acquired legally).

3. Protected class: It is funny you should bring up various criminal groups in regards to a protected class. I did the same when I was in law school because the 4 step criterion certainly seems applicable to murders, rapists, addicts, pedos, etcetera. The general answer I got were; first, no one is fighting to protect these classes or willing to hear their request to be a protected class. So they will not become one. Second, these groups of people do not fit the criterion of an unchanging characteristic making the group determinable (I had a very hard time with this answer as it could be argued the suffer from mental deficiency not unlike a mental disability). Third, even if designated a protected class these groups would be subject to strict scrutiny by which the State's compelling interest would override their rights as a class to permit discrimination of them. (Note: A federal right to dignity was not discussed at the time as it was held the law does not confer dignity. However, it may now be possible to say any law singling out a group for given activity is being persecuted and is violation of their substantive right to dignity).

4. Government persecution is something I am not sure of. As is well known during the Nuremberg trials the subject of a States sovereignty over its citizens become tantamount in discussions of government persecution. The law general holds the Nation/State has final sovereignty over the citizens and may pass laws in regards to how to facilitate/curtail/deal with those citizens. Those acting according to the Nation/State laws in the regard of facilitating/curtailing/dealing with the citizenry may not be said to be in violation of the law. To overcome this difficulty the subject of war crimes and human rights were created to represent rights of Persons that are to be recognized by Nations/States and may not be violated. Even so the subject of war crimes and human rights are tenuous as the Nations/States argue the sovereignty of any given Nation/State means it is not subject to the determination of conduct of another Nation/State. To say otherwise is to say it is not a sovereign Nation/State.

OH MY GOD , Anima. . .

WE ARE BEING BULLYED  

What is this, I thought the gay community and its supporter's was against such action. HAHAHA. Ok, sounds a little  hypocritical ; you cant bully if you do it to them but it is ok if they do it to you. Hmmmm?  

It is making me wonder about something that a fellow member had posted. They basically said that they have marred everyone on this form. So does this mean that they knows everyone on this site? And if so if they are in disagreement with someone they can get others to stop posting? Which if you remember Anima, that seem to have occur to you a little before the Supreme Court ruling.  

WOW HAHAHAHA so this is like a cult site HAHAHAHAHA. An Atheist Cult!!!  

They really need to read the by laws of this form which basically say's not to do such things as ignoring or ousting fellow member. (Number 1 & 8)


 

Oh Well, that's life . . . .

 

Ok, based on the laws that you had provided which position should this be looked at, a religious one or one of plan discrimination? Keeping in mind that in 1990's Massachusetts had legalized same sex and civil unions, promise or commitment ceremonies were occurring in other states.  So since the late 1990's till, lets say 2013 any news in regard cake disputes seem to have never been an issue until now.

This has made some think that they are personally being targeted by homosexual organizations to deliberately have them change their policies or put them completely out of business because of their "un-wanting to participate in any way to their marriages.". They organizations are saying not true.

However, why is it only recently that this had become an issue? Given the various types of ceremonies throughout and marriages in Massachusetts were being conducted  prior to the State court ruling and the Supreme Court ruling, with what seems to be not an issue.

It is a little out of the ordinary that the shops that are refusing their services  just happen to be some fundamental type of Christian group. I have look and have not found any issue with other religions or any other non-religious bakeries. Only the Christian one's

It should also be noted that the backing shops in question have no history of any prior discrimination to any minorities. ( Black, Women, Jews, disabled)

Is there any legal action that the shops can take if they can prove that they are definitely being targeted because of their religious objection's?

(July 13, 2015 at 10:39 am)Anima Wrote: 1.  Are we not all in this very same business?  We recognize that those of close familial relation are of greater importance/value to us than strangers.  But why?  Procreation is an antiquated argument that does not matter (or so I hear).  The strangers are not hurting us where as our immediate family often does.  But we readily establish the stranger as lower in value of person to us than our immediate family based on our own emotional attachment; our familiarity with family vs strangers?  As I said earlier my sister is a lesbian; I have a close personal relationship with her, but I will not determine my views on law, biology, society, and teleology based on my sentiment of my sister.

Which is a completely irrelevant point, because I don't then conclude that therefore strangers should have less rights than my immediate family. I don't look down on strangers because they have no personal attachment to me, nor do I go looking for reasons why they're lesser than I am. You just got through agreeing that gays are somehow worse than straight people, the difference between that and how you'd view a stranger is stark.

Quote:2.  Now in regards to your particular question the answer is yes.  I have many family members who suffer from physical (blind cousin, cousin with cerebral palsy) and mental disabilities (cousin with dyslexia, cousin with downs, cousin with epilepsy).  I even have close persons to me who have acquired mental disorders due to traumatic events (cousin and fiancee with post-traumatic stress disorder), as well as family members who have become homeless addicts.

And are any of these people in the receiving end of the "you are worse than me," conclusion that you've just agreed to regarding homosexuals? Are you arguing that they should be offered less rights than you or I get?

Quote:With that said I would not equate them (any more than I would a homo person) to persons who do not have these various disorders or deficiencies; such would readily be a false equivalency which does not recognize the apparent superiority and inferiority of the conditions.  Furthermore I would most certainly not construct the law or social policy to promote or propagate these disabilities, disorders, or habits particularly if they are genetic defects which impede biological or sociological teleology.

Which is, again, a completely irrelevant point since equal rights merely confers parity. If you see no possible way to accept that a given condition is not preferable (in this instance I'm entertaining your claim that being gay is worse than otherwise) but that the person is still a human being deserving of equal rights, then you have a serious problem there. Do you have a ranking system, for what threshold of disability corresponds with which level of arbitrarily stripped rights?

Because to be clear, the argument you're making right now makes your conclusion completely arbitrary; there is no connection between "being gay is disorderly," and "therefore you can't get married," any more than there's a connection between "cerebral palsy is a bad condition," and "therefore you don't have a right to a fair trial." If this is really what you're going with you cannot reach the conclusion that equal rights are excluded somehow, because that conclusion is a total non-sequitur.

Gay marriage doesn't "propagate" homosexuality; gay people existed long before gay marriage did, not having gay marriage did nothing at all to quell the spread and social acceptance of them, they're born of straight parents a lot of the time... you just have no argument here, and it took you two paragraphs to get there.

Quote:Now I imagine the crux of your question is what I would do for those who are present.  As I said earlier I am not saying round them up and execute them on the spot.  However, I recognize they are an unnecessary burden upon society which any given society must deal with.  Some societies may choose to deal with it by means of execution (it is a reasonable solution);

Wow.

My wife is physically disabled, you horrible person.

Quote: other societies may ostracize them (you know like we do with our elderly in old folks homes or our disabled in special care facilities); still other societies may endeavor to cure them (through medical or psychological treatment); a few societies endeavor to integrate them (to some degree.  None do so fully in recognition of their inherent inability or inferiority).

Still not getting why you think that lesser physical or mental capabilities should lead to unequal rights.

Quote:No matter what manner of treatment they receive from the given society two things may be said.  First they would be seriously mistaken in commanding a specific treatment from society unless they may give argument for why they deserve such treatment (which I have yet to hear) as execution of them is a viable social solution (unless they are essential to society).

So do you just have no empathy at all, or what? What is actually wrong with you?

Quote:3.  With all of that said may I take it your lack of argument in their favor is that there is no argument in their favor?

No, see, I made the mistake of thinking that I was talking to a real human being and not, y'know, a cartoon evil robot. I figured it would be fairly trivial to point out the hypocrisy of your position, but it turns out your position is consistent, and as a consequence infinitely more vile than I could reasonably have imagined at the time. Subsequently, I see no point in even offering an argument to someone so grotesquely warped as you; the chances of you having anywhere near the same values as me are so low that I might as well take up the conversation with an emotionless insect. Maybe that species of wasp who lays its eggs in a tarantula. Seems less vicious than you.

So now Anima has been reduced to illogical arguments against gay marriage even though gay marriage has been deemed legal.

Yeah, makes perfect sense.