Supreme Court rejects affirmative action at colleges as unconstitutional

[Silvanus]

So long as I don't want to bake cakes or build websites, or interact with society in any meaningful way, sure. I can practice my understanding, until I own a business and then I have to follow other people's definitions or you sue me.

You can bake cakes and build whatever websites you want. Literally nobody is stopping you.

The issue comes when you attempt to deny access to those services to others, based on personal characteristics. Yeah, when you get a business licence, you should have to agree to abide by certain practices of basic decency, and avoiding arbitrary discrimination is one of them.

No, I'm not. If you want to withhold services you don't want to provide, go ahead. If you're a printer who doesn't like circumcision, you don't have to print invitations for a briss. That's fine by me.

Ah, but that's a message related to the practice, so not analogous.

Analogous would be refusing a wedding website for a couple who're circumcised.

Because there isn't consequential difference between couples of different races. There are consequential physical differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

Those consequential differences only have meaning in your specific conception of marriage. They are inconsequential to mine.

Not long ago, bigots would be arguing that interracial marriages were "consequentially different"-- in their narrow, bigoted understanding of what constitutes a marriage. So what, then? Why should we respect their supposed right to deny service based on their understanding, if we don't share it? Should they be able to just carry on operating a business while refusing service on those clearly discriminatory grounds? And, when the answer is no-- why is your narrow conception of marriage, and your prejudices, worthy of greater and overriding consideration?

 

[Silvanus]

...as opposed to allowing anti-discrimination laws to compel speech, overriding the 1st Amendment.

When you operate a business, you agree to abide by additional practices. Practices which, if enforced in your personal life, would violate the constitution... but which clearly don't violate it when in the context of voluntarily running a business.

For instance, gov can't force you to work. But... if you take a job, you've taken on a responsibility to work, which is enforceable. Fail to do it and your contract could be terminated, perfectly legally.

 

[Eacaraxe]

I could enter a state of "blorgfarp" with my neighbor's cat, but it doesn't give me tax credits, allow me to file jointly, or put it on my fucking insurance. Unlike ch8rches, which get tax exemption by default despite constantly trying to enforce their morality on society at large.

 

[Absent]

When a tradition is all about universalism, exclusivity, control and magical absolute validity, a mere questioning, a mere alternative, a mere hint of tolerance "destroys" it.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

That's lovely, but marriage is the special Christian word.

Look at the absolute bullshit you make up to support your unsupportable arguments.

 

[Absent]

Look at the absolute bullshit you make up to support your unsupportable arguments.

Shut up there hasn't ever been a marriage in the history of mankind before or outside the christian world.

 

[Ag3ma]

Literally the "civil union" argument but with marriage as the "legal" word rather than the religious one.

No, there are key nuances involved.

Firstly, there is a key element that in some jurisdictions a civil union had different legal structure (and I don't just mean the gender of the participants) and did not confer the same status or rights, such as regarding inheritance. This involves elements of discrimination.

Secondly, it was to very explicitly exclude them from being considered "marriage". This is a sort of absurdity. Even if not formally a "marriage" under the specific laws of the jurisdiction, civil unions clearly meet the criteria of what marriage is in broad sense, again considering the wealth of global and historical tradition. If I can perhaps try to illustrate this by way of an analogy, "civil union" is like having a breed of dog that everyone was arbitrarily denied from calling a dog. It's a ridiculous contortion, to make out something isn't what it is.

And thirdly, this contortion was I think malign, even for some by intention. "Marriage" has a sort of assumed status in many people's minds. Even where the legal rights were identical, the inevitable result of denying the term was to have civil unions perceived as second rate, lesser, or not "real" marriage. I would contend this is gross injustice to the dedication many homosexual couples had to each other, and prejudicial.

There's simply no need for this prejudice and discrimination just to protect the feelings of the religious who think they've got some special ownership over a secular act and the word used for it.

 

[tstorm823]

I hate to break it to you but Latin predates Christianity, and Roman marriage was secular.

Secondly, marriage derives from the Latin "maritus", which is the word for "husband". "Matrimony" is the word you're looking for that stems from the same root as mother.

I hate to break it to you, but the people who created the English words from Latin were all Christians. And they created those english words in specific ways:

marriage | Etymology of marriage by etymonline

"action of entering into wedlock;" also "state or condition of being husband and wife,… See origin and meaning of marriage.

www.etymonline.com

Where among other things, it says see also:

marry | Etymology of marry by etymonline

"to give (offspring) in marriage," also intransitive, "to enter into the conjugal state,… See origin and meaning of marry.

www.etymonline.com

We've got references to young women, to dowry, and to creating offspring in the history of these words. The Latin maritare, which you chose to specifically use a male variation of, is not the Christian notion of marriage, it is secular. I feel like I covered this pretty well suggesting you could go ahead and resurrect pre-English versions if you'd like. The etymology of marriage (and marry, and matrimony) all have built into them the Christian conception of marriage from the Middle Ages. There is no secular English variation of the word, you're using a word that was formed in specifically Roman Catholic context.

Marriage is the general English word for an act which occurs in similar-ish form across thousands of cultures all over the world and throughout time, the majority of which are not Christian and forms of which (as above) predate Christianity

It sounds like you have a multitude of options to choose from for your alternative word.

Those consequential differences only have meaning in your specific conception of marriage. They are inconsequential to mine.

Incorrect. It does not matter what your conception of marriage is. The difference between gay relationships and straight relationships is literally the continuation of the entire human species. It does not matter how you choose to define the word, you cannot deny that reality, heterosexual relationships make more humans. So if someone says "I reserve marriage celebrations for those relationships which propagate the human species", you cannot call that an inconsequential difference. Human life is a very, very significant consequence. Marriage is highly connected to that process. You are deluding yourself if you think one cannot make that distinction without bigotry.

I could enter a state of "blorgfarp" with my neighbor's cat, but it doesn't give me tax credits, allow me to file jointly, or put it on my fucking insurance.

So get rid of those things. Go ahead. Secular marriage benefits were largely instituted by Protestants to take influence away from the Catholics. Public schools in America were similarly made mandatory to try to stop people from being so Catholic. It's absolutely true historically that these things were weapons in religious conflict, and the addition of gay marriage is just another chapter in that book. Go ahead, strike it all out. Redistribute the tax credits, file jointly with whomever you want, put anybody you live with on your insurance. Set the concept of marriage free of that baggage. Actual separation of church and state is better for the Church than it is for the state.

 

[Trunkage]

You're trying to turn this on me, but you're defending the idea that nobody can sell wedding cakes if they have a different understanding of marriage than you.

It is very much not their problem.

No one should be banned from having a different opinion on what a marriage is

You're using God to ban people which is against God's teaching. Stop disrespecting God

 

[Ag3ma]

I hate to break it to you, but the people who created the English words from Latin were all Christians. And they created those english words in specific ways:

They didn't create the word "marry" from Latin, it was a loan-word from Old French, eventually established in common use after the Norman invasion. Of course, they didn't really "create" it anyway. It's just a word that has to all intents and purposes consistently existed, but with gradual shifts in form and representation.

As part of understanding this is how words work, the word and variants were not developed with an assumption of specific Christian relevance, and indeed the term and its variants have also consistently represented non-Christian unions as well as Christian. As proof, I suggest no less than the Bible itself, English versions of which describe plenty of non-Christian unions as marriages. Although you could find plenty more other references to non-Christian "marriage" in medieval texts.

and resurrect pre-English versions

Purely as trivia, no-one would need to go pre-English, because the derivations of the Older English words before "marry" are also still in common use: wed / wedding / wedlock, etc.

Incorrect. It does not matter what your conception of marriage is. The difference between gay relationships and straight relationships is literally the continuation of the entire human species. It does not matter how you choose to define the word, you cannot deny that reality, heterosexual relationships make more humans. So if someone says "I reserve marriage celebrations for those relationships which propagate the human species", you cannot call that an inconsequential difference. Human life is a very, very significant consequence. Marriage is highly connected to that process. You are deluding yourself if you think one cannot make that distinction without bigotry.

So you would contend that heterosexual couples without children are not married, and that heterosexual couples that have children outside wedlock are actually married? No? Then your logic here is catastrophically flawed. Nor does this justify Christians deciding what marriage means, when an awful lot of people who have children aren't Christians.

 

[Thaluikhain]

If we are arguing about whether or not Christians get to decide what words mean, do we first have to fight a holy war over which Christians? Cause redefining marriage was a big deal in England a few hundred years ago, and to this day, it's not allowed for a Catholic to take the throne.

 

[Silvanus]

Incorrect. It does not matter what your conception of marriage is. The difference between gay relationships and straight relationships is literally the continuation of the entire human species. It does not matter how you choose to define the word, you cannot deny that reality, heterosexual relationships make more humans. So if someone says "I reserve marriage celebrations for those relationships which propagate the human species", you cannot call that an inconsequential difference.

Uh-huh, but neither I nor the law regard procreation as definitive or necessary for marriage, so this is completely irrelevant. So if someone says they regard marriage as solely for relationships which lead to biological procreation, they're adding an extraneous requirement of their own formulation, just like those bigots of yesteryear insisting that only procreation within a specific racial group "counts".

But yeah, if someone formulated it that way, you could say it wasn't discriminatory, because it delineates along that difference rather than the personal characteristics of the requesting couple. But... that's not how the requesters are actually delineating it. The requesters here have made no objection to straight weddings that don't lead to procreation. They solely have an issue when the requesters have certain characteristics they dislike.

You can't even make the appeal to tradition, since even Christian traditional marriages have been available for straight couples who don't procreate for centuries. Procreation is a smokescreen, an inconsistently-applied justification for indulging prejudices.

Human life is a very, very significant consequence. Marriage is highly connected to that process. You are deluding yourself if you think one cannot make that distinction without bigotry.

Marriage is completely unnecessary for that process, and exists separately from it. That you choose to connect the two doesn't obligate me to do so. And the law doesn't make it a necessary component either.

 

[Elijin]

Imagine being a Christian and crying about co-opting and eraser of religious culture. That's like the bread and butter of Christianity.

Oh right, it's only okay when you guys do it to others. Forgot.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Imagine being a Christian and crying about co-opting and eraser of religious culture. That's like the bread and butter of Christianity.

Oh right, it's only okay when you guys do it to others. Forgot.

Sheesh, you steal one pagan holiday and make it into the false birthday of your savior figure...

 

[tstorm823]

So you would contend that heterosexual couples without children are not married, and that heterosexual couples that have children outside wedlock are actually married? No? Then your logic here is catastrophically flawed. Nor does this justify Christians deciding what marriage means, when an awful lot of people who have children aren't Christians.

Marriages are consummated by the action of sexual intercourse. It is tradition that a marriage isn't real until that happens. It is the teachings of the religion I belong to that a married couple must at minimum be open to having children or their marriage is invalid, as that is what the vocation of marriage is. Marriage is to support children, current or future. Having children doesn't make you married, that's just a total non sequitur. That's like if I said that pans are for cooking, and your conclusion was that if you cook something it automatically meant you used a pan.

It's not a matter of justification, it's a statement of historical fact: Christians decided what the word marriage means. Now you want it to mean something different.

Imagine being a Christian and crying about co-opting and eraser of religious culture. That's like the bread and butter of Christianity.

Oh right, it's only okay when you guys do it to others. Forgot.

It's not a good look to admit to being the caricature you make of your enemies.

You can't even make the appeal to tradition, since even Christian traditional marriages have been available for straight couples who don't procreate for centuries. Procreation is a smokescreen, an inconsistently-applied justification for indulging prejudices.

The purpose of a thing is not a smokescreen. Tell me, why do you think marriage exists at all? What historical purpose, what evolutionary force do you think made this sort of institution appear throughout human history? You're taking an "it is what it is!" attitude, but you can't possibly believe marriage is just something the exists without a purpose.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I love how the argument is entirely moot based on the idea that the US isn't a theocracy, but even when granting tstorm that, his argument falls apart based on it's own merits

It's like Dylan Mulvaney suffering nationwide, prime-time harassment for daring to...make a single sponsored tiktok and conservatives are frothing at the mouth proclaiming that she deserves anything that happens to her.

Political correctness is the only reason conservatives are given the time of day instead of being treated like a rabid cult

 

[Elijin]

It's not a good look to admit to being the caricature you make of your enemies.

I don't believe a discriminatory or hateful view or action deserves protection due to it's status as religion.

But I will keep being amused when the religion responsible for crushing the most rival beliefs and practices, whinges about co-opting and erasure of religion.

 

[Gordon_4]

Marriages are consummated by the action of sexual intercourse. It is tradition that a marriage isn't real until that happens. It is the teachings of the religion I belong to that a married couple must at minimum be open to having children or their marriage is invalid, as that is what the vocation of marriage is. Marriage is to support children, current or future. Having children doesn't make you married, that's just a total non sequitur. That's like if I said that pans are for cooking, and your conclusion was that if you cook something it automatically meant you used a pan.

It's not a matter of justification, it's a statement of historical fact: Christians decided what the word marriage means. Now you want it to mean something different.

It's not a good look to admit to being the caricature you make of your enemies.

The purpose of a thing is not a smokescreen. Tell me, why do you think marriage exists at all? What historical purpose, what evolutionary force do you think made this sort of institution appear throughout human history? You're taking an "it is what it is!" attitude, but you can't possibly believe marriage is just something the exists without a purpose.

A lot of it was property rights, usually through the the father’s lineage. Some of it was also ensuring a continuation of power - see the Windsors for a modern example of that - through a single family line. Sometimes it was also a good way to offload an extraneous daughter (or rarely a son) to take the burden off one household and transfer it to another. Oh, also it was used to secure alliances among nobles or even nations.

Now whether you think the Christians own the word marriage (which incidentally, you don’t) is neither here nor there. Practical reality of the drift and spread of language means that marriage’s most basic meaning is that of a formal union between two separate entities.

Now if the Catholic Church wishes to say that for a marriage to be Catholic in nature it must follow certain stipulations then they may fill their boots. What they do not get to do is dictate to secular (on paper at least), representative governments whom else may engage in the non-Catholic version thereof.

 

[Trunkage]

Imagine being a Christian and crying about co-opting and eraser of religious culture. That's like the bread and butter of Christianity.

Oh right, it's only okay when you guys do it to others. Forgot.

Just to clarify this, the mechanism that the church used to co-opt marriage is the exact same mechanism that corporations or other institutions today co-opt 'woke' concepts. DeSantis is complaining about what the church does all the time

And, one day, the church will co-opt whatever woke is and pretend that they were always for it. Because that's how it always goes

 

[Absent]

decided

You're just insane.

Christians can "decide" a lot of things, it's the world's prerogative to answer "fuck you" and decide otherwise. Yeah Putin also decided that Ukraine is part of Russia. The irony is that you certainly embrace these worldviews because your ancestors were conquered, slaughtered and tortured enough to fall in line with them.

Anyway, it's fascinating how, for all their homophobia, christian fanatics rely on inversion. The guys who "decide" for the world and all transcendental ontology fancy themselves as "humble". Because it's their postulate. They are the servant of the Magical Bearded Emperor King of Everything who happens to have invented love and goodness, so they are all love and goodness. No matter how psychotic, heinous, destructive and murderous, it's their label. They "decided" that. Like cheap cartoon writers who need a very knowlwedgable and very wise character, and write it above their own abilities. Or draw a "sexy" character that is designated as such by the introductory saxophones. It's empty and conventional. But it's the appeal of it. You get to be awful on all levels, and be self-designated as benevolent and enlightened (all while proclaiming in a forum your disdain for ethics and logic, which certainly helps).

So you have this examplary megalomania, self-labelled as "humble". Just like you have the heinous destruction of LGBTIQ+ people, self-labelled as "loving". Just like all the colonial conquests, ethnocides, genocides and forced conversions carried out caringly, "to save their souls" and whatnot. Pure absolute evil under a smiley face (nailed to two planks), zero self-awareness, self-validation regularly recharged in collective intensification rituals. And ethnocentrism elevated to a virtue.

A lot of insane dictators and conquerors have "decided" a lot of things for the whole world and for reality itself. They're all the same joke. Christian fanatics are just the funniest for how they describe themselves.