Supreme Court rejects affirmative action at colleges as unconstitutional

[Ag3ma]

Or you can not even have government recognize marriage as a thing at all.

I'm not necessarily averse to that in general principle. Although the devil is in the detail: there's a lot of legal stuff tied up in marriage, and undoing marriage as a legal state in entirety would be a massive change to that landscape.

Then, if you don't like that Christians don't consider same-sex couples being able to marry, then you can make your own religion where same-sex couples can marry. The only reason marriage rights were even a thing was because of the government recognizing marriage and it being a equal opportunity issue.

Why on earth make a religion? If marriage has no legal meaning, then marriage becomes pretty much whatever any individual couple wants it to be under whatever conditions they feel like. They don't need to justify it with some sort of metaphysical nonsense (and they don't have to now, nonreligious weddings have existed for a long time).

FYI, "marriage rights" and government recognising marriage is basically the norm, as it's been embedded in Western culture since ancient times.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Ah, I'm still fine with the new ruling at least in spirit. I'm not sure the exact specifics of the marriage website case as I would consider making a website falls under it being a service like say plumbing unless it was over making custom graphics. Just putting pictures on the website to me is a service and not falling under art.

There are no exact specifics of the marriage website case because it was entirely fictional. There was no website asked for

You still haven't answered if you can stick to the principle that racism is bad because you're still not saying affirmative action is a racist policy.

Yeah, funny that

 

[Trunkage]

Is a marriage part of your genetics. (Setting aside that sexuality is not genetic in the first place, we don't even need to have that argument.)

Silvanus already replied with your clear misreading of what I meant but I got a TNG meme double facepalm out of reading this

 

[Trunkage]

Or you can not even have government recognize marriage as a thing at all. Then, if you don't like that Christians don't consider same-sex couples being able to marry, then you can make your own religion where same-sex couples can marry. The only reason marriage rights were even a thing was because of the government recognizing marriage and it being a equal opportunity issue.

Most Christians either don't care about same-sex marriage or endorse it

What you are doing is listening to the loudest voices, which usually are the wrongest voices, and pretending that's what Christians think

What you are talking about is Christain Fundamentalists, a small subset of Christianity. It would be like kowtowing to the Taliban, the Buddist Fundamentalists who are murdering Myanmar Muslims as we speak, or Israeli Fundamentalists. It's not representative of the religion and is usually a bad idea

 

[tstorm823]

Silvanus already replied with your clear misreading of what I meant but I got a TNG meme double facepalm out of reading this

I'm not misreading you, I understand we are not on the same page. You are having a different argument as though I've agreed to premises that I don't.

 

[Trunkage]

I'm not misreading you, I understand we are not on the same page. You are having a different argument as though I've agreed to premises that I don't.

I assume this talking about homosexuality and its being made up in your opinion

 

[Kwak]

I assume this talking about homosexuality and its being made up in your opinion

As in - "there's no such thing as genetic homosexuality, it's just a lack of morals and people choosing to be degenerate because of satan"?

How did this moral view get to be associated with christianity in the first place?
I doubt this jesus dude actually ever said anything against it.


(Not that I really give a shit either way, because choosing to act like robocop over something a bureaucracy claim was said thousand of years ago by someone claiming to be god is only for complete cowards and congenital idiots.)

 

[Thaluikhain]

As in - "there's no such thing as genetic homosexuality, it's just a lack of morals and people choosing to be degenerate because of satan"?

How did this moral view get to be associated with christianity in the first place?
I doubt this jesus dude actually ever said anything against it.


(Not that I really give a shit either way, because choosing to act like robocop over something a bureaucracy claim was said thousand of years ago by someone claiming to be god is only for complete cowards and congenital idiots.)

It's old testament, along with a lot of other stuff that has rightfully been dropped, because it's just as absurd, but doesn't just target minority groups. "You shall not wear clothing made of two kinds of material" for example.

 

[tstorm823]

I assume this talking about homosexuality and its being made up in your opinion

No, that marriage is equivalent no matter who does it.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

It's old testament, along with a lot of other stuff that has rightfully been dropped, because it's just as absurd, but doesn't just target minority groups. "You shall not wear clothing made of two kinds of material" for example.

Heck, it's one of the old rules that really only followed by the most orthodox of Jews, and I trust them way more than Christians when talking about the old books. Amongst others, some of the big rationales include "we know about so many animals that engage in homosexual activity that we can't say it's not part of the natural order" and "all of the old examples involved master/slave relationships and sex abuse, but those are already crimes amd shouldn't be applicable to a homosexual relationship among equals"

 

[Trunkage]

No, that marriage is equivalent no matter who does it.

I mean, that doesn't surprise

You are specifically why discrimination laws have to exist

 

[tstorm823]

I mean, that doesn't surprise

You are specifically why discrimination laws have to exist

The Supreme Court of the United States has now decided twice that discrimination laws do not apply here.

 

[Silvanus]

The Supreme Court of the United States has now decided twice that discrimination laws do not apply here.

Indeed, the Supreme Court justices will use whatever tenuous interpretation will serve their existing political prejudices.

 

[Trunkage]

The Supreme Court of the United States has now decided twice that discrimination laws do not apply here.

Yes, and in 30 years they will reverse it.

The US is a story of people taking away the rights of others and then the next generation comes to their senses and realizes that discrimination is actually bad

It happens over and over again.

Be happy that you can discriminate for the short time you can

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Right, so in the cases we're actually talking about-- wedding cakes and wedding websites-- you don't consider 'free speech' to be sufficient grounds to deny service to gay people?

I gave specific examples like the website where I wouldn't consider making a website and merely putting pictures on it as art but making custom graphics would be art.

I'm not necessarily averse to that in general principle. Although the devil is in the detail: there's a lot of legal stuff tied up in marriage, and undoing marriage as a legal state in entirety would be a massive change to that landscape.



Why on earth make a religion? If marriage has no legal meaning, then marriage becomes pretty much whatever any individual couple wants it to be under whatever conditions they feel like. They don't need to justify it with some sort of metaphysical nonsense (and they don't have to now, nonreligious weddings have existed for a long time).

FYI, "marriage rights" and government recognising marriage is basically the norm, as it's been embedded in Western culture since ancient times.

I'm just saying the only reason marriage was an issue is because it recognized by governments and gave married people benefits. If not, then it wouldn't have been an issue.

Yeah, funny that

So are you for or against racism? Pretty fucking simple question.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

So are you for or against racism? Pretty fucking simple question.

We don't have the same definition of racism

 

[Trunkage]

We don't have the same definition of racism

Seconded

 

[tstorm823]

Yes, and in 30 years they will reverse it.

They won't reverse it. Things do have cycles in some regard, but you misidentify what the cycles are. We have just passed a local apex of liberalism. Things get rolled back from here.

 

[Ag3ma]

They won't reverse it. Things do have cycles in some regard, but you misidentify what the cycles are. We have just passed a local apex of liberalism. Things get rolled back from here.

The argument could be made that Republicans have installed a conservative court deeply at odds with the prevailing views of the population. They're rolling things back despite being a demographic minority by rigging the electoral and judicial systems, and are at risk of becoming ever more out of step with their own population as their age-heavy voters die.

 

[Schadrach]

Indeed, the Supreme Court justices will use whatever tenuous interpretation will serve their existing political prejudices.

Yeah, next thing you know they'll say anti-discrimination in employment laws do not apply to people hired by religious organizations to perform religious functions. If you weren't aware, that one has been around since 1972 and just recently has been used to justify that firing a teacher at a religious school for being gay was legal.

1st Amendment beating anti-discrimination laws has a long history.

We don't have the same definition of racism

Well, of course not. One of you believes that treating people identically regardless of race is racism and the other believes that giving some people preferential treatment based on their race is racism, even if the race given preferential treatment isn't white.