Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 1, 2012 -> 04:04 PM) It's not over what someone said, it's over their actions and who they financially support. That is an important distinction. Actions separate and apart from their business operations and how they treat their customers. That is an important distinction as well.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 31, 2012 -> 12:11 PM) Even for a $300 difference by the time the wife and I both get a phone? Check amazon's wireless store. If you're willing to switch providers and sign a new two year deal you can get phones for a penny each. My wife and I switched from iphones (AT&T) to the Droid Razr (Verizon) about a week after it was released. Pretty awesome deal.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 31, 2012 -> 08:48 AM) Unless your name is Scalia This makes no sense.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 05:28 PM) So could I deny someone some rights for being Christian? It's their choice to not be Jewish or Muslim. No, religion is a protected class.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 05:02 PM) The only thing determining that is my gender. Sexuality is not on the form. If your argument made sense, then gays would be barred from marriage regardless of who they were going to marry. The restriction is entirely gender-based as two homosexuals can get married as long as they are opposite-gendered. The courts don't view it this way or there would have been an equal protection case long, long ago about gay marriage.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 04:54 PM) I'm not being denied a marriage license to another man because I'm gay, I'm being denied a marriage license because I'm a man. That is straight-up gender discrimination. The "everyone has an equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex" argument just doesn't fly. You being a man has nothing to do with the denial. You being gay does. That's the discriminatory characteristic there. Being a man is part of the requirement for getting a license in the first place.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 04:32 PM) My ability to marry a man is determined by my gender. How is that not gender-based discrimination? I guess i'd argue that the fact that your a man doesn't stop you from receiving the benefits of marriage. You can go marry a woman if you wanted them. What stops you is your sexuality, which isn't protected.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 04:18 PM) Where is the protected-class discrimination in a MPM restriction? The four of them are denied the ability to marry you because you are already married; this applies equally to every single person, thus there is not really discrimination. Did Mass have to re-write every statute regarding the rights of spouses when they legalized gay marriage? Well, there's not. But that's the point of this debate. There's also not a protected class discrimination for SSM either, but you want it. I'm relating your arguments to other situations. And i'm not sure what Mass laws are, but I know in illinois everything is written in husband/wife language. Some is "spouse" stuff, but you're still going to have to rewrite a LOT of laws already on the books.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 04:11 PM) Because it isn't a protected class. But you're not being denied those rights because you are a man or a woman, it's because you like a man or woman.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 04:00 PM) Why are you being such a dick about this? You'd have to make this change for hundreds if not thousands of bills. That would be very, very complicated, both in practice and politically. That's all I was saying. There would be the same issue with every law on the books right now talking about the rights of husbands and wives if SSM were adopted. I don't see your point here either, frankly. As to your other comment re gender discrimination, I don't see how it matters. The point is you're discriminating against a group and not providing equal benefits. If I wanted to marry 5 women, under the current laws 4 of them would be denied the same benefits you want for same sex couples. And all because of the way marriage has been defined.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 02:38 PM) question. the word "marriage" doesn't have an inherently religious meaning does it? it just means two individual entities being conjoined. so... when are the religious loonies gonna get over the fact that they don't OWN that word? Churches can recognize, or not, any marriage they want - but the government should allow ANY kind of marriage, and that couple - regardless of sex - should receive the benefits it comes with. Right? But oh they just have to keep b****ing about semantics. Marriage between people was a religious institution long before the gov't decided to grant benefits to married people. That's the crux of the religious argument. You can't force people to adhere to something (definition of marriage) that conflicts with their religious belief. But from an equality standpoint, the gov't shouldn't be denying people equal rights under the law. I'd still like to know where that leads us though - what about marrying family members or having multiple wives. At some point marriage has no independent meaning separate from religion, so you should be able to marry whomever you wish and how many you wish with the same equal benefits.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 12:06 PM) again... big difference between being fat (something you can control) and being gay (something you can't). It means kids think there's inherently something WRONG with being themselves. And that's so f***ed up. As for not being as bad as civil rights... maybe not... but ask a gay person their thoughts, and you might understand why it's still a very, very important issue. Treating ANYONE as less than equal is not ok. I think a lot of fat people would argue it's not really by choice. Genes and parents are a big factor there. The extreme 400 lb person? Sure, that's a choice. But the 20-25 lb overweight kid? Eh, that's not pure choice there.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 11:22 AM) Now imagine you were your wife's civil-unioned partner instead. You may not have even been let into the delivery room. ps congrats! Sure, and I agree it's a BS policy. But at least I have a better claim. I half made the kid! And thanks!

This whole issue opens up a new can of worms. What about marrying your sibling or cousin? What about having multiple wives/husbands? If government gets out of the marriage game completely, what's the limit? Because you know someone out there will test it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 11:13 AM) Even basic things in society wind up involving marriage. We're not just talking about tax returns or social security benefits, we're talking about things like hospital visitation rights, right to speak on the other's behalf, right to not testify against your spouse in court, and on and on. The idea that the government can just "Get out of the business of recognizing marriage" is foolhardy. You're not going to take away the right to avoid testifying against your spouse from everyone. The visitation/hospital issue is f***ed up to begin with. When my wife and I had our kid a few weeks ago I didn't even have the same rights as she did. The baby was considered hers in everything that we did there, so much so that when my wife wanted to walk around the halls, she was instructed to take the baby or the nurses had to take him to the nursery. I wasn't allowed to stay in the room with him by myself. I was able to watch him be born, I had a tag on my hand that said I was the father, but I couldn't be alone with my own son.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 10:54 AM) I think it was 29 states that it is still legal in to discriminate against someone for their sexual orientation. That's a violation of federal law. Do you mean discriminate in the marriage context?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 10:49 AM) Gay people want access to the same secular government institutions as straight people. They currently do not enjoy that access in most states, and as we all know, separate-but-equal doesn't work. People should never be satisfied with lesser rights than others. What don't they have right now? If they're considered to be a spouse what are they missing out on? Edit: you added the link. I guess I agree with ss2k5 - the government needs to get out of the marriage business and leave that up to private institutions (the marriage question). Of course you know when that happens they'll be a lawsuit because gay people would be refused the "right" to marry where they want to.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 10:05 AM) It's just semantics. Civil Unions are a way of pleasing the folks that are against gay marriage. This makes America look stupid. "Sooo, let's be clear. If a gay couple enters into a civil union, they will receive all the rights and privileges bestowed upon an opposite-sex marriage?" "Yes." "But, it's not marriage, right?" "No, it's a civil union." "Whew...and I thought it was a marriage." There's a difference for those folks (the majority in the country) that view marriage as a religious thing, not just a government benefits thing. That's the problem with this issue. Gay people want something that's against religious belief, instead of being satisfied with civil union benefits.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jul 29, 2012 -> 05:45 PM) Why does NBC tell you the results of events they haven't aired yet that night? Kind of defeats the purpose of putting things in prime time so people can watch. It's one thing if you go to the website or look elsewhere and find it, but to say it on the same network it's on later that night? This. Also, twitter has ruined most of the olympic stuff for me. 90% of my twitter feed is unrelated, but I have a few sports reporters covering the games. They tweet the results a half a day before I watch the replay on NBC.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 27, 2012 -> 06:07 PM) Where did I mention traffic? I dont even know what that reference is to. The quote who cares, I ask the follow up, what did you mean: "I meant that i couldnt support the permit because the community was so against his ignorance. Its not up to me, its up to the community, I am just the community's representative." It wouldnt be summary judgment, itd be a trial on the facts, thats years down the road at best. And CFA still would have to prove that but for his actions, they would have received a permit. Traffic congestion was his supposed real justification for denying the permit, a bulls*** excuse he created after people started talking about how unconstituional his actions were. And you can get him to try and explain it, but no competent jury or judge will buy it. The guy flat out stated he denied the permit based on the remarks made by Chick Fil A. His motives for doing so - be it for votes or to do something his constituents want - is irrelevant. That simply cannot be a basis for his decision and it was. Unconstituional. There's no issue of fact there. And who cares if it takes forever (I don't think it would, federal cases move very quickly)? This is a PR battle Chick Fil A is going to win in the long run. Constitutional rights of free speech and the problem with government deciding things based on violations of constitutional rights is more of a concern than what some corporate executive thinks about gay marriage.

"Because of this man's ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A's permit to open a restaurant in the 1st Ward." Yep, he really talks about traffic and the community in that crystal clear quote.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 27, 2012 -> 04:01 PM) Doesnt really matter, I could muck this case up so badly that it would be years before CFA would even come close to a zoning board. Chicago gives Alderman almost complete discretion in zoning, so all he has to do is say, "Well I thought the community would be against it and I dont approve zoning unless the community supports it." That no longer is an illegal reason, and its almost impossible to argue what he was actually thinking. He would get destroyed in his dep over his prior admissions. There's no backtrack to it.

But he specifically cited a religious belief as the basis for denying the permit. Not his communities preference of one chain over another. That's unconstitutional.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 27, 2012 -> 11:39 AM) Its problematic what the alderman did but Volokh doesnt have any understanding of the Chicago zoning/permit process. Alderman can deny a permit for basically any reason. If they really take it to court, the Alderman's defense will likely be "Oh I just meant that the community would never support such a business." It would be entirely legal and within the Alderman's power to do that. There are maybe 5 times that a permit has been granted against an Alderman's wishes. Any jury or judge will see right through the "oh well I REALLY denied it because of traffic congestion concerns" argument given his very clear statements this week.

I'll go with not caring. He scores more brownie points for backing the LBGT community than he does infringing on the constitutional rights of a conservative-minded business owner.