To be fair, fixed. About 20 states have done so.

 

Not talking about states, talking about federal law.

 

(edit)

 

I assumed that was implied as every state has different laws.

Edited July 30, 201213 yr by Soxbadger

Jenks is making the classic winning argument against SSM.

 

Every man can marry a woman, and every woman can marry a man. That is equality. Which is why (imo) to actually win the entire debate, you must argue that in and of itself marriage has become a right or sexual orientation is a right, and therefore the govt denying it to consenting adults, is a deprivation of rights.

 

Gender discrimination usually refers to a man or woman being treated different due to their gender. In this case, neither men nor women are being treated differently.

 

That's not a winning argument. Men and women are treated differently when they apply for a marriage license. Being a man, I have the right to marry a woman but not a man while women have the right to marry a man. I do not have the same right to marry a man that women do because of my gender. You do not have to make marriage itself a right to demonstrate that the government is denying it to two consenting adults based solely on gender.

Ilya Somin fleshes out the legal argument in much more detail here:

 

http://www.volokh.com/2012/02/07/same-sex-...discrimination/

http://www.volokh.com/2012/02/10/sex-discr...-and-tradition/

They butt right up against the lines of discrimination and have been sued about a dozen times for it.

 

"God never spoke to me"

 

I believe this

 

"Chick Fil A was His gift to the world"

 

I also believe this

That's not a winning argument. Men and women are treated differently when they apply for a marriage license. Being a man, I have the right to marry a woman but not a man while women have the right to marry a man. I do not have the same right to marry a man that women do because of my gender. You do not have to make marriage itself a right to demonstrate that the government is denying it to two consenting adults based solely on gender.

 

There really is no reason to keep arguing this.

 

Men and women are treated equally. Men can get married, women can get married. Its as simple as that. I dont agree at all with the current interpretation, but Im not going to live in make believe land where some how this argument that has lost innumerable times is going to all of a sudden be a winner.

 

Lets look at classic example of gender discrimination:

 

I will hire a man not a woman.

 

I will pay a man more than a woman.

 

This is not comparable. Neither men nor women are getting an advantage or disadvantage by not allowing SSM, which is generally a pretty big requirement for "discrimination". Both men and women cant marry SSM, thus no discrimination.

 

Discrimination means treating someone different, so you have yet to show me how SSM treats men differently than women, when both are banned from the same behavior.

Edited July 30, 201213 yr by Soxbadger

Ilya Somin fleshes out the legal argument in much more detail here:

 

http://www.volokh.com/2012/02/07/same-sex-...discrimination/

http://www.volokh.com/2012/02/10/sex-discr...-and-tradition/

 

I understand the argument, but no court is accepting it.

 

Ive been arguing for SSM for over 10 years, in those 10 years, I can not recall any Appellate level or higher court ruling that the ban on SSM violates gender equality.

"God never spoke to me"

 

I believe this

 

"Chick Fil A was His gift to the world"

 

I also believe this

There really is no reason to keep arguing this.

 

Men and women are treated equally. Men can get married, women can get married. Its as simple as that. I dont agree at all with the current interpretation, but Im not going to live in make believe land where some how this argument that has lost innumerable times is going to all of a sudden be a winner.

 

Lets look at classic example of gender discrimination:

 

I will hire a man not a woman.

 

I will pay a man more than a woman.

 

This is not comparable. Neither men nor women are getting an advantage or disadvantage by not allowing SSM, which is generally a pretty big requirement for "discrimination". Both men and women cant marry SSM, thus no discrimination.

 

Discrimination means treating someone different, so you have yet to show me how SSM treats men differently than women, when both are banned from the same behavior.

Good post, Badger.

 

SSM is basically asking that a currently prohibited behavior be legalized. As it stands now, under federal law, humans must marry opposite genders. All humans. Not just men; not just women; all humans. That isn't discrimination.

 

Doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make it discrimination either.

 

 

Good post, Badger.

 

SSM is basically asking that a currently prohibited behavior be legalized. As it stands now, under federal law, humans must marry opposite genders. All humans. Not just men; not just women; all humans. That isn't discrimination.

 

Doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make it discrimination either.

 

Ding ding ding.

 

In my opinion, the biggest hurdle to getting SSM recognized through the courts is winning the argument that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic. Once that's taken care of, having sexual orientation being considered a suspect classification should be easier.

Ding ding ding.

 

In my opinion, the biggest hurdle to getting SSM recognized through the courts is winning the argument that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic. Once that's taken care of, having sexual orientation being considered a suspect classification should be easier.

 

"Well, your honor, according to you sexual orientation is something we can control. So, if the opposition could please demonstrating by becoming gay and then straight, we'll drop our argument."

"Well, your honor, according to you sexual orientation is something we can control. So, if the opposition could please demonstrating by becoming gay and then straight, we'll drop our argument."

 

I sincerely wish it were that simple.

"Well, your honor, according to you sexual orientation is something we can control. So, if the opposition could please demonstrating by becoming gay and then straight, we'll drop our argument."

 

Too bad Judges don't have to prove their case in court...the person(s) standing in front of them do.

Too bad Judges don't have to prove their case in court...the person(s) standing in front of them do.

 

Unless your name is Scalia

Unless your name is Scalia

 

This makes no sense.

They butt right up against the lines of discrimination and have been sued about a dozen times for it.

 

Interesting. It looks like a place you have to be "all in" to work there. I see how they dodge that discrimination bullet.

 

 

I know straight people who work at a gay bar. I know gay people who were fired for being gay.

 

 

 

My brother is a bartender and I told him he should try to get a job at a gay bar because most gays have money and tip well. We saw an ad for a bartender for a gay bar. One of the requirements-must be gay.

Edited July 31, 201213 yr by kitekrazy

Coming soon to FlapShip, my take on guilt free alternatives to Chick-fil-A. It's supposed to be funny and not political.

 

And here it is:

 

http://flapship.com/guilt-free-alternatives-to-chick-fil-a/

I have a couple friends who reported a 25-30 minute wait at Chick-Fil-A today.

As a comment to JPN's article someone had the audacity to compare CFA to the Jews in the holocaust. If it was a message board post I would have gone off so badly that I probably would have been banned.

Edited August 1, 201213 yr by Soxbadger

I have a couple friends who reported a 25-30 minute wait at Chick-Fil-A today.

 

Those bigots!!!

The line at the Chik-Fil-A across the street from me was huge. I got there before the line was too big. Meal was delicious and I was served by the owner of the establishment (you know, someone who has invested money in the business and has a lot of money and his livelihood at stake). I'm certainly not boycotting a franchise owned store for something the CEO said (and was perfectly entitled to say). Additionally, he hasn't done anything to treat his employees poorly or to discriminate against them.

 

Note: My coworkers wanted to go, the fact that it happened to be on national chick-fil-a day was pretty much oblivious to all of us (until I logged onto facebook afterwards).

You are correct, the CEO is entitled to say and believe whatever he wants. And we as consumers are entitled to buy whatever we want.

 

Its unfortunate for the chain owner, but that is the price of a franchise. You reap both the good and the bad.

 

Its not about treating his employees (CFA is notorious for vetting employees so its unlikely they even hire gay people), its about belief. If I found out that a company had an antisemitic owner, I wouldnt buy the product if I thought my money would go to supporting those causes.

 

I just dont want my money going to support that. Im sure there are companies who have owners who have terrible beliefs, they just are smart enough to keep them to themselves.

Edited August 1, 201213 yr by Soxbadger

The line at the Chik-Fil-A across the street from me was huge. I got there before the line was too big. Meal was delicious and I was served by the owner of the establishment (you know, someone who has invested money in the business and has a lot of money and his livelihood at stake). I'm certainly not boycotting a franchise owned store for something the CEO said (and was perfectly entitled to say). Additionally, he hasn't done anything to treat his employees poorly or to discriminate against them.

 

Note: My coworkers wanted to go, the fact that it happened to be on national chick-fil-a day was pretty much oblivious to all of us (until I logged onto facebook afterwards).

 

I feel for the franchise owners, but I also don't really care. The owner of Urban Outfitters is a real asshole with awful politics that he puts money behind. I dont' shop there and encourage my friends not to shop there. It may be a drop in the bucket, but so what, he has his money i have mine.

I absolutely vote with my dollars, both places I really admire, and places that I don't respect.

I absolutely vote with my dollars, both places I really admire, and places that I don't respect.

 

Same. Im a pretty loyal buyer too, so once I like something I stick with it. You have to be like Wiener Circle to lose my business. (I used to go there all the time, but the last time I went they refused to give me change and called it their tip.)