Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

[LogGrad98]

Marriage just like any other contract is signed between consenting adults, so unless a chicken, a tree or a pancake can give informed consent and sign a contract, one can't marry them. On the other hand I personally have no opposition to polygamy. If all involved parties agree to the terms of the marriage and enter into it voluntarily, I don't have any reasonable objections to it.

How do you know what my pancake is capable of? And my chicken is as informed as any other chicken.

 

[Gameface]

Bawk begawk


That means "I do" in chicken talk.

 

[LogGrad98]

^^ gets it

 

[TroutBum]

The truth is often distasteful and shameful to those who would prefer it otherwise.

I'm going to remember this quote the next time someone (see also: everyone) drops a truth nugget on you regarding race.

As for Mormons being bigots for not allowing gay marriage in their temples; I guess I'm fine being called a bigot. I am 100% in favor of, and support equal rights for all people. Temple marriage is not a right, it's a privilege.

 

[fishonjazz]

Temple marriage is not a right, it's a privilege.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Marriage just like any other contract is signed between consenting adults, so unless a chicken, a tree or a pancake can give informed consent and sign a contract, one can't marry them. On the other hand I personally have no opposition to polygamy. If all involved parties agree to the terms of the marriage and enter into it voluntarily, I don't have any reasonable objections to it.

thats your defintion of marriage. what make syour definition valid. or mine. or the churches. or the governments.

please tell me how i know which definition is valid

 

[Stoked]

thats your defintion of marriage. what make syour definition valid. or mine. or the churches. or the governments.

please tell me how i know which definition is valid

Both. It does not have to be one or the other.

 

[stitches]

thats your defintion of marriage. what make syour definition valid. or mine. or the churches. or the governments.

please tell me how i know which definition is valid

I am talking about a secular marriage. I don't care about churches, I don't want to force them to marry people who they don't want to marry. I am talking purely and only about state recognized and sanctioned marriage. Thus it's the legal definition of marriage that matters. As such the state could put whatever definition they want to put and can allow whatever marriages they deem acceptable and/or beneficial to society. I know that right now they don't recognize polygamous marriages in most countries. What I am saying is I don't have a good reason why polygamous marriages shouldn't be allowed by the state.

 

[DutchJazzer]

I am talking about a secular marriage. I don't care about churches, I don't want to force them to marry people who they don't want to marry. I am talking purely and only about state recognized and sanctioned marriage. Thus it's the legal definition of marriage that matters. As such the state could put whatever definition they want to put and can allow whatever marriages they deem acceptable and/or beneficial to society. I know that right now they don't recognize polygamous marriages in most countries. What I am saying is I don't have a good reason why polygamous marriages shouldn't be allowed by the state.

so business should be "forced" to provide services to "state recognized and sanctioned marriage."

 

[stitches]

so business should be "forced" to provide services to "state recognized and sanctioned marriage."

Businesses should be forced to not discriminate against protected characteristics. If you offer a service, you offer it for everybody. If you do straight wedding photography, you do all wedding photography. If you bake wedding cakes for straight people, you bake wedding cakes for all people. If you treat white people in your hospital, you treat all people. In other words your services should not be dependent on the (protected) characteristics of your clients(different states have different lists - in a lot of the states businesses can actually refuse service to gay people, but they can't refuse services to other protected groups based on race, nationality, etc.).

You have the choice not to offer a service(say wedding photography) at all, if you don't want to provide services to gay weddings in the states where sexual orientation is listed as protected characteristic.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Businesses should be forced to not discriminate against protected characteristics. If you offer a service, you offer it for everybody. If you do straight wedding photography, you do all wedding photography. If you bake wedding cakes for straight people, you bake wedding cakes for all people. If you treat white people in your hospital, you treat all people. In other words your services should not be dependent on the (protected) characteristics of your clients(different states have different lists - in a lot of the states businesses can actually refuse service to gay people, but they can't refuse services to other protected groups based on race, nationality, etc.).

You have the choice not to offer a service(say wedding photography) at all, if you don't want to provide services to gay weddings in the states where sexual orientation is listed as protected characteristic.

what if i only bake cakes with little customization options.
like only color and names could be edited. and not the couple on top. isnt that like only selling certain colors/models/brands of cars?

 

[colton]

You have the choice not to offer a service(say wedding photography) at all, if you don't want to provide services to gay weddings in the states where sexual orientation is listed as protected characteristic.

I don't think he's arguing that's what the U.S. law says (for one thing dutch isn't even from the U.S.), I think he's saying that sexual orientation should NOT be listed as protected characteristic in situations like he's describing.