Chick-fil-A PR goes Rogue

All right, that is different than the "Why is the sky blue?" quailty of the "Why do people have a right to get marriage licenses?"

I still think you're suffering from a disconnect about how the word "right" is used. In this context I'm looking at it from a legal protection standpoint, and I think many other people are as well. Whether it's a basic human right as defined by the cosmos I am, philosophically, not sure. My own personal moral leaning is that it's not a necessary one, but that's an entirely personal view I don't want to inflict on anyone else in a court of law. I'm not a particularly religious person and am mainly concerned about the civil implications, and would be quite happy in a land where civil unions were the only thing marriage licenses governed, every gay or straight couple could get one, and the churches did whatever they wanted to do.

 

Fair enough and I would say to you and Cranberry on that point that the definition of the word "right" is
the salient element of this entire argument.

People keep screeching about blacks and women etc. etc. but there is a HUGE distinction.
Yes, you cannot legally be discriminated against for WHO you are-
race, sex, color, religion, nation of origin, disability.
Same-sex marriage is not about who you are, it is about what you DO,
it's a action, i.e. I want to marry someone of the same gender.
THAT places it outside the scope of "rights" and puts it inside the scope
of things we vote on as a community. [Unless you believe
that homosexuality is genetic, which some do and that's an interesting discussion...]

So as I have stated before, the onus is on someone to explain how sexual orientation
fits INSIDE discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, nation of origin, or disability.
OR, you can argue that sexual orientation belongs as an addition to that list and provide a basis for THAT.

 

By that standard, interracial marriage is the same way. Marrying someone of a different race is also an action, not an intrinsic quality.

(Please note that I am in no way against interracial marriage. Just devils-advocating your post.)

 

Do you think same-sex attraction is a choice? If you think that, you don't understand the issue.

 

I think the difference is that that OBJECTION to the marriage would be based on one person's race,
so I do not think it is quite the same.

 

At first I thought you were trying to make some kind of legal distinction, but your "who you are vs. what you do" theory isn't close to how courts decide what classes of people to protect. In fact, I believe California has already barred discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, providing it "strict scrutiny" standard I mentioned a couple posts ago.

 

I didn't say what I thought at all. I am just trying to clarify the terms/boundaries of the debate.

Now, do you care to answer any of the questions put to you by me up thread, or should I just
interpret your refusal to respond as a white flag?

 

You seem infatuated by homosexuality in your history here. And I don't need to follow your terms or boundaries,

 

Religion is a choice.

 

Never mind that we already have federally protected classes based on choice. We protect for veteran status and familial status (having children), both of which are choices.

ETA: Amy already said it, but religion, too.

 

I will grant that the "who you are vs. what you do" distinction is definitely debatable [especially in the case of discrimination relating to religion] but the principle there is the foundation of discrimination laws. You cannot discriminate on the basis of things that people cannot control. We discriminate against things people do all the time. It's a great question and it's the salient point in this whole debate.

 

Let's see, I have posted here about 100 times in a variety of threads and a variety of issues.
Nice try though. Any substantive arguments or just more ad hominem?? You are pathetic...

YOU SEEM INFATUATED WITH ME... CREEEEPY