Is 2014 the year for gay marriage in ...

Is 2014 the year for gay marriage in Ohio?

There are 1176 comments on the The Marion Star story from Mar 1, 2014, titled Is 2014 the year for gay marriage in Ohio?. In it, The Marion Star reports that:

Robert Johnson-Keeton grew up in a religious community just outside Chillicothe.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Marion Star.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#948 Mar 26, 2014
Fundies R Mentally Nil wrote:
Your last sentence seems to toy with the idea that race based or other discrimination is not, in fact, invidious. I find that easy to believe. It was my presumption about you.
It IS invidious. It's the response to it I find hypocritical. As long as you get your rights, usurping others' rights seems to be OK by you.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#949 Mar 26, 2014
TonyD2 wrote:
If it is so invidious, the businesses will soon find themselves out of business, so no force (law) is necessary. You people (control freaks) love to use force on people, don't you? You don't worry THAT might be invidious! Hypocrite.
In a society where a majority would actually do the right thing this would be true. Where your hypothetical is proven false is segregation. Clearly, if desegregation were left to individual business owners and were dependent upon the majority doing the right thing, there are some places that would likely still be segregated. If we actually believe in freedom and equal protection of the law for all, sometimes there needs to be a legal incentive in order to coerce the more bigoted business owners to do the right thing. Providing service is in no way injurious to the business, in fact since they will be compensated for their services it enriches the business. Similarly providing service in no way violates the rights or freedoms of the proprietor.

Arguing for bigots to be able to use their business as a mouthpiece to advance their religious, political, or moral positions is absurd.
Fundies R Mentally Nil

Philadelphia, PA

#950 Mar 26, 2014
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
It IS invidious. It's the response to it I find hypocritical. As long as you get your rights, usurping others' rights seems to be OK by you.
We determined a long time ago that bigots don't have "rights" to discriminate in places of public accommodations.

It's not just my rights. These sorts of decisions and laws cover sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religion, disability and so on.

They don't just protect me. You can't get the basic premises of the conversation correct.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#951 Mar 26, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
In a society where a majority would actually do the right thing this would be true. Where your hypothetical is proven false is segregation. Clearly, if desegregation were left to individual business owners and were dependent upon the majority doing the right thing, there are some places that would likely still be segregated. If we actually believe in freedom and equal protection of the law for all, sometimes there needs to be a legal incentive in order to coerce the more bigoted business owners to do the right thing. Providing service is in no way injurious to the business, in fact since they will be compensated for their services it enriches the business. Similarly providing service in no way violates the rights or freedoms of the proprietor.
Arguing for bigots to be able to use their business as a mouthpiece to advance their religious, political, or moral positions is absurd.
Freedom of association.

Since: Mar 14

Hilliard, OH

#952 Mar 26, 2014
Fundies R Mentally Nil wrote:
<quoted text>
We determined a long time ago that bigots don't have "rights" to discriminate in places of public accommodations.
It's not just my rights. These sorts of decisions and laws cover sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religion, disability and so on.
They don't just protect me. You can't get the basic premises of the conversation correct.
You're a hoot, crying about "bigots" with a name like that.

Since: Mar 14

Hilliard, OH

#954 Mar 26, 2014
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Freedom of association.
That only applies to non-whites:

All past and present members of the Congressional Black Caucus have been black. In 2006, while running for Congress in a Tennessee district which is 60% black, white candidate Steve Cohen pledged to apply for membership in order to represent his constituents. However, after his election his application was refused.[5] Although the bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for membership, former and current members of the caucus agreed that the group should remain "exclusively black".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Bl...
Fundies R Mentally Nil

Philadelphia, PA

#956 Mar 26, 2014
Gravedigger Jones wrote:
<quoted text>You're a hoot, crying about "bigots" with a name like that.
Well, you're a dumb freeek in need of remedial education, theocrat, because I never tried for a law saying talibangelical sc um can't marry, adopt. serve openly, be protected from arbitrary firing.

We know who and what the bigots are.

Also, you sound like a racist. Obviously your so-clever remarks about the Black Caucus erase the fact of a couple of centuries of slavery and then Jim Crow. It's as though you think - and you probably do - that whites are the historically aggrieved party.
Fundies R Mentally Nil

Philadelphia, PA

#957 Mar 26, 2014
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Freedom of association.
Hey cretin, there is no right or aspect of the Constitution which is absolute, not even the First Amendment. Invoking something as though there is no context associated with the phrase is the mark of a weak and assuredly disordered intellect.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#958 Mar 26, 2014
Fundies R Mentally Nil wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey cretin, there is no right or aspect of the Constitution which is absolute, not even the First Amendment. Invoking something as though there is no context associated with the phrase is the mark of a weak and assuredly disordered intellect.
How sad for you that your only influence in society is as a result of your mommy's (the government's) force.

Judged:

10

10

8

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Buckeye at birth

Elkhart, IN

#959 Mar 26, 2014
When the liar ran for the WH the first time,he said he believed marriage was between a MAN & WOMAN .This guy Oblameless liar is like a cat on a hot tin roof,does he really believe in anything he says?..He makes Bill Clinton look like a Saint,he can't tell the truth if his life depended on it,because ours sure does!!...He said when he was in high school he used to get high all the time,and those years were a haze,I think the man never came down,and he's still in a HAZE,and we're suffering because of it!!...I really think Obama is without a SOUL,I don't think anything really matters to him except POWER,and he will do anything to get more of it,even if it means our destruction,either from within or from someone attacking us.......Why don't we just let Obama dismantle our whole society, and just let every lifestyle or desire just run amuck!!...Erick Holder said he wanted all Governors to just inforce the laws they favor,and ignor all the others!!...Then America will be PARADISE on Earth......The land of the lawless,and do what ever feels GOOD!!,,,,,,,Like it should be.......Welcome to the 21`st Century Obama stlyle!!!......If it keeps him in power,he's all for it....God Bless America.......

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Mar 14

Hilliard, OH

#960 Mar 26, 2014
Fundies R Mentally Nil wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you're a dumb freeek in need of remedial education, theocrat, because I never tried for a law saying talibangelical sc um can't marry, adopt. serve openly, be protected from arbitrary firing.
We know who and what the bigots are.
Also, you sound like a racist. Obviously your so-clever remarks about the Black Caucus erase the fact of a couple of centuries of slavery and then Jim Crow. It's as though you think - and you probably do - that whites are the historically aggrieved party.
My statement about the CBC is a matter of record. They're racists, Bruce. And you applaud their hate.
Whites have been the historically aggrieved party in this country since the early 1970s. That too is a fact.

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Fundies R Mentally Nil

Philadelphia, PA

#961 Mar 26, 2014
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
How sad for you that your only influence in society is as a result of your mommy's (the government's) force.
Hey pos, you avoided the content.

There are all kinds of limits on freedom of association, just as there are on free speech.

The governmental interests embodied in the Civil Rights Act are well established, Your claims that businesses should be free to enact their own Jim Crow policies, or your wish for Jim Crow,

You didn't say anything in that post of yours. Because you have a vacuous mind and you fill your mind with tee baggrz and "libertarian" garbage.
Fundies R Mentally Nil

Philadelphia, PA

#962 Mar 26, 2014
Gravedigger Jones wrote:
<quoted text>My statement about the CBC is a matter of record. They're racists, Bruce. And you applaud their hate.
Whites have been the historically aggrieved party in this country since the early 1970s. That too is a fact.
No, you are ignoring - purposefully - the context of more than two centuries of slavery and jim crow while you are trying to identify who the racists are.

Your conclusion: Blacks are the racists.(And maybe they didn't fully trust that applicant, since their bylaws don't specifically rule out non black identifying Congressmembers.)

Naturally you are arguing the R. Women’s Policy Committee, a caucus, should admit male members.
Basta

Dublin, CA

#963 Mar 26, 2014
Fundies R Mentally Nil wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you are ignoring - purposefully - the context of more than two centuries of slavery and jim crow while you are trying to identify who the racists are.
Your conclusion: Blacks are the racists.(And maybe they didn't fully trust that applicant, since their bylaws don't specifically rule out non black identifying Congressmembers.)
Naturally you are arguing the R. Women’s Policy Committee, a caucus, should admit male members.
It seems that TonyD2 has forgotten about that Wool worths lunch counter in the deep south where Blacks weren't allowed to sit and eat at and if we didn't have discrimination laws Blacks would still NOT be allowed to eat there ! it seems simple to me,I for the life of me simply cannot understand why he would be against laws that allowed Blacks(or gays) equal treatment under the law as per our Constitution and the 14th Amendment ! That very lunch counter is now on display at the Smithsonian institute in Washington D.C.!
Fundies R Mentally Nil

Philadelphia, PA

#964 Mar 26, 2014
Basta wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems that TonyD2 has forgotten about that Wool worths lunch counter in the deep south where Blacks weren't allowed to sit and eat at and if we didn't have discrimination laws Blacks would still NOT be allowed to eat there ! it seems simple to me,I for the life of me simply cannot understand why he would be against laws that allowed Blacks(or gays) equal treatment under the law as per our Constitution and the 14th Amendment ! That very lunch counter is now on display at the Smithsonian institute in Washington D.C.!
I believe he's a "libertarian" openly saying that that should be a business owner's right [sic].

I have surmised that he himself wants those sorts of segregated facilities, but so far he has claimed he's just supporting a "principle," his and anyone's right to discriminate, not that he actually wants discrimination because he's a racist....

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#965 Mar 26, 2014
Fundies R Mentally Nil wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey pos, you avoided the content.
There are all kinds of limits on freedom of association, just as there are on free speech.
The governmental interests embodied in the Civil Rights Act are well established, Your claims that businesses should be free to enact their own Jim Crow policies, or your wish for Jim Crow,
You didn't say anything in that post of yours. Because you have a vacuous mind and you fill your mind with tee baggrz and "libertarian" garbage.
Control freak. Can't do for himself without his mommy government. You're nappy's full, tell your mommy to change it.
Fundies R Mentally Nil

Philadelphia, PA

#966 Mar 26, 2014
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Control freak. Can't do for himself without his mommy government. You're nappy's full, tell your mommy to change it.
Again, in your addled and childish replies you are not talking about me or about just lgbt rights.

The law has been clear for decades that business owners do not have some right to discriminate against customer groups just on the basis of being owners of the business.

So go direct your "arguments" to every politician since 1964 who supports the Civil Rights Act, you fool.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#967 Mar 26, 2014
Fundies R Mentally Nil wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe he's a "libertarian" openly saying that that should be a business owner's right [sic].
I have surmised that he himself wants those sorts of segregated facilities,
It's not a matter of what I want, it's a matter of what the OWNER wants. Just as in my opinion, even though I don't smoke, the OWNER should be allowed to allow smoking on his PROPERTY. If you don't like smoke, don't eat there. If the owner loses enough business, he'll have to decide whether or not he might want to change his policy.
Fundies R Mentally Nil

Philadelphia, PA

#968 Mar 26, 2014
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not a matter of what I want, it's a matter of what the OWNER wants. Just as in my opinion, even though I don't smoke, the OWNER should be allowed to allow smoking on his PROPERTY. If you don't like smoke, don't eat there. If the owner loses enough business, he'll have to decide whether or not he might want to change his policy.
Right, I understand this is your "reasoning" as to why you are not pining for the days of jim crow. Your claim, at any rate.

However, we bar slave ownership (not very effectively) not because of what the owner of the individual does or does not want, but because we don't like that sort of invidious discrimination.

The entire legislative and judicial superstructure since 1964 has determined there is a governmental interest in barring discrimination in places of public accommodations on the basis of certain (an expanding number) traits.

Your silly, outlier, libertarian-crazy arguments need not be directed at those in an lgbt thread - though you're probably particularly fixated against homosexuals - they need to be directed at the entire political superstructure. You're not making an "argument" that really pertains to the glbt and ally community. You're making a wider "argument."

Get crackkkin'. Good luck.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#969 Mar 26, 2014
Fundies R Mentally Nil wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, I understand this is your "reasoning" as to why you are not pining for the days of jim crow. Your claim, at any rate.
However, we bar slave ownership (not very effectively) not because of what the owner of the individual does or does not want, but because we don't like that sort of invidious discrimination.

The reason slavery is wrong has nothing to do with discrimination (there were white slaves, and black slavers). It is wrong because it violates one of the most basic human rights. The right to be free. That's all I want for anyone. Unless you are demonstrably harming someone,or violating a superior right of another, you should be allowed to do as you please. Property rights are superior to most others in most circumstances. Your right to travel freely, for example, is inferior to my right to keep trespassers off my property.

[QUOTE]The entire legislative and judicial superstructure since 1964 has determined there is a governmental interest in barring discrimination in places of public accommodations on the basis of certain (an expanding number) traits.
Incorrectly in my opinion. Especially when it conflicts with property rights.
Your silly, outlier, libertarian-crazy arguments need not be directed at those in an lgbt thread - though you're probably particularly fixated against homosexuals
I've nothing against homosexuals. In fact I have gone on record in several threads (including this one) supporting gay marriage. Nor am I against any other group based on any particular trait, with the exception of individual behavior. I simply believe that anything should be allowed unless there is a compelling reason why not, and that reason has something to do with harm, and is strongly scrutinized. I also believe that in general, an idea that has to be forced on someone is probably not a good one.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Hillary for POTUS 53 min d pants 1
Gasp! Emails.....created crisis 58 min d pants 26
Trump the Liar 1 hr d pants 230
people concerned about immigration are not racist 2 hr d pants 1
Don't trust Google... 2 hr d pants 46
Trump and Putin have ties..... 2 hr d pants 48
Open season on Cops 3 hr d pants 116
why is chelsea clinton so ugly? (Apr '14) 3 hr UTrashy 74
Donald Trump - Dangerous 3 hr Pale Rider 26

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages