Louisiana won't Recognize Same-Sex Marriages


Recommended Posts

Wait, what? :huh:

 

Source?

 

that wasn't an actual scenario he mean that say, if a world famous gay baker, wedding arranger, flower arranger, etc, refused to deliver to a wedding on the grounds that it was a christian wedding and he doesn't deliver to christians, it would be just as illegal.

 

on top of that, the uproar it would cause would blow the minor cause of the baker who refused the gay wedding out of the water. 

that wasn't an actual scenario he mean that say, if a world famous gay baker, wedding arranger, flower arranger, etc, refused to deliver to a wedding on the grounds that it was a christian wedding and he doesn't deliver to christians, it would be just as illegal.

 

on top of that, the uproar it would cause would blow the minor cause of the baker who refused the gay wedding out of the water. 

 

In that case, I'd say the same thing I've been saying all along - a business should be able to decline any job or contract it so chooses. Especially if the vendor is needed to go to/participate in an event that they'd prefer not to.

 

If its just a case of baking a cake and having it picked up, then yeah, there's a problem. But if you need to be on site, actually involved in the event, then you have every right to choose if you want to be a part of it.

Wait, what? :huh:

 

Source?

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/caselist.php#relig

In that case, I'd say the same thing I've been saying all along - a business should be able to decline any job or contract it so chooses. Especially if the vendor is needed to go to/participate in an event that they'd prefer not to.

If its just a case of baking a cake and having it picked up, then yeah, there's a problem. But if you need to be on site, actually involved in the event, then you have every right to choose if you want to be a part of it.

Repeal this then we can talk, until then you are trying to have your cake and eat it too

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/housing_title2.php

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/housing_title2.php

Repeal this then we can talk, until then you are trying to have your cake and eat it too

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/housing_title2.php

 

Not what I was asking for a source on. What instances of Christians trying to put non-Christian bakers out of business are you referring to?

 

Or was it hypothetical like Hawkman said? Because if you won't permit others to use hypothetical situations (you called mine a strawman as I recall) then you really shouldn't use them yourself.

I really don't like the Government telling us what to do. I don't like them involving themselves in church matters.

Isn't there supposed to be a separation of church and state?

 

I don't support gay marriage, I find it to be exactly what the bible says, an abomination. However, with that said, who you marry is none of my business. If you, yourself, are happy, who am I to deny you that? I'm sick of gay marriage and racism in the news. I don't give a flying sh** about it. I'm disgusted that you care more about gay marriage, and racism, than our government screwing us over.

Edit:

I find that those fighting for gay marriage, but bash a Christian for their belief, and refuse service, is a hypocrite. It's simple really. It's absolutely ridiculous that this is considered national news.

Not what I was asking for a source on. What instances of Christians trying to put non-Christian bakers out of business are you referring to?

Oh so now we are limiting this just to bakers.

one question

Is it illegal to refuse service to a person on the basis of religion.

If you answer yes then you have 0 justification to demand that people with this protection from discrimination be allowed to discriminate

I really don't like the Government telling us what to do. I don't like them involving themselves in church matters.

Isn't there supposed to be a separation of church and state?

Civil marriage isn't a church matter.

Two main things I'd say.  One, institutionally redefining the word marriage - the union between male and female and then calling it a right.

 

 

 

 

 

Just an FYI, the courts have called marriage a right, in a number of cases going all the way back to the 1800s. This is hardly the first time.

Perhaps you should stop spewing undeserved ad hominem's. The only indication here of a poor argument is when you must resort to demeaning the opposition to make yourself look better. Come up with a logical argument for why time dictates correctness. Maybe in a social sense, but certainly not otherwise. And marriage is both a social and legal concept (both of which should be entirely separate of each other but aren't currently).

 

How is that an ad hominem? I used the word "unless". I'm giving the reason for accepting that words are defined by usage and convention as they always have been throughout history. If he wants to be viewed as a pouting, petulant child for not getting what he wants, then he's free to keep arguing that a word doesn't mean what convention dictates.

Oh so now we are limiting this just to bakers.

one question

Is it illegal to refuse service to a person on the basis of religion.

If you answer yes then you have 0 justification to demand that people with this protection from discrimination be allowed to discriminate

 

YOU'RE the one who specified bakers, not me.

 

When you start answering my questions, I'll answer yours. Start with: Is it right to force someone to participate in an event that they do not wish to? You still haven't given me an answer on that one.

 

If you say no, then you have 0 justification to demand that businesses take jobs for that regardless of the wishes of the owners and employees.

 

And you still haven't backed up your claim that these Christian bakers are demanding that others be shut down. Stick to the facts, and stop dodging the argument.

When you start answering my questions, I'll answer yours. Start with: Is it right to force someone to participate in an event that they do not wish to? You still haven't given me an answer on that one.

Yes if they offer a service to the public they cant discriminate. If you don't like that then please repeal the civil rights act.

In that case, I'd say the same thing I've been saying all along - a business should be able to decline any job or contract it so chooses. Especially if the vendor is needed to go to/participate in an event that they'd prefer not to.

 

If its just a case of baking a cake and having it picked up, then yeah, there's a problem. But if you need to be on site, actually involved in the event, then you have every right to choose if you want to be a part of it.

 

"We don't cater to people in wheel chairs because we don't want to build a ramp"

"we don't cater to black people because. well we just don't like you"

"We don't cater to people in tank tops because you're effin rednecks who rape your sisters."

"we don't cater to short people because we don't want to bend down and your the spawn of satan"

 

it's a business they're not allowed to discriminate and that's good. you can't say it's ok to discriminate if it's a onsite job. besides setting bad precedents it's beyond stupid. also thy can use any excuse they want to turn down the jobs. so they could turn down gay weddings and just don't say that's why. 

Words are concepts and ideas, so yes, I am really that hung up on the fundamental removal of that concept from language.  Instead, we now just have a new distinction, gay married.

 

Nothing I said has anything at all to do with the Bible or religion.  They are spoken from a secular perspective.  I'm curious as to your thoughts on my last question.  Particularly to poster below me that has, "...never been happier that we can file our taxes together now and that I can add her to my health insurance."  Its not about love, its about money.

 

I 110% agree that any business should have to sell their wares to anyone regardless.  The cake issue is a little more thorny because it wasn't the cake, but what they wanted written on it that was the issue.  On such items I'll stand with the freedom of the market.

 

To seta's point, there is so much legal smashed into state run 'marriage' that there is no way to separate it now without tossing it completely.  Since that won't happen,  I'm generally ok with the ruling as being the most practical path to bring about a desired outcome.  The way does still bother me though and is an opening for appeal.

 

So where do you get your definition for marriage from then? Or why do you feel the meaning can't change?

 

Marriage for the government has always had to do with way more then love. Assets, money, inheritance,...

Love has always been an extra, how else do you explain arranged marriages back in the days between kings and queens of different countries.

Did they get married out of love? I don't think so, it was about land and money. Love was a bonus

I really don't like the Government telling us what to do. I don't like them involving themselves in church matters.

Isn't there supposed to be a separation of church and state?

 

I don't support gay marriage, I find it to be exactly what the bible says, an abomination. However, with that said, who you marry is none of my business. If you, yourself, are happy, who am I to deny you that? I'm sick of gay marriage and racism in the news. I don't give a flying sh** about it. I'm disgusted that you care more about gay marriage, and racism, than our government screwing us over.

Edit:

I find that those fighting for gay marriage, but bash a Christian for their belief, and refuse service, is a hypocrite. It's simple really. It's absolutely ridiculous that this is considered national news.

 

What is the government telling you to do? How is the government involved in church matters?

 

Yes, there is supposed to be a wall of separation between church and state. Explain how that wall was breached.

 

Who has ever refused service to a Christian for his beliefs? When have Christians been bashed for their beliefs? Do you even know what "bashing" means? Christians HAVE been ridiculed for being bigots. If bigotry is part of the belief system, it's unfortunate for you that your religion holds such repugnant views, because nobody is obliged to accept your bigotry. I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but you don't get a free ride on the account of your religion. Too bad. So sad.

 

If you don't want your beliefs criticized, then don't try foisting those beliefs onto others. Or go shop for a different religion. There are thousands to choose from, and not all of them compel you to say "god hate f**s".

  • Like 2

Nothing I said has anything at all to do with the Bible or religion.  They are spoken from a secular perspective.  I'm curious as to your thoughts on my last question.  Particularly to poster below me that has, "...never been happier that we can file our taxes together now and that I can add her to my health insurance."  Its not about love, its about money.

I don't need the government to approve of who I love and spend my life with. I've been doing that without their approval for a long time. But just as any married couple, we deserve the same rights such as taxes and health insurance. It's not about money, it's about being afforded the same benefits as every other married couple. If my husband is on his death bed, I no longer have to worry about their family objecting to me seeing him, as we would be legally a married couple. See bridegroom. It's things like that, what we fought for, and won.

  • Like 2

How is that an ad hominem? I used the word "unless". I'm giving the reason for accepting that words are defined by usage and convention as they always have been throughout history. If he wants to be viewed as a pouting, petulant child for not getting what he wants, then he's free to keep arguing that a word doesn't mean what convention dictates.

 

 

And, yes, he SHOULD change his definition, unless he enjoys looking like pouting, petulant child.

 

Well, since he doesn't conform to your requirement, and based on what you've said in here based on the context of the sentence. You are saying he is currently a "pouting, petulant child". That my friend, is an ad hominem attack. Not to mention you're threatening him by saying, "conform or be thus branded as [ad hominem]". An ultimatum isn't an argument. In fact, it's a fallacy. Just like your ad hominem.

Exactly, that's why I've said this isn't about love, but about privilege, to those that simplify it so in support of this.  'Why can't two people that love each other get (gay) married?"

 

Cause its bigger than 'two' people and 'one' gender.

 

Just an FYI, the courts have called marriage a right, in a number of cases going all the way back to the 1800s. This is hardly the first time.

Source?  In what context? 

I really don't like the Government telling us what to do. I don't like them involving themselves in church matters.

Isn't there supposed to be a separation of church and state?

 

I don't support gay marriage, I find it to be exactly what the bible says, an abomination. However, with that said, who you marry is none of my business. If you, yourself, are happy, who am I to deny you that? I'm sick of gay marriage and racism in the news. I don't give a flying sh** about it. I'm disgusted that you care more about gay marriage, and racism, than our government screwing us over.

Edit:

I find that those fighting for gay marriage, but bash a Christian for their belief, and refuse service, is a hypocrite. It's simple really. It's absolutely ridiculous that this is considered national news.

 

I think you have it backwards. As someone who is not a Christian, I don't like when Christians try to inject their into beliefs government. Thats where the separation is supposed to come from. Christian politicians can say all they want about their religion being attacked, but in my opinion its partly their fault. You can only force your beliefs onto others so much before those others that don't want it fight back. I am happy to acknowledge others beliefs and love learning about others religions. This country was founded on equality for all not equality for all if you abide by the bible 

I don't need the government to approve of who I love and spend my life with. I've been doing that without their approval for a long time. But just as any married couple, we deserve the same rights such as taxes and health insurance. It's not about money, it's about being afforded the same benefits as every other married couple. If my husband is on his death bed, I no longer have to worry about their family objecting to me seeing him, as we would be legally a married couple. See bridegroom. It's things like that, what we fought for, and won.

I'm really not.  I quite understand and am sympathetic to your position, particularly on the latter.  My primary secular concern is still why you should get a tax breaks, Social Security, and other financial privileges of marriage that we provide primarily for the potential creation of new families. 

 

What if we instead make marriage 'perks' only given to those with children?  Is that discrimination too?  (Just playing devil's advocate)

I think you have it backwards. As someone who is not a Christian, I don't like when Christians try to inject their into beliefs government. Thats where the separation is supposed to come from. Christian politicians can say all they want about their religion being attacked, but in my opinion its partly their fault. You can only force your beliefs onto others so much before those others that don't want it fight back. I am happy to acknowledge others beliefs and love learning about others religions. This country was founded on equality for all not equality for all if you abide by the bible 

 

I agree, but the seperation works both ways - we're supposed to be free to follow whatever religion we choose, so long as it doesn't step on others' toes.

 

The problem with the counterattacks is the bystanders get affected - Christians who do in fact take the "judge not" POV, but get nailed because of the actions of the militant ones. We're not trying to impose our beliefs on others. The most we do is try to make our POV heard.

I quite understand and am sympathetic to your position, particularly on the latter.  My primary secular concern is still why you should get a tax breaks, Social Security, and other financial privileges of marriage that we provide primarily for the potential creation of new families. 

 

What if we instead make marriage 'perks' only given to those with children?  Is that discrimination too?  (Just playing devil's advocate)

 

Why should those "perks" be reserved for those in a sexual relationship (isn't getting laid regularly enough of a perk already?) Let them be for any partnership between individuals.

I'm really not.  I quite understand and am sympathetic to your position, particularly on the latter.  My primary secular concern is still why you should get a tax breaks, Social Security, and other financial privileges of marriage that we provide primarily for the potential creation of new families. 

 

What if we instead make marriage 'perks' only given to those with children?  Is that discrimination too?  (Just playing devil's advocate)

So, what do you calls gays who adopt? Are they not creating families? What about straight married couples who don't want kids, or can't have kids? Should they not get those tax breaks either? What about a couple who is lesbian and one (or both) inseminates herself?

What marriage isn't a (low) sexual relationship? ;)

 

Adoption would qualify.  I noted potential for a reason.  In my thought experiment, no.  (I'm betting the amount of straight marriages** in this willful position is lower than for gay ones).  Why marry if you don't plan on reproducing?

 

** (see, language is broken now, we have to now qualify it)

I agree, but the seperation works both ways - we're supposed to be free to follow whatever religion we choose, so long as it doesn't step on others' toes.

Nothing about this ruling stops you from doing that.

I'm really not. I quite understand and am sympathetic to your position, particularly on the latter. My primary secular concern is still why you should get a tax breaks, Social Security, and other financial privileges of marriage that we provide primarily for the potential creation of new families.

What if we instead make marriage 'perks' only given to those with children? Is that discrimination too? (Just playing devil's advocate)

It would at least be consistent
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
    • Compared to the 7735HS it is around 25-30% slower in multi-threaded tasks (according to Google search) I did a review of the 7735HS Beelink SER6 Max in 2023, but thinking about it, it's not comparable to the 7730U. For the example you gave about how it will be used, the 7730U is actually an excellent choice for its power and battery efficiency.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      194
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      71
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!