America - The Official Thread

[FoolKiller]

He isn't and won't ever be. Once he doesn't feel that he could/should uphold his contract to register marriages in the eyes of the law then he can stop doing so. From what you said he's already made the choice that he doesn't agree with the law. I'd guess that, as a minister, he knows quite a bit about the law and its fluid nature - changes and evolutions therein will have been no surprise to him.

Freedom of association does not require association with everyone. Contracts are between individual entities. Your version of this is the same argument Kentucky used when they amended their constitution to define marriage as between a man and woman. Everyone was equally allowed to marry, including homosexuals, as defined by law.

A rule that you must serve someone or stop performing that work altogether is nothing short of serfdom. It is not something that should exist in a society that wishes to call itself free.

It is ridiculous to claim that by entering into a business you agree to serve everyone, without exception.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Freedom of association does not require association with everyone. Contracts are between individual entities. Your version of this is the same argument Kentucky used when they amended their constitution to define marriage as between a man and woman. Everyone was equally allowed to marry, including homosexuals, as defined by law.

Defined by law. Yes.

A rule that you must serve someone or stop performing that work altogether is nothing short of serfdom.

Agreed.

It is ridiculous to claim that by entering into a business you agree to serve everyone, without exception.

Agreed. Has anybody claimed that?

My own comment was, in fact, about people performing legally binding ceremonies as prescribed by law and in the eyes of the law. Servants of the law should not be able to pick and choose which parts they choose to uphold.

Private business and contracts therein are a different matter entirely.

 

[FoolKiller]

My own comment was, in fact, about people performing legally binding ceremonies as prescribed by law and in the eyes of the law. Servants of the law should not be able to pick and choose which parts they choose to uphold.

Private business and contracts therein are a different matter entirely.

The marriage service is a private contract. The minister negotiates his own fees, the building rental has its own contract. The only legal part of the marriage is the marriage certificate, which I argue is the least important part of a marriage. If a minister refuses to enter into a contract/agreement to perform a ceremony he has not placed himself in a position to legally be able to sign the marriage certificate as an officiant.

Maybe it's different there, but ministers here are not servants of the law. They work for private entities. They are not a justice of the peace, judge, a military or police commander, or political official, which are all government servants also allowed to act as an officiant in a marriage agreement.

Marriage, at it's base, is a contract. To claim a minister must officiate in every requested marriage is the same as saying a corporate lawyer must oversee every requested contract negotiation.

 

[Pupik]

The problem isn't so much "I won't serve you because you're (being rude / ugly / funny hat / foreign / queer / root for other sports team)", since there's perfectly acceptable reasons to show someone the door...to discriminate.

The problem is when one agrees to perform a service, and then backs out of the agreement because they found themselves in a confusingly personal predicament because they didn't like having icky thoughts about what people do with their genitals in private. Which then caused someone to find another party (or be shorted, if one wasn't available) to aid in their wedding reception, forcing a breach of contract.

Professionalism is when you're willing to perform your contractural obligations regardless of trifling inconveniences and temporarily uncomfortable but minor circumstances.

What good is a legal system if no case pertaining to such breaches, if it cannot be heard and tried by judge on its own merits and circumstances? This law seems written mostly for the purposes of creating a lazy escape clause for reasons that are hazy, at best.

When this gets struck down by a federal court, cue Mississippi whining about "state's rights", at 5, 4, 3, 2...

 

[TenEightyOne]

The marriage service is a private contract. The minister negotiates his own fees, the building rental has its own contract. The only legal part of the marriage is the marriage certificate, which I argue is the least important part of a marriage. If a minister refuses to enter into a contract/agreement to perform a ceremony he has not placed himself in a position to legally be able to sign the marriage certificate as an officiant.

Maybe it's different there, but ministers here are not servants of the law. They work for private entities. They are not a justice of the peace, judge, a military or police commander, or political official, which are all government servants also allowed to act as an officiant in a marriage agreement.

A minister both in the UK and, I suspect, the US is able to decide whether or not to conduct a ceremony, a party, a pogoing event depending on whether or not they'd like to take part in it, organise it, whatever. The same goes for the only part of the ceremony that has anything to do with marriage - the legally determined marriage certificate. Nobody, nobody is being forced to issue marriage certificates in their ministry.

If somebody is employed specifically to issue marriage certification then that is their job, they can not take it or leave it unless they choose to resign their position (as discussed at length in various threads here). A minister is not employed in that way and is not being forced to do anything.

 

[squadops]

Could you expand on this a bit?

Sure, I am sick and tired of all the knee jerk laws that keep going on the books, people need to grow up a little bit. The laws that were established when the U.S. was formed are for the most part good enough.

Clint Eastwood once said "there ought to be a law that we pass no more laws" and to a large degree I agree with that.

 

[FoolKiller]

@Pupik and @TenEightyOne

To be clear, neither of you would have anyissue with this law if it only applied to private businesses and not government officials?

I ask because I think I misread you as arguing against it on all levels.

 

[TenEightyOne]

@Pupik and @TenEightyOne

To be clear, neither of you would have anyissue with this law if it only applied to private businesses and not government officials?

I ask because I think I misread you as arguing against it on all levels.

My issue with the law as it applies to private business is the "feel" of the intent in this case. However, I think the people should be allowed to act according to their opinion* in the context of private property and businesses. It is, as others have noted here in the past, for the "court of public opinion" to deal with those businesses as they see fit.

In terms of government officials or others who officiate in law; they should be bound to uphold the law, however much of an ass they may think it is.

* A view that's evolved for me in the last couple of years

 

[A2K78]

Let me restate myself, personally I believe that RFRA-type laws are unnecessary as the constitution already protect ones right from government to associate and do business with whoever they choose(see the 1st and 4th amendment). However, the government(and courts) disregard for free association and private property as demonstrated by the various cases surrounding bakers, Innkeepers, and photographers these types of laws become necessary as a means to reaffirm the right to private property.

On an interesting note the issue with Manny Pacquiao and the Grove Mall pretty much demonstrate the hypocrisy of liberals e.g. when mall decided ban him because of his views of gay marriage. Yes the mall did have a right to ban him on private property grounds, yet when a baker, photographer or Innkeeper refuse the business of gays on the very same ground of private property(and free assocation) they are scorned.

https://mises.org/library/discrimination-isnt-about-religion-its-about-private-property

https://mises.org/library/employer-provided-health-care-not-religious-issue

 

[TenEightyOne]

LYes the mall did have a right to ban him on private property grounds...

Bans from private property are a legal contract matter.

yet when a baker, photographer or Innkeeper refuse the business of gays on the very same ground of private property(and free assocation) they are scorned.

Scorn is a public opinion matter.

Do you see the difference between the two?

You repeated another version of a claim you've made quite often but seem to be failing to understand the differences between some of the important moral, social and legal points.

the government(and courts) disregard for free association and private property as demonstrated by the various cases surrounding bakers, Innkeepers, and photographers these types of laws become necessary as a means to reaffirm the right to private property.

 

[Johnnypenso]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-on-obamacare-exchanges-amid-huge-losses.html

The nation’s largest health insurer, fearing massive financial losses, announced Tuesday that it plans to pull back from ObamaCare in a big way and cut its participation in the program’s insurance exchanges to just a handful of states next year – in the latest sign of instability in the marketplace under the law. UnitedHealth CEO Stephen Hemsley said the company expects losses from its exchange business to total more than $1 billion for this year and last.

Despite the company expanding to nearly three dozen state exchanges for this year, Hemsley said the company cannot continue to broadly serve the market created by the Affordable Care Act's coverage expansion due partly to the higher risk that comes with its customers. UnitedHealth Group Inc. said it now expects to lose $650 million this year on its exchange business, up from its previous projection for $525 million. The insurer lost $475 million in 2015, a spokesman said.

 

[Grayfox]

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-...n/news-story/852ef0279cb53095cc8d605ba2106a01

This is a quote from the article
Commissioner Davis said police had spoken to the 13-year-old’s mother, who said she knew her son left with the replica handgun, and she is now being questioned by police.

WTF

You know your son is leaving the house with a BB gun that looks like a real gun?
Child Services should remove the child from the home, she should be glad that the police shot the kid on the lower half of the body and he is now recovering and is not in the city morgue.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Hate him if you want, but the guy has one hell of a sense of humor.

 

[squadops]

I'm glad he said thank you, that's about all.

 

[CodeRedR51]

The Trump comments were the best part, followed closely by the mic drop. Love it.

 

[polysmut]

Dropping microphones is bad for them. It's very much not cool.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Hate him if you want, but the guy has one hell of a sense of humor.

He was funny I'll grant you that but it's not his sense of humour, he has used the same writer for years for all his material. IMO much of that humour, especially the personal digs disguised as humour, is not befitting the office of POTUS. I'm guessing if it was President Trump up there making fun of Bernie Sanders or whomever is the next socialist candidate for the Democrats in a similar fashion, you wouldn't find it funny at all.

 

[CodeRedR51]

He was funny I'll grant you that but it's not his sense of humour, he has used the same writer for years for all his material. IMO much of that humour, especially the personal digs disguised as humour, is not befitting the office of POTUS. I'm guessing if it was President Trump up there making fun of Bernie Sanders or whomever is the next socialist candidate for the Democrats in a similar fashion, you wouldn't find it funny at all.

Lighten up.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

This was funnier, from the same dinner. The Drudge report headline is: OUTRAGE AT WHITE HOUSE DINNER!

 

[Johnnypenso]

I love the subtle trolling CNN does. In months of reporting on the adventures of Caitlyn Jenner, all the pics and video stills were quite flattering. Often magazine covers, full makeup on, normal looking or glamour poses etc. Jenner takes a trip to Trump Towers, visits the crapper and doesn't get molested and this is the picture that leads to the video:

She was normal up until now, now she's a crazy woman because Trump!!

 

[Danoff]

Dropping microphones is bad for them. It's very much not cool.

 

[Dennisch]

Marine archaeologists might have found James Cooks Endeavour. Supposedly it's on the bottom in Newport Harbour.

 

[DK]

Greenpeace's Dutch branch have leaked a huge chunk of TTIP.

 

[Kitten]

Dropping microphones is bad for them. It's very much not cool.

I'm sure the White House has a lifetime supply of microphones

That mic drop tho.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Fun little bit of shared history for you: researchers in Rhode Island are pretty sure that they have found the remains of the Lord Sandwich, a British ship that was scuttled off Newport in an attempt to prevent the French from supporting the Anericans during the American Revolution.

Why is this significant?

In a previous life, Lord Sandwich was known as HMS Endeavour, the ship that James Cook used to discover Australia. If the discovery is confirmed, it would be the same as finding the Mayflower off Port Jackson.

I know that it's a part of your history, too, America, but there's four other ships in the vicinty that were similarly scuttled. So if it is the Endeavour, could we please have it?

 

[Dennisch]

Fun little bit of shared history for you: researchers in Rhode Island are pretty sure that they have found the remains of the Lord Sandwich, a British ship that was scuttled off Newport in an attempt to prevent the French from supporting the Anericans during the American Revolution.

Why is this significant?

In a previous life, Lord Sandwich was known as HMS Endeavour, the ship that James Cook used to discover Australia. If the discovery is confirmed, it would be the same as finding the Mayflower off Port Jackson.

I know that it's a part of your history, too, America, but there's four other ships in the vicinty that were similarly scuttled. So if it is the Endeavour, could we please have it?

3 posts up.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

3 posts up.

Yeah, I saw that. You didn't really explain why it was important, though.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I know that it's a part of your history, too, America, but there's four other ships in the vicinty that were similarly scuttled. So if it is the Endeavour, could we please have it?

No, you can't, it belongs here in Yorkshire

 

[prisonermonkeys]

No, you can't, it belongs here in Yorkshire

You gave up all claim to it when you scuttled it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You gave up all claim to it when you scuttled it.

Ah, but... erm... but... ah.