Another couple denied marriage license...

[randomJACKASS]

Keeping the peace? If everyone were to do business with whom they chose, and it was common knowledge that is how business is done, there'd be no sense of entitlement to anothers goods & services.

The sign out front says NO LONG HAIRS, guess where I'm not doing business. Hell, I've had that happen, in a manner of speaking. I walked. They don't want my money, then fuck 'em, somebody will take it.

Oh OK so if a restaurant said no colereds on it's door you'd be ok with people being assaulted and regular firebombings of the place and paying more taxes to cover the fact that the owner was a racist dumbass that chooses to publicly stir shit?

I don't think so....

 

[ResearchMonkey]

What?

Error in formatting from the post above mine, I don't have a good answer how it happened. I accept full responsibility for the mistake.

Correction: rJA was wrongly attributed the words belonging to Spike.


edit: it was my mistake using the multi-quote function improperly.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Oh OK so if a restaurant said no colereds on it's door you'd be ok with people being assaulted and regular firebombings of the place and paying more taxes to cover the fact that the owner was a racist dumbass that chooses to publicly stir shit?

I don't think so....

It would be fine if a chain of KKK restaurants had a signs that said "we don't serve negros, kikes or chinamen". Fire bombing not so much.

Although I think it would be dandy if people circled the place in peaceful protest with signs, megaphones and flyers. I also think it would be fine if people chose to eat across the street because they do not support a restaurant that chooses to not serve people becuase of their skin. On top of that I think it would be fine to film people as they enter the KountryKlanKitchen and post it on YouTube, let the world see who supporting the restaurant.

Personally I think it would be cool if the KKK was put on frontstreet and allowed to waste every last penny as they try to remain open in a free market.

Free market works, Free speech works...... everything else is a lack of freedom.

 

[MrBishop]

What about places that refuse entry to 'anonymous' people?

 

[ResearchMonkey]

What about places that refuse entry to 'anonymous' people?

If you mean owners want to ID everyone who enters -or- if they choose to deny people who wear tennis shoes ... sure the owner should be able to choose who the want to enter into their restaurant, its their establishment.

Although I do see a problem with some nutjob off the street, who has zero relationship with the restaurant, trying to prevent others from going into a restaurant that welcomes the patronage.

I don't think it OK to block people from entering into a restaurant that serves xxxxxx only, it is their choice. But I'm not against applying free speech and social accountability upon on them .

 

[catocom]

Why have marriage at all? I guess it's important to some people.

"That is the correct question"

It was given to Moses for judgement.
So if you don't believe in God, or Moses..., It shouldn't matter to you at all.
Then, except...Now the gov. got involved with the money...

 

[randomJACKASS]

Error in formatting from the post above mine, I don't have a good answer how it happened. I accept full responsibility for the mistake.

Correction: rJA was wrongly attributed the words belonging to Spike.


edit: it was my mistake using the multi-quote function improperly.

LOL that is weird, but weirder things have happened. That's cool, and there is a certain logic to letting organizations do like you say and be on main street. Perhaps it would even make such organizations play themselves out of existence, perhaps not. I do know that there would be some amount of increase in crime if you started making exclusionary tactics legal. Maybe they'd get robbed all the time, and maybe it would cost more in tax dollars. Arson would definitely become a lot more common

There is also some logic behind a free market, but in this increasingly high tech environment and especially in connection with complex high dollar goods and services, to totally de-regulate would be disaster. I just don't know where the happy medium is? Do you, because I am pretty sure if you think you do then you definitely don't. This is where centrists and moderates serve a valuable purpose, by being able to navigate such issues rationally. Liberals and Conservatives want extremes and both ends of that debate are wrong.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

marriage is governed by the state. There are laws pertaining to it, that is why you must get a marriage license.

Perspective. For tax, legal etc. you need to have a license.

In the eyes of my wife and I, and in the eyes of God -- we were married the day we jumped over a broomstick together. We did not require the permission of the Gov't to be married, only to claim it on our taxes.

 

[Winky]

How 'bout if the KountryKlanKitchen did a booming business?
What if it is just what market was looking for and it flourished?
How about if it became extremely successful, a multi-billion dollar enterprise,
paid lots of lobbyists to get the government to enact laws that
proscribed this type of discriminatory behavior?

No wait that has already occurred. nvrmnd

 

[spike]

clue: rite of marriage.

Like I said. Some people think it's important. Others, not so much. I've never heard of the rite of marriage referred to outside of the catholics though.

 

[chcr]

He's a justice of the peace. An elected official. His personal feelings should not interfere with the performance of his required duties. If they do he should be removed. If he knew they were going to (and it certainly appears to me that he did) he should not have run. It's really quite simple. It is not within his autority to decide whether someone should or should not be married. The fact that he's a howling bigot really does not enter into the problem.

 

[spike]

.
Free market works.

Pure free market doesn't work in the least. You get child labor, chemicals dumped in rivers, tainted meat, and it sure as hell didn't work to keep racial discrimination at bay.

 

[catocom]

He's a justice of the peace. An elected official. His personal feelings should not interfere with the performance of his required duties. If they do he should be removed. If he knew they were going to (and it certainly appears to me that he did) he should not have run. It's really quite simple. It is not within his autority to decide whether someone should or should not be married. The fact that he's a howling bigot really does not enter into the problem.

yep, he was elected.
"required duties" ? I'd have to see what he agreed to there.

Married? ... *see earlier references about getting the stated out of the marriage 'business'.
Marrage should be about the union by God. (period imo)

 

[randomJACKASS]

yep, he was elected.
"required duties" ? I'd have to see what he agreed to there.

Married? ... *see earlier references about getting the stated out of the marriage 'business'.
Marrage should be about the union by God. (period imo)

But is simply isn't cat. It is just a legal technicality they can screw with you with.

 

[spike]

yep, he was elected.
"required duties" ? I'd have to see what he agreed to there.

"Willard says it appears that the judicial code of conduct may have been violated. It states.. "a judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice."

http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=11329561

Married? ... *see earlier references about getting the stated out of the marriage 'business'.
Marrage should be about the union by God. (period imo)

Not having legally recognized marriages would cause all sorts of problems with who gets property after you die, who you can put on your health insurance, immigration, and a slew of other issues.

Marriage is often a commitment between two people and has nothing to do with god.

 

[H2O boy]

What about places that refuse entry to 'anonymous' people?

what about places that refuse entry based on gender?

 

[catocom]

"Willard says it appears that the judicial code of conduct may have been violated. It states.. "a judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice."

http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=11329561



Not having legally recognized marriages would cause all sorts of problems with who gets property after you die, who you can put on your health insurance, immigration, and a slew of other issues.

Marriage is often a commitment between two people and has nothing to do with god.

1.) yep there seems to be grounds for discipline.

Valerie Willard with the Louisiana Supreme Court says after a lengthy process, three things could happen to Justice of the Peace, Keith Bardwell. Bardwell could be publicly censured, suspended with or with out pay, or removed from office.

2.) I understand most all the 'legal aspects'.
Reagan started many of those issues, and imo most of them need to be reassessed.

 

[catocom]

imo, I think being discriminated against because a person is not married is wrong, but they do it, by law.

 

[MrBishop]

what about places that refuse entry based on gender?

Closing those down all the damn time... the last few bastions are in the fields of sports, places like the YMCA/YWCA, and certain businesses (like gyms) that use their gender-singularity (mostly for women) as a selling point.

Most places that discriminate based on gender, race, religion etc have faced legal arguments and often (if not always) fail to defend their position of discrimination.

 

[catocom]

2.) I understand most all the 'legal aspects'.
Reagan started many of those issues, and imo most of them need to be reassessed.

well my mom said it started mostly with Carter, but any way, it was around that time when more (too many) boundaries were crossed imo.