PLEASE READ!!!

***** ALL users will have to request a password reset BEFORE you will be able to log into the forum. See the thread in the forum issues section for further instructions. If you have issues with this, email us at admin@urbanohio.com. *****

Author Topic: Gay Rights  (Read 1973 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline taestell

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6415
Re: Gay Rights
« Reply #1440 on: November 14, 2016, 08:55:16 AM »
(Or if Trump's administration has a wetworks project up its sleeves.)

Online Brutus_buckeye

  • Burj Khalifa 2,722'
  • *****
  • Posts: 1767
Re: Gay Rights
« Reply #1441 on: November 14, 2016, 08:58:32 AM »
Yeah, it all depends on what kind of President Trump actually is. If he is actively trying to push his own personal agenda, I don't think he cares one way or another about gay rights, so nothing will probably be rolled back. But if he's just rubber-stamping what Congress gives him, I would be worried about rights being rolled back.

I would almost go ahead and say the majority of GOP is fine with it too. They may not like it when it is being proposed, but after it happens and the world has not come to an end, it is often easier to just let things be and move on to the next fight.

Offline E Rocc

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 8643
Re: Gay Rights
« Reply #1442 on: November 14, 2016, 09:05:54 AM »
Heís either being really disingenuous or heís saying heís not going to consider the matter when picking justices.

But note the same logic could much more easily be applied to abortion.


Offline taestell

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6415
Re: Gay Rights
« Reply #1443 on: November 14, 2016, 09:08:24 AM »
Well even if the GOP politicians are ready to move on, much of their base is furious that gay people have the right to marry and are "forcing their agenda down our throats". Trump succeeded by pandering to his base, so why wouldn't the GOP do the same?

Offline taestell

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6415
Re: Gay Rights
« Reply #1444 on: November 14, 2016, 09:52:19 AM »
Not to mention, what happens with the states that continue to push for "religious freedom" a.k.a. legalized discrimination against gays?

Offline Ram23

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5199
Re: Gay Rights
« Reply #1445 on: November 14, 2016, 09:59:44 AM »
I never realized the US has never had an openly gay cabinet member. It just seemed like something we would have already had by pure chance alone. Trump could very well be the first president to make this happen - both Richard Grennell and Peter Thiel have been mentioned as potential candidates by the media, tough I don't think they're on the top of anyone's lists. Grennell is at the top of a lot of lists for UN Ambassador, though.

Offline Hts121

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 18146
Re: Gay Rights
« Reply #1446 on: November 14, 2016, 11:10:22 AM »
Not to mention, what happens with the states that continue to push for "religious freedom" a.k.a. legalized discrimination against gays?

True, they could try to shove "religious freedom" down our throats, thereby stripping away from the states the right to regulate commerce within their own boundaries.

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5278
Re: Gay Rights
« Reply #1447 on: November 14, 2016, 11:55:12 AM »
Well even if the GOP politicians are ready to move on, much of their base is furious that gay people have the right to marry and are "forcing their agenda down our throats". Trump succeeded by pandering to his base, so why wouldn't the GOP do the same?

He is much less beholden to that base than just about any other Republican presidential contender would have been.  If rolling back Obergefell and protecting the rights of religious believers in public life were actually at the front of the Republican base's concerns, Ted Cruz would have been the nominee.

To the extent that the decisions on judicial nominations (and to a lesser extent Title IX enforcement) are made by Mike Pence, of course, then there is more reason for gay-rights crusaders to be concerned and more reason for religious-liberty advocates to take heart.  And of course Trump is unlikely to push the envelope on further regulation of business in the name of LGBTQ rights than Clinton would have, so from the perspective of religious American concerned about religious liberty, the fact that Trump is not Clinton is at least a partial success, but he's still for most purposes a complete enigma on such issues.  Can we rely on his ostensible list of 21 Supreme Court justices as judicial nominations?  Maybe, but likely not.  Certainly Mike Lee isn't likely to get a nod after opposing Trump in the primary and not endorsing him in the general.

The fact of the matter is that of the entire Republican field, I'm not sure who else the gay rights lobby would have preferred (obviously they'd most have preferred a Democratic win).  Fiorina?  Kasich?  Paul?  Maybe Paul, come to think of it, at least on judicial nominations, though of course on Title IX issues, Paul would have been among the least likely to use the federal government as a cudgel to force businesses to accept transgenders' declared genders instead of their biological ones, for example.

Offline Hts121

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 18146
Re: Gay Rights
« Reply #1448 on: November 14, 2016, 12:06:21 PM »
There's really no "rolling back" of Obergefell.  It either stays the law or we regress back to the time when States were passing constitutional amendments to deny gays the right to liberty and equal protection under the law.  Hell, forget about Obergefell, if Trump gets to appoint at least 2 justices, Lawrence v. Texas may get overturned, which would allow states to criminalize homosexuality once again.

On another of your points, the question is NOT whether Clinton would have pushed the envelope on further regulation of businesses.  The question is what Trump will do to strip that ability away from the states.  Are there any federal regulation of private businesses in the name of gay rights?  I don't think so. 

I suspect this, and many other issues, are going to put the right-wing's love of the 10th Amendment to the test.

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5278
Re: Gay Rights
« Reply #1449 on: November 14, 2016, 12:46:47 PM »
The use of Title IX as a weapon in the transgender bathroom battle was absolutely an issue.  Whether it mechanically operated directly on individual businesses is hardly the central issue.

And you are correct that reversing Obergefell would de-federalize the issue and restore the sovereignty of states over family law within their borders.  But gay marriage advocates were winning an increasingly large number of contests at the state level, too, without intervention by the federal courts.  Proposition 8 might have passed in California but it wasn't likely to survive a counterattack, and legalization referenda had passed in at least a dozen states.

I don't know why you consider the right's commitment to the Tenth Amendment to be at issue here.  If anything, the stickiest issue in the event of an Obergefell reversal is the operation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, i.e., whether Georgia would be obligated by the FFCC (and common law comity principles) to recognize a gay marriage from New York.  The Tenth Amendment is one of the arguments (one of the strongest arguments, legally) in favor of leaving the issue to the states.  Unless you're anticipating something far beyond reversing Obergefell and actually anticipating a direct attack on the ability of the states that have democratically chosen to allow it to make that choice.  I don't think there's any enthusiasm for such a campaign--in fact, I think even reversing Obergefell is a long shot at this point because of Trump's heterodoxy on marriage issues, so that is probably the best-case scenario from the perspective of religious liberty advocates, and the ideal scenario for states' rights advocates, since the latter wouldn't want to interfere in the democratic decisions of states to allow it anyway.

Offline Hts121

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 18146
Re: Gay Rights
« Reply #1450 on: November 14, 2016, 01:01:55 PM »
It would "restore the sovereignty of states over family law" at the expense of the liberty and equal protection of gays nationwide. 

The 10th Amendment I bring up on the idea that some federal bill would be passed, with some silly title like "An Act to Restore Religious Liberty" that would prohibit states from passing laws within their own boundaries prohibiting discrimination against gays.  But, beyond that, there are plenty of conservatives who would love nothing more than to pass a Constitutional Amendment or pass a federal statute defining marriage as between one man and one woman..... not to protect such marriages, which are not under threat, but to specifically outlaw gay marriages.  I don't like to play the odds on something as shameful as that.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2016, 01:03:27 PM by Hts121 »

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5278
Re: Gay Rights
« Reply #1451 on: November 14, 2016, 01:18:40 PM »
The 10th Amendment I bring up on the idea that some federal bill would be passed, with some silly title like "An Act to Restore Religious Liberty" that would prohibit states from passing laws within their own boundaries prohibiting discrimination against gays.  But, beyond that, there are plenty of conservatives who would love nothing more than to pass a Constitutional Amendment or pass a federal statute defining marriage as between one man and one woman..... not to protect such marriages, which are not under threat, but to specifically outlaw gay marriages.  I don't like to play the odds on something as shameful as that.

On the issue of legislation, I strongly doubt Trump intends to expend his political capital on that, though I certainly understand you not wanting to play those odds.  And yes, that would be Tenth Amendment issue and I would vote against such a law, which ought to at least count for something here since I'm one of the few forum posters I imagine who will admit that they think that Obergefell was wrongly decided and should be reversed, even now, regardless of the recency of the precedent (if anything, new precedents should be more easily reconsidered than older ones).

As for a constitutional amendment, well, that would solve the Tenth Amendment issue, but that is going nowhere, even with Republicans in control of thirty-three statehouses--even that isn't enough to pass such an amendment.

Meanwhile, you say that straight marriages "are not under threat" from gay marriages, but increasingly, defenders of traditional marriage absolutely are, and most importantly, the institutions that still defend tradition are.  Individually, we are routinely called homophobes and bigots, which certainly contributed to Trump's win.  But this is bigger than that, at least for those of us who are culturally Catholic (and I'm sure other conservative religions on the marriage question as well), Solicitor General Verrilli came right out and said in oral argument at the Supreme Court that the next step after imposing gay marriage on the country would be to attack those institutions that disagreed as hate groups, a la Bob Jones University and its interracial-dating ban, thereby costing them their nonprofit tax-exempt status per Bob Jones Univ. v. U.S. (1982).  The fact that this would put the federal government in the position of discriminating between religions that twisted to accept the new progressive mandate and those that did not was apparently of little concern--in other words, equality for you means inequality for us.

Offline Hts121

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 18146
Re: Gay Rights
« Reply #1452 on: November 14, 2016, 01:37:38 PM »
What exactly is a "defender of traditional marriage"?  Why does "traditional marriage" need to be defended?  I'm in a traditional marriage and I don't feel the need to defend it and certainly don't want anyone else doing so on my behalf at the expense of the freedom of others.  And hen the choice comes between your PRIVILEGES as a tax exempt entity and the FREEDOMS and LIBERTY of others who you would discriminate against, excuse me if I don't have one iota of sympathy. 

BTW, any group which bans interracial dating is rightfully labeled a hate group.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2016, 01:39:06 PM by Hts121 »

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5278
Re: Gay Rights
« Reply #1453 on: November 14, 2016, 01:47:06 PM »
In other words, you openly admit that you favor government discrimination between religions that tow the official government line and those that do not, and you lack both the empathy to understand that some people might consider that an attack and the historical awareness of how that precedent (attacking churches that don't agree with the ruling party) could be expanded under a hypothetical president that maybe isn't to your liking.

I didn't come here looking for sympathy (no conservative Catholic visits a gay-rights thread in an overwhelmingly leftist online forum with that goal).  I came here seeking only to explain.

Offline Hts121

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 18146
Re: Gay Rights
« Reply #1454 on: November 14, 2016, 02:04:19 PM »
Let's not put words in each other's mouths.  Otherwise, I would say you openly admit to being a bigot against gays.  No, that is not what I said. What I do admit is prioritizing freedom to equal protection of the law and liberty over freedom to discriminate.  I have no problem with a church refusing to perform a marital ceremony or refusing to recognize a marriage for whatever reason it chooses, no matter how stupid that reason may be.  I would oppose any measure which would attempt to infringe upon THAT freedom.  But I do have a problem with you wanting to use government process which has northing to do with religion to deny gay people their rights.  And I view such actions as being of much more grave concerns than whether a church gets a tax break, which is really nothing more than a red-herring.  Since Loving v. Virginia, how many churches have been stripped of their tax exempt status for refusing to perform or recognize interracial marriages?

Offline E Rocc

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 8643
Re: Gay Rights
« Reply #1455 on: November 14, 2016, 02:37:04 PM »
Well even if the GOP politicians are ready to move on, much of their base is furious that gay people have the right to marry and are "forcing their agenda down our throats". Trump succeeded by pandering to his base, so why wouldn't the GOP do the same?

Do you believe a DJ, photographer, or wedding planner should be able to decline to work at gay weddings?

Edit:  Or, for that matter, straight ones.


« Last Edit: November 14, 2016, 02:40:04 PM by E Rocc »

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5278
Re: Gay Rights
« Reply #1456 on: November 14, 2016, 02:38:39 PM »
But I do have a problem with you wanting to use government process which has northing to do with religion to deny gay people their rights.

I already made it clear with respect to myself personally that I would not favor any kind of reinstated or expanded DOMA at the federal level if Obergefell is reversed.  Of course, if you you meant "use government process" in the sense of the process of judicial appointment and nomination of people who don't read the Constitution to contain an automatic right of gay marriage, then perhaps we aren't completely talking past one another.  But if we're talking about the legislative process, then we're talking past each other, because I already said I don't favor such measures, unless they're necessary to contain the damage from Obergefell and the activist judiciary more generally.

Offline Hts121

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 18146
Re: Gay Rights
« Reply #1457 on: November 14, 2016, 02:44:50 PM »
^Is there an automatic right of interracial marriage?  (assuming there are laws recognizing marriage)

Well even if the GOP politicians are ready to move on, much of their base is furious that gay people have the right to marry and are "forcing their agenda down our throats". Trump succeeded by pandering to his base, so why wouldn't the GOP do the same?

Do you believe a DJ, photographer, or wedding planner should be able to decline to work at gay weddings?

Edit:  Or, for that matter, straight ones.


Yes.  But I also think that if you operate a retail store, selling whatever (including wedding cakes), which is open to the public, then you should have no 'right' to post a sign (literally or otherwise) on your door saying that gays, blacks, women, or the disabled will not be serviced.  Can you see the difference?
« Last Edit: November 14, 2016, 02:46:29 PM by Hts121 »

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5278
Re: Gay Rights
« Reply #1458 on: November 14, 2016, 02:54:21 PM »
^Is there an automatic right of interracial marriage?  (assuming there are laws recognizing marriage)

Well even if the GOP politicians are ready to move on, much of their base is furious that gay people have the right to marry and are "forcing their agenda down our throats". Trump succeeded by pandering to his base, so why wouldn't the GOP do the same?

Do you believe a DJ, photographer, or wedding planner should be able to decline to work at gay weddings?

Edit:  Or, for that matter, straight ones.


Yes.  But I also think that if you operate a retail store, selling whatever (including wedding cakes), which is open to the public, then you should have no 'right' to post a sign (literally or otherwise) on your door saying that gays, blacks, women, or the disabled will not be serviced.  Can you see the difference?

Not completely, not when wedding cakes generally involve serious custom work.  Obviously I would never endorse a business' ban on anyone just coming in off the street and buying something already made.  But that's not usually the way the wedding cake business works; certainly our baker was far more involved in our wedding than just handing us something from the display case and ringing us up at the register.

Offline ryanlammi

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4518
Re: Gay Rights
« Reply #1459 on: November 14, 2016, 02:56:58 PM »
^Do you think a retail company (bakery, bridal shop, tuxedo shop, etc) should be able to deny work for a wedding based on the color of someone's skin? Even if it is a deeply held religious belief against interracial marriage?
« Last Edit: November 14, 2016, 02:57:58 PM by ryanlammi »

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5278
Re: Gay Rights
« Reply #1460 on: November 14, 2016, 03:01:42 PM »
^Do you think a retail company (bakery, bridal shop, tuxedo shop, etc) should be able to deny work for a wedding based on the color of someone's skin? Even if it is a deeply held religious belief against interracial marriage?

Actually, yes, and I say that as one-half of an interracial marriage myself.  In fact, I don't even care if it's a deeply held religious belief against interracial marriage, paranoia over the possibility of accidentally offending the Hindu half of the wedding somehow due to an unknown cultural insensitivity, or just because they think I'm fat and old and don't deserve her.

Offline Hts121

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 18146
Re: Gay Rights
« Reply #1461 on: November 14, 2016, 03:40:17 PM »
^so long as you are consistent on that, I can respect your viewpoint.  It's a bedrock principle of rigid libertarianism I suppose. But is that simply your preference for legislative direction or do you feel those laws which do prohibit discrimination in the private sector to be unconstitutional?

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5278
Re: Gay Rights
« Reply #1462 on: November 14, 2016, 03:50:18 PM »
^so long as you are consistent on that, I can respect your viewpoint.  It's a bedrock principle of rigid libertarianism I suppose. But is that simply your preference for legislative direction or do you feel those laws which do prohibit discrimination in the private sector to be unconstitutional?

I think that federal laws that prohibit it at the local level are unconstitutional.  I oppose and would reverse the Court's New Deal-era expansion of the Interstate Commerce Clause to be basically the Everything Related to Business in Any Remote Way Clause.  I think that federal laws that prohibit discrimination in actual interstate commerce (not completely local businesses with merely "cumulative effects" on interstate commerce) are constitutional; I'm not saying I would vote for or against any such laws.  And the U.S. Constitution is completely silent on the issue of state nondiscrimination laws; I would oppose restoration of the old liberty of contract doctrine at the federal level that might be used to argue a federal constitutional ban on state business regulations.  (And even lower than that, some state constitutions give enough home rule powers to municipalities that they might be able to impose local nondiscrimination ordinances even against the express will of the state legislature, though most home rule provisions in state constitutions don't go quite that far.  I wouldn't have any problem with it, though.)

This is and always has been an issue of federal usurpation of more and more power from the states to me, not an issue of gay rights per se.  Hence I clarified right at the outset earlier today that I have no problem with the states that adopted gay marriage by either state legislation or statewide ballot initiative.

Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 45341
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Gay Rights
« Reply #1463 on: November 14, 2016, 08:10:11 PM »
Mike Pence Wrote An Article Urging Employers Not to Hire Gay People
http://www.viralwomen.com/mike-pence-wrote-an-article-urging-employers-not-to-hire-gay-people/
America will never be destroyed from the outside. -- Abraham Lincoln.

Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 45341
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Gay Rights
« Reply #1464 on: February 23, 2017, 10:16:16 PM »
LGBT More GOP politicians have been arrested for sexual misconduct in bathrooms than trans people
http://deadstate.org/more-gop-politicians-have-been-arrested-for-sexual-misconduct-in-bathrooms-than-trans-people/
America will never be destroyed from the outside. -- Abraham Lincoln.

Offline taestell

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6415
Re: Gay Rights
« Reply #1465 on: November 13, 2017, 10:39:05 AM »
These are Cincinnatiís most (and least) LGBT-friendly companies

Cincinnati has gained a reputation as one of Americaís most inclusive cities for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals, and many of its local companies have followed suit.

The Human Rights Campaign Foundationís 2018 Corporate Equality Index has more Cincinnati companies than ever before receiving the highest ranking for LGBT inclusion. In fact, it has the highest number of companies receiving that ranking nationwide. [...]

Two Greater Cincinnati companies didn't fare so well on the ranking. Western & Southern Financial Group refused to participate in the survey, while American Financial Group received a 20 out of 100 for failing to fully meet any of the criteria included in the ranking.

Offline edale

  • Dirt Lot 0'
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Gay Rights
« Reply #1466 on: November 13, 2017, 11:03:17 AM »
^ Not surprising that Western and Southern and American Financial Group received poor rankings. I have a friend who works for W&S, and he says the corporate culture is VERY conservative. Even having hair that isn't super short and tight is frowned upon there, and it's still very much a good old boy culture at the company. Plus, half of the younger Lindner clan is (or was when I knew the family) into the whole born again, conservative christian movement. 

Offline taestell

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6415
Re: Gay Rights
« Reply #1467 on: November 13, 2017, 01:30:02 PM »
Right. They're so conservative that they did not even respond to the survey that was sent to them. Even answering questions about diversity and equality is "participating in the gay agenda" to them.

Offline E Rocc

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 8643
Re: Gay Rights
« Reply #1468 on: November 13, 2017, 10:43:38 PM »
Right. They're so conservative that they did not even respond to the survey that was sent to them. Even answering questions about diversity and equality is "participating in the gay agenda" to them.

Well when you consider the use to which the survey was put, from their perspective they have a point.

Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 45341
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Gay Rights
« Reply #1469 on: November 14, 2017, 11:54:27 AM »
LOL

Dutch TV Comedy Perfectly Sums Up America's Gun Problem
http://m.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/dutch-tv-nra-guns_us_59db1b36e4b0f6eed3514c55
America will never be destroyed from the outside. -- Abraham Lincoln.