Anything to be a bigot, I guess.
You know we could solve this problem pretty easily if everyone would just admit citrus fruits turn people gay and make kids trans.
I dont get it. I refuse to acknowledge the existence of lima beans … because they are gross … but it doesnt mean they dont exist.
Do I get a special snowflake lima bean law?
Lima beans’ existence doesn’t depend on other people recognizing they exists.
A better analogy would be nations’ sovereignty.
Yes, but a marriage is legal, this person is basically disbelieving a piece of paper (marriage license). I just want to disbelieve a bean … Basically the same. Its all organic.
I don’t recognize eggs or cilantro as food
It depends. Does your special one true Sky Man Lord want you to rule the world with an iron fist against non-believers? If so, you may already be a winner!
Nice. Lima beans are officially outlawed then. Spread the good word of the Sky Man Lord.
Sky cake!
private citizens never faced punishment for not recognizing same-sex marriages in their private lives. they want private citizens to be able to enforce their opinions in the public square. Like that idiot pharmacist wanting to not fulfill birth control orders. eff them all.
Nothing stops that pharmacist from doing that though, its a company policy that would allow or prevent it.
If the company policy is they can’t refuse then they can refuse and lose their job.
For a small owner run business it could be different though like we wont make you a wedding cake.
I very much doubt this. there are a lot of regulations in that industry and you can’t have pharmacists or pharmacies just willy nilly deciding to not fill prescriptions.
The pharmacy no, the pharmacists absolutely, they’ll just lose their job.
This bill is about the individual, so it doesn’t really change anything in this example.
that seems reveresed but even then I have doubt. pharmacies should have plenty of regulation and pharmacist is one of those jobs where you have to be licensed. It kinda sounds like at the end you are agreeing with my statement though that private citizens have never been blocked from doing things in their private lives.
Yes, I was saying that they can and still do what they want, but can/will still face punishment if they decide to do it because individuality has no place in a company setting. Its the company rules that will dictate if they can or can’t do something, and those company rules may also be dictated by laws.
That pharmacist would (should) have faced punishment because it was at work.
ah I see what you mean now. your saying the law won’t protect them in that setting. maybe. republicans are pretty good at double standards in the way they do things.
What? What the fuck does this even mean? A legislation allowing you to think what you want to think?
Something like this would only be necessary if there’s a lot of people that want to punish others for not recognizing same-sex marriage.
Look, it’s just a consequence of making comedy legal again, don’t you want comedy legal?
Remember kids.
In Nazi Germany they didn’t start off by killing the Jews.
They started by denying them basic human rights hd dignity first.
349 million frogs in a pot that’s slowly getting hotter and hotter.
The 14th Amendment says no State can “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. This bill is literally saying it will protect some marriages and not others. DOA.
Until SCROTUS fucks it up.
Uncle Clarence is chomping at the bit to hear a case to overturn Obergefell. He said as much in his concurring opinion of Dobbs.
Nevermind that it’s the same thing that makes his own marriage legal…
The Dems should push to abolish interracial marriage, just so Clarence can go home to his bulldog wife and tell her she has to leave the house because he voted to make her illegal.
He already did that back in 2022 and made a loud argument that his own marriage should be annulled.
DOA
I mean, that would be nice if it was true, but there are enough fascists in control of enough legislative and judicial bodies that it’s not a guarantee.
I’m so sick of these fucking fascists.
What’s so special about same-sex marriages? I say expand it to include all marriages!
Let us not recognize the unions of conservatives. Clearly, any woman in such a relationship is being held in such a position against her will. Or she’s mentally addled somehow and is being taken advantage of.
I actually do believe the latter. Just add grooming as one of the ways a woman gets there.
Look I agree but the impish contrarian of me wants to point out that this would be treating these womens free will and autonomy with the same respect at a societal level as it already is at a household level. Is that really doing them a favour?
Why not? The usa passed a law requiring a fruit to be a vegetable (the tomato). It’s anything goes when constructing their brave new world.
“Vegetable” isn’t a botanical term, and I doubt something like cucumber or corn or snow peas would get the same pushback. The legal designation matters for taxation and is totally normal.
Next they’ll declare pi equals 3
It’s really infuriating how absolutely pants on head fucking stupid these people are.
Seriously… why do you dumb fucks give a shit what other people do amongst consenting adults? It’s supposed to be “a free country”, but these idiots keep curtailing freedoms while still claiming “freedom”.
Fuck. Off.
There was an article years ago that delved into the differences between the Northern version of freedom vs. the Southern kind. The problem as a country is that normal Americans keep talking about “freedom” and assuming everyone has the same definition of what freedom and liberty mean. I wish I could dig that article up; I used to share it all the time. Of course cons would try to act like these differences did not really exist, when they absolutely do.
Essentially: the Southern kind of “freedom” is predominantly obsessed with the freedom to rule over property and not have anyone else tell you what you can do with your property. That property may include other humans.
I suspect that’s why some people that keep lying about “whole cities burning down” under BLM are so worked up - they view property damage as something just as bad as, possibly worse than, the murder of a human being, especially if the human being is not considered a worthy victim.
Probably stems from latent slavery where whites were land owners.
No, it’s older than that. It’s what militant civilizations were based on, this idea that it was fine and normal to go around with your warriors and dominate other groups while doing everything you could to prevent other groups from dominating you.
Just instead of swords and spears being the main arena to determine who dominates who, now there’s a system where words determine who dominates the other in a particular issue and it is enforced by warriors that answers to another neutral (in theory, not always in practice) power.
Slavers think they have the right to “own” people.
Why does anyone live in Tennessee?
Once you incest you just can’t stop.
Why not just move to Afganistan where all of those “problems” are already solved?
All they would have to do would switch up a few things about doctrine and they’d fit right in with fundies of the Islamic stripe. Try to tell them that, and they just about pop a blood vessel. Because it’s fucking true.
And they know it.
These fucking POS headlines really piss me off. This is so private companies can discriminate, keep people off their insurance, etc.
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a controversial bill Thursday that would allow private citizens and organizations to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages without facing punishment.
House Bill 1473, filed by Republican Representative Gino Bulso, of Brentwood, would not outlaw same-sex marriages but legally establishes that people outside of government don’t have to recognize same-sex marriages as valid and cannot be punished for it.
The legislation also states that private people and groups aren’t bound by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees due process and outlaws discrimination at the state level.
Opponents worry the bill would allow private hospitals, banks and other businesses to refuse to do business with gay and lesbian couples. They fear it could eventually allow private discrimination against bi-racial couples, immigrants and others.
Yeah that’s straight up an attempt to relegalize segregation
This is great for the shareholders.
This is all so stupid. It’s the religious term “marriage” that they all fight for. Give it to them.
Instead government issues and recognizes contractual unions between two consenting adults.
Problem solved.
Give it to them.
Excuse me? Absolutely fucking not. You don’t get to concede my marriage, and to be frank, fuck you for even suggesting it.
Instead government issues and recognizes contractual unions between two consenting adults.
Marriage is not a “contract”. A contract binds two parties to an agreement. Marriage binds many third parties to be obligated to recognize it for things like hospital visitation, privilege to not be forced to testify against one’s own spouse, “married filing jointly”, and hundreds more examples.
This argument you’re making right now is the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT I was having with people vocally and financially supporting band on same-sex marriage in the 2000s. I thought this braindead bigoted bullshit died in the 2010s, but here you are
I think you missed the main term in my response. Union. A union is a recognized formation of parts that work together for a common interest or purpose.
A “union” could be designated to have all rights and privileges that you lay out as only reserved for marriage. But a union could also go further. It could go into any level of granularity that the people of the union specify that might be ambiguous with typical “marriage rights”. If marriage defines everything then what’s the point of a prenup? Also, ALL of your examples can be superseded by other legal agreements, contracts, wills, etc. For example, a signed power of attorney takes priority of hospital decisions.
I’m making quite the opposite point on same-sex marriage.
That’s a lot of “could” and “would” doing a lot of work while ultimately still in support of fascist bigoted bullshit.
All hypothetical shit when the actual, currently working concept of marriage already exists
Now you lost me. Are you saying the current system of marriage works and at the same time insisting I’m the one against same sex marriage?
Separate but equal is not the solution you think it is.
It does not have to be separate. No legally recognized marriage for anyone. You want marriage, go to a priest. No reason for gov to stick their nose in.
It is pretty much a violation of separation of church and state to take a religious term from a religious ritual like marriage and giving it legal weight.
I think you made my point better than me.
FWIW, I support abolition of marriage. It’s weird that relationships are enshrined in law anyway, as many people do not fit into those rigid definitions. Whether it is because they do not wish to have a marriage/romantic relationships or otherwise have them be legally bound, or because they are poly and have more partners, and asking people to choose isn’t great
In my head I guess marriage just feels archaic. Sure, it still got a similar purpose to how it was historically, but I question whether it’s actually a good thing to keep
How would you protect the rights that go with marriage if you abolish marriage? Those include the right to visit your spouse in the hospital, right to attend spouse’s funeral, right to name spouse for inheritance purposes with legal weight, right to live in the housing you shared with your spouse after your spouse dies, right for your spouse to make medical decisions should you be unable to make those decisions, and others that I may be overlooking.
Your recognized “union” provides all of those rights and goes to any level of detail you wish. For example, imagine a union, will, POA, all wrapped up into one.
The laws for POA would have to change to allow for such a union. There would have to be some kind of protection for wills as well, because there are going to be fights from people against the LGBTQ community.
If all marriages were dissolved and became unions, that might work. Otherwise, it would be a separate but equal thing.
You can do paperwork for these things. Marriage is convenient though. We need laws that just say “yeah I trust my friend/relative to decide for me” like a non marriage
Paperwork didn’t help the partners of AIDS victims who were kept out of the hospital and heard of their partner’s passing via the obituaries and then kicked out of their house.
Even today, there are families who would separate sane sex partners and do the same awful things. Marriage guarantees rights, paperwork does nothing to stop the horrible people in our lives that would lash out at the first chance.
If there “unions” and not “marriages” it wouldn’t have been issue.
You can do paperwork for these things
Please explain to me how exactly could I “do paperwork” to restore, for example the spousal communications privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege that would both be taken away from me if my marriage was dissolved.
And do you really expect people to just start pre-emptively filling out paperwork to notify every single hospital they might possibly ever end up in after some major health issue, that would allow their spouse to visit them, particularly if it’s a hospital in an area hostile to queer folks?
Please explain to me how exactly could I “do paperwork”
You enter into a contractual union that is recognized by the federal government.
I get your point. I’m saying these should extend past marriages.
This has been my position since around the time when same sex marriage was being fought in the courts. Interestingly, a family member who is super conservative and religious came up with this same idea back then, and I was on board. (Her reasoning was that she wasn’t against gay people having the same rights but that marriage is a “holy” bond between a man and a woman 🙄)
I’ve found that it’s a way to get conservatives/religious folks onboard with same-sex marriage if their issue is the word “marriage” and ensuring its sanctity (cue eye-roll). It simultaneously outs the bigots because they can’t hide behind religious BS, and they show their hand. Back in the '00s and early '10s, I would use it as a litmus test of which Republicans in my life I would continue to associate with.
a family member who is super conservative and religious came up with this same idea back then, and I was on board
Maybe that’s a sign that this is not something that you should be on board with.
As a gay man, I find people like you to be MORE frustrating than the ultra conservative bigots. The bigots I expect to be bigoted. Folks who side with bigoted positions who might otherwise be decent, however, I have to really think hard about what’s wrong with them that they allow themselves to be swayed to bigoted positions.
@Noxy. Question. Would you rather be “married”, with no rights or privileges, to your spouse or be in a “union” with your spouse with rights and privileges?
I hate to say it but religious people claim the word marriage. You can fight all you want but it won’t change the outcome.
I reject your premise. I have already been married for twelve years. Both of your options take that away from me in one form or another.
I don’t give a millionth of a shit what bigots hiding behind religion think or say. They are my oppressors. I give their opinions zero regard or respect. They are fundamentally bad and I will never concede.
Fuck em. Stop giving religious people special rights and permissions and exceptions and privilege. Give them no new things and start taking away old ones.
The conservatives are just never going to give up on the culture war bullshit. This is why none of them should ever be allowed into office.
It’s in their DNA, they cannot help it. Don’t buy into the other bullshit, thinking they’ll be “gud at 'conomy” and that they don’t really mean it when it comes to their culture warrior demagoguery. They absolutely mean it. Some of them even think there should be capital punishment for homosexual acts. Because bible, that’s why.
It’s all they’ve got. They don’t want to govern they want to rule. Culture war shit keeps their base riled up and keeps them in power.
Does this mean I can personally deny the recognition of other government proceedings? If so, I’m for it.
So aside from the fourteenth amendment issues, this also runs afoul of the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. It’s dead on arrival.
Full faith and credit never stopped the refusal of some states to recognize other states’ gay marriages. It should have but didn’t
You aren’t wrong, but some of us (can you tell I have attorneys and judges in the family) believe in engaging with the system in good faith when and where able, and kicking back when it doesn’t engage back in good faith.
We’re running out of that when and where able lately it seems, but my perspective as always is limited
That’s fair, i just suspect that that element won’t be upheld and am still bitter that it wasn’t then
i have lost a toothcap grinding with you sibling
