Thread: Has anyone else heard of this claim: Native Americans had gay marriage?

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 54
  1. #11  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Hubie View Post
    What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? .
    Because miscegenation laws were struck down in a case set in Virginia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

    Incidents that the lame-stream media is reluctant to bring attention to, so it's not surprising you wouldn't know about it.
    Then by all means enlighten me.

    Let me remind you what you said:

    Maybe not, but what effect will it have on the free speech of those Native Americans who believe it to be socially and morally wrong? Judging by what's been happening in states that have enacted gay "marriage" by judicial fiat, those Native Americans will have their free speech rights violated and stripped away at will.

    What has been happening in states that have legalized same sex marriage? Who has had his free speech rights violated and stripped away at will? Surely if it's so common, then you can name a single specific case. Can you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,468
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Because miscegenation laws were struck down in a case set in Virginia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
    My question remains. Tea. China.

    Then by all means enlighten me.
    I might have an easier time climbing Mount Everest, but I'll try.

    Let me remind you what you said:
    Yes, let's begin with you condescendingly referring back to my earlier statement. Such a great way to kick things off and show just how open you are to being enlightened.

    What has been happening in states that have legalized same sex marriage?
    Suppression of 1st Amendment rights.

    Who has had his free speech rights violated and stripped away at will? Surely if it's so common, then you can name a single specific case. Can you?
    Sure. Victoria Childress in Iowa.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Hubie View Post
    Suppression of 1st Amendment rights.



    Sure. Victoria Childress in Iowa.
    Thank you; now we have something specific to discuss.

    Victoria Childress was operating a business known in law as a public accommodation. What distinguishes her business as a public accommodation rather than a personal service is the product. A massage therapist is providing a personal service, a store which sells massage oil is a public accommodation.

    Here is the relevant Iowa law:

    Iowa Code section 216.7(1):

    Unfair practices accommodations or services.
    It shall be an unfair or discriminatory practice for any owner, lessee, sublessee, proprietor, manager or superintendent of any public accommodation or any agent or employee thereof:

    a. To refuse or deny to any person because of race, creed, color, sex, national origin, religion or disability the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services, or privileges thereof, or otherwise to discriminate against any person because of race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion or disability in the furnishing of such accommodations, advantages, facilities, services, or privileges.

    b. To directly or indirectly advertise or in any other manner indicate or publicize that the patronage of persons of any particular race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion or disability is unwelcome,


    Victoria Childress violated the law. I don't know about you, but I consider this entire area of law a violation of freedom of association and freedom of speech, but it's not limited to discrimination against gay people. It also applies to people who would refuse the business of Christians, or some subgroup of Christian like Baptists.

    Which brings us to my comment about Richmond and miscegenation. Had Victoria Childress said that she was a Christian and didn't believe in interracial marriage and as such would not make a cake for Darlene and Leroy, then she would have also been in violation of the law. Had she refused to make a cake because the couple was Mormon or Jewish, she would have violated the law.

    But all of that is in her role as a public accommodation. She is perfectly free to speak out against gay people or Mormons or Jews or Blacks or anyone she chooses- just not as Victoria's Cake Cottage.

    It is the law. So is your objection to the entirety and purpose of the law or simply that it applies to gay people in addition to racial, religious, and political identities?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,468
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    As far as I know, I can walk down the streets of Richmond declaring miscegenation to be "socially and morally wrong" to all who will listen, and there isn't a thing that the law or the offended can legally do about it.
    You know, I have to wonder at your attempt to draw a parallel between the two. They are very much NOT alike and the vast majority of blacks are EXTREMELY offended when some ignorant fool like yourself uses what they went through in order to argue for gay "marriage."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Senior Member Unreconstructed Reb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Legalization of same sex marriage will have no effect on reproduction of heterosexual Indians.
    Are you for any restrictions on marriage or does anything go?
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that you won't need it until they try to take it away."---Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,468
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Thank you; now we have something specific to discuss.

    Victoria Childress was operating a business known in law as a public accommodation. What distinguishes her business as a public accommodation rather than a personal service is the product. A massage therapist is providing a personal service, a store which sells massage oil is a public accommodation.

    Here is the relevant Iowa law:

    Iowa Code section 216.7(1):

    Unfair practices accommodations or services.
    It shall be an unfair or discriminatory practice for any owner, lessee, sublessee, proprietor, manager or superintendent of any public accommodation or any agent or employee thereof:

    a. To refuse or deny to any person because of race, creed, color, sex, national origin, religion or disability the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services, or privileges thereof, or otherwise to discriminate against any person because of race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion or disability in the furnishing of such accommodations, advantages, facilities, services, or privileges.

    b. To directly or indirectly advertise or in any other manner indicate or publicize that the patronage of persons of any particular race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion or disability is unwelcome,


    Victoria Childress violated the law. I don't know about you, but I consider this entire area of law a violation of freedom of association and freedom of speech, but it's not limited to discrimination against gay people. It also applies to people who would refuse the business of Christians, or some subgroup of Christian like Baptists.

    Which brings us to my comment about Richmond and miscegenation. Had Victoria Childress said that she was a Christian and didn't believe in interracial marriage and as such would not make a cake for Darlene and Leroy, then she would have also been in violation of the law. Had she refused to make a cake because the couple was Mormon or Jewish, she would have violated the law.

    But all of that is in her role as a public accommodation. She is perfectly free to speak out against gay people or Mormons or Jews or Blacks or anyone she chooses- just not as Victoria's Cake Cottage.

    It is the law. So is your objection to the entirety and purpose of the law or simply that it applies to gay people in addition to racial, religious, and political identities?
    Yes, I've already read the post on "Pam's House Blend," which is where you clearly acquired your information from as it is the third result in a Google search and the first that is critical of this woman.

    Sorry, but public accommodation laws don't trump 1st Amendment rights. They also do not trump the rights of business owners to refuse service. "We reserve the right..." Perhaps you could tell me which law trumps the 1st Amendment because I am aware of exactly zero. We have the freedoms of speech, religion and free association (which, incidentally, is also the freedom to not associate). Tell me, would a Christian bookstore, under public accommodation, be breaking the law if they refused to stock or special order pro-gay books by Christian authors? Under your absurd interpretation, yes, it would. (One of these days, I fully expect someone to file a lawsuit based on such nonsense.) Do you think a printing company owned by someone who is gay would be prosecuted for refusing to print materials for a church promoting traditional marriage? Of course not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    11,865
    Quote Originally Posted by AmPat View Post
    This isn't new. I saw the Village People and have suspected for many years that Indians had gays among their numbers.

    LOL.


    Seriously, though, the Native Americans prior to European colonization, didn't have the types of societal institutions that the settlers brought with them, like a formal marriage arrangement that has legal and religious status. It's an impossible thing to prove either way at this point in American History.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Hubie View Post
    You know, I have to wonder at your attempt to draw a parallel between the two. They are very much NOT alike and the vast majority of blacks are EXTREMELY offended when some ignorant fool like yourself uses what they went through in order to argue for gay "marriage."
    As I have explained before, apparently without effect, the legal principles are the same. Of course the particulars are not exactly the same, they never are. That's why they are called "legal principles", ie ideas which have a broader application than a single application. It's why the First Amendment applies to computers even though they weren't invented in the 18th century. It's why the Second Amendment applies to semi-automatic revolvers. It's why the Fourth Amendment applies to a Winnebago on a rented lot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Hubie View Post
    Yes, I've already read the post on "Pam's House Blend," ........
    Did she misquote the law?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Hubie View Post
    Sorry, but public accommodation laws don't trump 1st Amendment rights.
    Actually they do. If you don't believe me, then go buy yourself a hot dog cart and put up a sign that says, 'Whites only".


    Quote Originally Posted by Hubie View Post
    They also do not trump the rights of business owners to refuse service. "We reserve the right..." Perhaps you could tell me which law trumps the 1st Amendment because I am aware of exactly zero. We have the freedoms of speech, religion and free association (which, incidentally, is also the freedom to not associate). Tell me, would a Christian bookstore, under public accommodation, be breaking the law if they refused to stock or special order pro-gay books by Christian authors?
    You're example is not valid. The Christian Bookstore is not breaking the law by not stocking "pro-gay books" , they would be breaking the law if they advertise that the store will not do business with gay customers. Do you understand the difference?

    BTW- A "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" sign isn't worth the paper it's printed on. If you refuse service to someone because of his race, religion, national origin, and in many jurisdictions sexual orientation then you are opening yourself up for legal problems.

    Childress is free to not stock same sex cake toppers. She doesn't have to go out of her way to accommodate same sex couples. But she can't refuse business on a discriminatory basis if she has a business, a sign, and advertising. It's as simple as that. And her First Amendment rights haven't been anymore violated that any store which would prefer to not do business with religious zealots or racial minorities.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •