#LoveWins

Re: Free Birth Control and Unfree Photographers

 

So everyone has a right to the market when they open a business, and a right to withhold services and resources based upon nothing more than spite? That is an opinion that could only be held by individuals who have the privilege of being a member of the dominant class. Acceptability of excluding all those that do not meet the majority's expectation is a sign of irrationality; and Jacob Sullum is free to proselytize the right to refuse your fellow Americans without a viable reason, but to appear on a venue such as Reason.com is abundant with irony.

The individual has a right not to offer consumer services to the general public, but once you take the endeavour to provide those consumer services the only way that it encroaches on the business owners right is when the owner choses to profess the withholding of services are based upon the demographic group that the consumer belongs to. The action, overt by the choice of the business owner, to choose to withhold while offending the perspective customer is impractical and unnecessary since the business owner could have simply stated “sorry, we aren't available that week, could I refer you to so-and-so they would be able to help you out.” Most of the readers of Reason.com will likely agree with the sentiment that Title II of the Civil Rights Act which bars discrimination within businesses that are available to the public is utterly irrational, but the social contract that provides government services to businesses implies that the businesses should be for the public that paid for the infrastructure the businesses utilize on a daily basis. Would it acceptable if businesses that did discriminate, that the local government would roll back the roads that lead to the business? To discriminate against counter parties that did business with the discriminating owner? If there is a right to discriminate then any business exercising that right would have a lot more to lose than just one gig for a betrothed couple that the business owner despised. You have a right not to participate in any market, but once you choose to enter said market it is no longer your right to discriminate; and once you do choose to infringe on the rights of individuals for simple practicality find any other excuse to withhold services or goods and return to under whatever bridge you come from. Every market relies upon public goods, and deny that fact is irrational and unreasonable.

In regards to Hobby Lobby, they are receiving tax credits (which they free are to reject) when they provide their employees with health-care insurance that happens to include birth control. If they were so adamant they would refuse the tax credits and pay for health insurance that did not include birth control (which would be difficult to find since birth control has such a great epidemiological benefit that any insurance company denying birth control would see their expenditures go up and so the market and reason has spoken and few health insurance policies are offered sans birth control at reasonable rates) as well as the difference in costs that are being set by the for-profit insurance companies. Hobby Lobby, while paying lip service to their right to principle, would rather bemoan their inability to access government services and benefits on their own terms. But when your cant stick to stated principles because inconvenience, and you would rather have them subsidized than pay the true costs of those principles they are no longer principles but just a hobby.

For so the Bible told me so...

In Luke 7:1-10 Jesus cured a Centurion's servant-- except the original Greek word used was 'pais' or boy-slave. And contemporaneously Roman Officers would take with them boys that they would sodomize, it is likely that this is what is being referred in the New Testament.

Jesus provided services to homosexuals why is it right for the government to withhold licensing services from homosexuals?

Samaritans in the old testament rejected Yahweh and worshiped a god named Ba'al, so even a person that breaks the first commandment can lead a life that coincides with Jesus' teachings and scriptures' commandment to love your neighbor Luke 10:30–37.

If G-d so loved the world that G-d sacrificed his only son, why wasn't there any exemption of that love? Why if G-d loves the world with homosexuals in it, would you get to believe that hating (or anything short of loving) G-d's fellow creations is welcomed by our Creator?

For every Christian that argues against marriage equality I would ask them to check their Bible again, or also call for the demolition of Red Lobsters across the nation.

But these same pseudo-Christians will make the false claim that United States was founded as a Christian or Judeo-Christian nation. They need to check out the First Amendment's "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" or  Article VI of the Constitution "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" or Treaty of Tripoli's Article 11 "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." But that would require a wider mind than is displayed.

"Fair and Balanced" coverage of the Supreme Court...just hours later

Though several hours after oral arguments ended for the Supreme Court hearing the Hollingsworth v. Perry case that may decide the constitutionality of gay marriage bans, Fox News make unusual decisions in their coverage. Initially I flipped between the three 24 news channels, and noticed that CNN & MSNBC covered it live while Fox News continued to cover less immediate stories such as replays of CPAC speeches and Amanda Knox being retried in Italian court. After several hours away from my TV I came back and MSNBC was going over the transcripts of the oral arguments; which made think 'wonder if Fox News ever covered the story at all?' Above is the screen grab of my television with MSNBC in lower right-hand picture-in-picture and Fox News in full screen. After watching Fox News discussed some Jim Carey "rant" against guns, I realized Fox News isn't going to discuss the likelihood that the Supreme Court will not strike down the lower court's decision and upholding Prop 8 ban of same gender marriage. I then checked out what the hullabaloo over Jim Carey, I give you the Funny or Die video that sparked it all below:



Both the video and the twitter posts were from March 24th, two days ago, not particularly breaking news nor was the following story a repeat of the Amanda Knox retrial story. It isn't that Fox News never mentioned the Supreme Court oral arguments but not covering the press conference live is a large failing for any journalistic organization... good thing Fox News is not associated with all aspects of journalism. FoxNews.com did post it up as the leading headline story for the day, and accompanied a video that appears to have pended on Supreme Court releasing the audio file of the oral arguments. Fox News used b-roll of opposing sides chanting outside of the Supreme Court but couldn't have the same camera crew pointed their camera towards David Boies and Ted Olson when they came out of the highest court of the land? If the opposing attorney Chris Cooper wanted to avoid the cameras, that doesn't preclude interviewing the two attorneys that had  argued opposing sides for Gore v Bush but now are on the same side.

It appears that Fox News chose not to show anything live, leads me to believe that if they can't edit the footage they are not going to let go on air.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/jim-carrey-ruffles-gun-nuts-feathers-funny-

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/26/supreme-court-to-hear-arguments-in-gay-marriage-cases-that-could-have/

Supreme Court: Marriage Equality and Guns

Windsor v. United States (lesbian widow after marrying her life partner in Canada owed the IRS over $300,000 in inheritance taxes that if her marriage was recognized wouldn't have owed a dime) oral arguments are scheduled this week to be heard in the Supreme court. What does marriage equality have to do with guns, you may ask. Both depend on full faith and credit clause and opposite interpretations of the same text of of the Constitution. The same thing that avoids inconvenience of having to retake driving tests when you cross state lines, is that the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution and it also allows for the Iron Pipeline from Virginia up I-95 to the Northeast's cities that have strict state gun control laws as opposed to Virginia and other Southern states that have only the Federal lenient gun control laws. So guns and driver's licenses can be go back and forth across state lines, and this relates to marriage due to the fact a couple that is of opposite genders only needs to get married once to have that marriage recognized in all 50 states, District of Columbia, and U.S. territories. The couple could even get married abroad in a destination wedding, no matter what country (probably more difficult in Cuba, North Korea, etc) even Canada.

In 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was signed into law and the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA is what is going to argued in front the Supreme Court this week. It is as follows:

Section 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

So married couples have expectations that their marriage is not going to be questioned since a marriage license in one state is accepted in every state, a license to drive a car is accepted every state, a license (or lack of a requirement to have a license) to carry a gun is accepted in every other state. In 2010 District of Columbia vs Heller set forward that Washington DC could not regulate firearms to the degree of an outright ban, but puts into question of other restrictions such as licences to own guns as New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, etc currently has. Guns purchased in Virginia do not require licenses and are not registered in any database. Federal Government has been unwilling to bar the transportation of firearms from one jurisdiction to another and leaves it is up to the local municipality to enforce gun legislation. Full faith and credit is provided to the gun owners who cross state lines, but a marriage crossing state lines is too much and can not receive the same full faith and credit. So the guns can't be held to a different standard from state to state, but marriage licences in the limited cases of same gender marriages get can be? Unique treatment from the Federal Government punishing same gender couple for refusing to acknowledge their marriages. That the same conservative justices are going to vote to continue this injustices while telling the Federalist Society the Constitution is not a living document but somehow seems to twist and move to fit their predetermined concept of how the world should work. In one instance, Heller, reinforces that full faith and credit while doubling down that government shouldn't intervene. In the upcoming Windsor case Scalia, Thomas, Alito will certainly make the case that government should discriminate (thereby intervening) when private individuals go and get licenses from a municipality that through legislature or judicial means provides marriages to any 2 consenting adults regardless of gender.

I could be wrong, maybe those conservative justices will follow their statements that Constitution restrains them to make law and that the legislature can't amend the Constitution via statute and surprise me with a unanimous decision striking down DOMA . I won't be holding my breath.