|
Okay maybe wrong forum, but this one seems to be civil so I'll ask my question here sorry for the derail.
Scenario is this: gay couple walks into a bakery wants a wedding cake, the baker is obligated to make it. Correct?
Scenario two: neo nazi walks into bakery wants swastika on a cake is the same baker also obligated to make it? And if not why?
I'm not trying to be a smart ass here I would truly like to know how that plays out.
There's further clarification on workplace accommodations in this WaPo article: link.
Okay maybe wrong forum, but this one seems to be civil so I'll ask my question here sorry for the derail.
Scenario is this: gay couple walks into a bakery wants a wedding cake, the baker is obligated to make it. Correct?
Scenario two: neo nazi walks into bakery wants swastika on a cake is the same baker also obligated to make it? And if not why?
I'm not trying to be a smart ass here I would truly like to know how that plays out.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think the baker could make a reasonable argument that the symbol in question was a "recognized symbol of hate", and that no publisher of any kind (including those who publish words/symbols on food) is obligated to print/publish/use frosting to create that symbol.
I also suspect pretty much any judge would by highly sympathetic to their argument.
Okay maybe wrong forum, but this one seems to be civil so I'll ask my question here sorry for the derail.
Scenario is this: gay couple walks into a bakery wants a wedding cake, the baker is obligated to make it. Correct?
Scenario two: neo nazi walks into bakery wants swastika on a cake is the same baker also obligated to make it? And if not why?
I'm not trying to be a smart ass here I would truly like to know how that plays out.
In some ways yes, in others no. I think the ways they're similar are fairly self-explanatory so I'll focus on the ways they aren't the same from my perspective.
Simple legal (non)answer. In some areas, sexual orientation is a protected class. Membership of a hate group is not.
Idealistic version of the same idea. If a few businesses discriminate against the gay person it's unfortunate. If wide swaths of businesses do so (I think it was The Daily Show that went around to all the florists in one town and got no's from all of them about serving a gay wedding) it's really damaging.
Philosophical answer one way. Alignment with a hate group is associated with a hate group is something you choose while being gay is not. As a society we are more ok with punishing someone for something they choose.
Philosophical answer another way. A swastika cake isn't something you generally offer. Its content is different from most cakes. A gay wedding cake isn't really different from a straight wedding cake. They offer that service generally.
Cynical answer. Neonazism is unacceptable to the typical American. Gayness is not and becoming less so.
I think all these are contributing factors. Some I consider valid. Enough that I don't feel hypocritical agreeing with the enforcement.
For those still paying attention, Ms. Davis plans to continue refusing to distribute marriage licenses with her name on them.
Okay maybe wrong forum, but this one seems to be civil so I'll ask my question here sorry for the derail.
Scenario is this: gay couple walks into a bakery wants a wedding cake, the baker is obligated to make it. Correct?
Scenario two: neo nazi walks into bakery wants swastika on a cake is the same baker also obligated to make it? And if not why?
I'm not trying to be a smart ass here I would truly like to know how that plays out.
Oooh! More education for NH!
I've heard of cases of bakers refusing to bake "gay" wedding cakes, so I'm curious: Under what legal pretense are they being "obligated to make them"?
I thought they still had the right to refuse service to anyone, and negative publicity and social outcry was all they had to suffer.
Is it, in actual fact, a state of law that a privately-owned company is still required to provide service to everyone?
I thought private clubs and shops could still get away with being impenetrable stalwart bastions of bigotry... "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" and all that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are laws prohibiting discrimination based on certain protected classes. In some states, sexual orientation is one of these classes. From what I can tell, this applies to certain kinds of businesses called "public accommodations", such as those providing food or lodging.
I should add that the case that I'm aware of where a bakery was successfully sued for failing to provide a cake to a gay wedding the damages were awarded on account of harassment arising from the bakery publishing the plaintiffs' information.
|
There is no federal law making homosexuality (or hate speech) a protected class, so it falls to the states. The news media loves to turn controversy into ratings, so you generally hear about the bakers who get fined for discrimination... but not those in states where they are allowed to do so. Conversely, there were recently stories about a hardware store and a gun store that put out 'no gays allowed' type signs... and are legally allowed to do that because their states have no law against it.
The 'religious right to discriminate' crowd should be careful. If they continue to push this it could eventually wind up at the Supreme Court, and precedent would be strongly against them. The swing votes of the conservative majority might well punt, but if the court ever gets a liberal majority (as would very likely happen if a democrat wins the next election) a ruling making sexual orientation a protected class nationwide would be very likely IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay maybe wrong forum, but this one seems to be civil so I'll ask my question here sorry for the derail.
Scenario is this: gay couple walks into a bakery wants a wedding cake, the baker is obligated to make it. Correct?
Scenario two: neo nazi walks into bakery wants swastika on a cake is the same baker also obligated to make it? And if not why?
I'm not trying to be a smart ass here I would truly like to know how that plays out.Oooh! More education for NH!
I've heard of cases of bakers refusing to bake "gay" wedding cakes, so I'm curious: Under what legal pretense are they being "obligated to make them"?
This is actually a completely different area of law. Constitutional rights only apply to government actions (E.g., "Congress shall make no law ....") not disputes between two private parties.
Federal anti-discrimination laws are a patchwork; for example, from the Department of Labor, "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, sex, or ethnic origin; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits discrimination against employees 40 years and older; and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of disabilities and requires that employers reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities who can otherwise perform a job." These laws sometimes focus specifically on employment, other laws (e.g., the Fair Housing Act} cover other aspects of life and some (the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is pretty general about "no discrimination").
I thought they still had the right to refuse service to anyone, and negative publicity and social outcry was all they had to suffer.
Not if there's a law to the contrary.
Federal law generally (meaning, "it's complicated") covers discrimination on the basis of race, color sex, and ethnic origin. So you can't refuse service to a black because he's black, to a Jew because she's Jewish, to an Italian because he's Italian, or to a woman because she's a woman.
Is it, in actual fact, a state of law that a privately-owned company is still required to provide service to everyone?
No. These laws establish "protected classes," groups against which you are not permitted to discriminate based on their membership. I could still, in theory, refuse service to a black Jewish woman because she's a Cowboys fan.
Sexual orientation is not a protected class under Federal law, but some states (and some cities) have their own laws about discrimination that extend protection to other classes (such as LGBT and so forth). So it varies depending upon what exactly you're doing and where exactly you are.... basically, this is why lawyers drive Bentleys.
Okay maybe wrong forum, but this one seems to be civil so I'll ask my question here sorry for the derail.
Scenario is this: gay couple walks into a bakery wants a wedding cake, the baker is obligated to make it. Correct?
Scenario two: neo nazi walks into bakery wants swastika on a cake is the same baker also obligated to make it? And if not why?
I'm not trying to be a smart ass here I would truly like to know how that plays out.I'm not a lawyer, but I think the baker could make a reasonable argument that the symbol in question was a "recognized symbol of hate", and that no publisher of any kind (including those who publish words/symbols on food) is obligated to print/publish/use frosting to create that symbol.
I also suspect pretty much any judge would by highly sympathetic to their argument.
Maybe. But the swastika is also a religious symbol (in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism) dating back more than 12,000 years. So be careful if the local Buddhist monastery asks for a cake.
That's the mandala(?) - and I think it goes in the other direction? That's what I've heard, anyway, so you could at least make an argument that it's not the same symbol and therefore shouldn't be offensive to put on a cake. Kind of the way a strictly atheist person probably wouldn't be offended at writing the letter "t", despite its similarities to the cross.
That's the mandala - and I think it goes in the other direction?
Nope, in Sanskrit it's the svastika and it goes in both directions. Both directions are even officially in Unicode [U+534D 卍 (left-facing) and U+5350 卐 (right-facing)] as part of the Chinese character set.
And in the Tibetan block there are four versions: U+0FD5 ࿕ right-facing svasti sign, U+0FD6 ࿖ left-facing svasti sign, U+0FD7 ࿗ right-facing svasti sign with dots and U+0FD8 ࿘ left-facing svasti sign with dots.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have I mentioned how much I love this thread? I'm learning a LOT, and we're over 300 posts and still amazingly civil!
Ah, okay - I freely admit that I haven't studied this subject too deeply, just that I remember the other direction also being a thing. XD
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thank everyone for a civil and informed answer to my question . I posted it here out of genuine curiosity and appreciate the answers given . I don't believe it needs saying but just in case I am not in any way indorsing hate groups but they are protected under free speech so I wondered.
The case might be a bit more interesting if you knew what they planned to do with the cake, too. XD
For example, if the swastika-decorated cake was going to be delivered to a Jewish person, you could probably make an argument that it was "fighting words/speech" (i.e. "inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace", specifically mental injury), which under CHAPLINSKY v. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE (1941) are specifically not considered free speech. A similar argument might be made if the use of the cake was to be recorded/televised, especially if the group was known for shock value and trying to upset people, etc.
I don't think there's any way to say for sure outside of an actual court case on the issue, but the more they planned to do with the cake and associated hate speech/symbol, the more likely it is someone would have a reasonable case for objecting.
If there's anything good about hate speech, it's that it can quickly become fighting words, thus allowing it to be stopped.
|
|
For those still paying attention, Ms. Davis plans to continue refusing to distribute marriage licenses with her name on them.As I understand it the compromise involves removing her name from those licenses. And in turn neither she nor her son would interfere with the operations of her office.
There isn't any formal 'compromise' in effect. For now she is just released on the understanding that she will not interfere with the issuance of marriage licenses. The 'remove her name' idea has been floated in the press, but I haven't seen any indication from Davis or her lawyers that they are considering it... and I'm not sure if it is possible without action by outside parties (e.g. the legislature).
She is apparently now taking a few days off and will return to work Friday or next week. We could find out what new plan they've come up with then or maybe they'll keep it quiet until the next time a gay couple seeks to get married in that county.
That being said, her lawyers' angry claims that the licenses issued without her approval are invalid doesn't bode well. If she seeks to invalidate those marriages it'd likely spawn a separate court challenge and the judge would almost certainly put her back in jail until that case was resolved. On the other hand, if she tries to block further marriages the judge might well put her back in prison until she agrees to accept them, resigns, or is voted out of office.
For those still paying attention, Ms. Davis plans to continue refusing to distribute marriage licenses with her name on them.As I understand it the compromise involves removing her name from those licenses. And in turn neither she nor her son would interfere with the operations of her office.There isn't any formal 'compromise' in effect. For now she is just released on the understanding that she will not interfere with the issuance of marriage licenses. The 'remove her name' idea has been floated in the press, but I haven't seen any indication from Davis or her lawyers that they are considering it... and I'm not sure if it is possible without action by outside parties (e.g. the legislature).
She is apparently now taking a few days off and will return to work Friday or next week. We could find out what new plan they've come up with then or maybe they'll keep it quiet until the next time a gay couple seeks to get married in that county.
That being said, her lawyers' angry claims that the licenses issued without her approval are invalid doesn't bode well. If she seeks to invalidate those marriages it'd likely spawn a separate court challenge and the judge would almost certainly put her back in jail until that case was resolved. On the other hand, if she tries to block further marriages the judge might well put her back in prison until she agrees to accept them, resigns, or is voted out of office.
Same-sex marriage partners and trans* people seeking to change their names in Rowan County, Kentucky still need to go through Ms. Davis' office. Kentucky also allows trans* people to have their birth certificates reissued with the proper sex designation; I imagine updating their voter's registrations, drivers licenses, and other necessary paperwork also fall under Ms. Davis' jurisdiction as well. Ugh.
I thank everyone for a civil and informed answer to my question . I posted it here out of genuine curiosity and appreciate the answers given . I don't believe it needs saying but just in case I am not in any way indorsing hate groups but they are protected under free speech so I wondered.
Yet another illustration of the complexities.
"Free speech" is a Constitutional right -- it only limits what the government can do.
You can put anything you like on top of a cake, and the government can't stop you.
You can ask the baker at Wal*Mart to put anything you like on top of a cake, and the government can't stop you. The government typically can't prevent Wal*Mart from making the cake, either.
But Wal*Mart is under no obligation to make that cake for you. Wal*Mart's not the government and doesn't have to respect your "free speech." Your boss can probably fire you even for asking for that cake. Your landlord can probably refuse to renew your lease because you asked for that cake.
Because those are disputes between private parties -- you and your boss, you and Wal*Mart, you and your landlord -- "free speech" doesn't apply.
Free speech may not apply, but other things might.I thank everyone for a civil and informed answer to my question . I posted it here out of genuine curiosity and appreciate the answers given . I don't believe it needs saying but just in case I am not in any way indorsing hate groups but they are protected under free speech so I wondered.Yet another illustration of the complexities.
"Free speech" is a Constitutional right -- it only limits what the government can do.
You can put anything you like on top of a cake, and the government can't stop you.
You can ask the baker at Wal*Mart to put anything you like on top of a cake, and the government can't stop you. The government typically can't prevent Wal*Mart from making the cake, either.But Wal*Mart is under no obligation to make that cake for you. Wal*Mart's not the government and doesn't have to respect your "free speech." Your boss can probably fire you even for asking for that cake. Your landlord can probably refuse to renew your lease because you asked for that cake.
Because those are disputes between private parties -- you and your boss, you and Wal*Mart, you and your landlord -- "free speech" doesn't apply.
Yes, civil rights are a mess. But "free speech" is a constitutional right, which was my point. When we're talking about "hate groups ... are protected under free speech," it's important to understand what that means.
However Wal*Mart, as a public accommodation, can't refuse to sell you a cake solely because you're a racist d-bag. They can refuse to make a Hitler cake for you on the basis that they refuse to make Hitler cakes for anyone.I thank everyone for a civil and informed answer to my question . I posted it here out of genuine curiosity and appreciate the answers given . I don't believe it needs saying but just in case I am not in any way indorsing hate groups but they are protected under free speech so I wondered.Yet another illustration of the complexities.
"Free speech" is a Constitutional right -- it only limits what the government can do.
You can put anything you like on top of a cake, and the government can't stop you.
You can ask the baker at Wal*Mart to put anything you like on top of a cake, and the government can't stop you. The government typically can't prevent Wal*Mart from making the cake, either.But Wal*Mart is under no obligation to make that cake for you. Wal*Mart's not the government and doesn't have to respect your "free speech." Your boss can probably fire you even for asking for that cake. Your landlord can probably refuse to renew your lease because you asked for that cake.
Because those are disputes between private parties -- you and your boss, you and Wal*Mart, you and your landlord -- "free speech" doesn't apply.
I'm not sure that's true. "Racist d-bag" isn't a protected class.
OTOH, I'm not sure exactly how the distinction would arise.
Well, if I need a Hitler cake as a prop for a local performance of The Producers, I'm not a racist d-bag, just an actor, or possibly a producer. If I want the cake because I'm the Grand Pooh-Bah of the local Aryan Separatist group,....
But I believe Krensky is wrong. As you point out, "racist d-bag" is not a protected group, and Wal*Mart would be completely within their rights to refuse to make a cake saying "Happy Father's Day" for a racist d-bag in most jurisdictions, because they don't like "that kind of people."
However Wal*Mart, as a public accommodation, can't refuse to sell you a cake solely because you're a racist d-bag. They can refuse to make a Hitler cake for you on the basis that they refuse to make Hitler cakes for anyone.I thank everyone for a civil and informed answer to my question . I posted it here out of genuine curiosity and appreciate the answers given . I don't believe it needs saying but just in case I am not in any way indorsing hate groups but they are protected under free speech so I wondered.Yet another illustration of the complexities.
"Free speech" is a Constitutional right -- it only limits what the government can do.
You can put anything you like on top of a cake, and the government can't stop you.
You can ask the baker at Wal*Mart to put anything you like on top of a cake, and the government can't stop you. The government typically can't prevent Wal*Mart from making the cake, either.But Wal*Mart is under no obligation to make that cake for you. Wal*Mart's not the government and doesn't have to respect your "free speech." Your boss can probably fire you even for asking for that cake. Your landlord can probably refuse to renew your lease because you asked for that cake.
Because those are disputes between private parties -- you and your boss, you and Wal*Mart, you and your landlord -- "free speech" doesn't apply.
I'm not sure that's true. "Racist d-bag" isn't a protected class.
OTOH, I'm not sure exactly how the distinction would arise.Well, if I need a Hitler cake as a prop for a local performance of The Producers, I'm not a racist d-bag, just an actor, or possibly a producer. If I want the cake because I'm the Grand Pooh-Bah of the local Aryan Separatist group,....
But I believe Krensky is wrong. As you point out, "racist d-bag" is not a protected group, and Wal*Mart would be completely within their rights...
There was a Walmart in Louisiana that refused to do the Confederate flag as a cake, but were willing to do the ISIS flag. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/30/walmart-isis-cake_n_7695550.html
In any event, don't most private businesses make a point of reserving the right to refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any reason (unless the customer can prove discrimination on the basis of race, gender, class etc.)?
There was a Walmart in Louisiana that refused to do the Confederate flag as a cake, but were willing to do the ISIS flag.
In any event, don't most private businesses make a point of reserving the right to refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any reason (unless the customer can prove discrimination on the basis of race, gender, class etc.)?
Well, the Wal*Mart was acting as much through ignorance as anything else. If the clerk had known that it was an ISIS flag, or known what an ISIS flag looked like, he'd probably have refused, and been legally entitled to do so. (I admit I don't know what the ISIS flag looks like other than that it's black; heck, I confuse the flags of Belgium and the Netherlands. "Wait, the French-speaking country has the German colors?")
As far as the "we reserve the right to refuse service" signs,.... those are legally meaningless. You can't "reserve" rights you don't have, and you don't need to reserve those you do. They exist mainly to give managers something to point at when they're throwing angry drunks out of their stores.
I'm glad it was ignorance in the case of the Walmart - not to sound like a snob, but we probably all have anecdotes about having to deal with their staff (what's that one website that's like a counterpoint of NotAlwaysRight?)
As for the second point - a business is private property, shouldn't state and local laws protect the rights of owners? Not just against angry drunks but unruly or belligerent customers. A friend who worked at Best Buy told me once store policy was to escort anyone off the premises as soon as they use the word "lawsuit" or anything related.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for the second point - a business is private property, shouldn't state and local laws protect the rights of owners?
"Protect the rights of" is not the best phrasing for a very complicated concept. Any time you're protecting the right of someone, you're implicitly limiting the right of someone else. (My right to swing my fist ends when it interferes with your right not to get punched.)
Civil rights legislation tries to thread this particular needle as best it can, and not everyone's happy about the way any particular case works out. The "rights of owners" not to serve blacks, Jews, women, and so forth have explicitly been rejected. The "rights of owners" to impose contracts of adhesion on purchases has been substantially limited when the contracts are abusive.
The right to throw belligerent customers out of the store is pretty solid, but most of the those customers aren't going to like it. The signs, as I said, give the manager something to point at as he's throwing them out.
A more interesting case is the "we reserve the right to inspect all bags." No, you don't. You can't reserve rights you don't have. If you ask to look in my backpack and I refuse, all you can do is escort me out of the store, or call a cop and swear out a theft complaint. (And attempting to search someone without their consent is a bad move, and so is swearing a false complaint. Both are generally career-limiting-moves once the paperwork arrives at District.)
There are buildings in Manhattan which have a sign saying that sidewalk access is a privilege that is subject to revocation at will by the management.As far as the "we reserve the right to refuse service" signs,.... those are legally meaningless. You can't "reserve" rights you don't have, and you don't need to reserve those you do. They exist mainly to give managers something to point at when they're throwing angry drunks out of their stores.
That may be on firmer ground, legally, depending upon where the property lines are actually drawn. If you're standing on the sidewalk of the Wyner building, you may be on city-owned (public) property or you may be on Wyner-owned property, and the Wyner building management has the same authority to ask you to leave "their" sidewalk that they would to leave "their" office.
Some jurisdictions explicitly label even privately-owned sidewalks as "public areas," but I don't know if Manhattan is one of them. Even if it is, the "sidewalk" is not always clearly and easily distinguished from a paved plaza in front of the building that is private property. (If this link works, its should illustrate the issue nicely.) It's the Fox News building on Avenue of the Americas (1204 6th Ave).... where does the "public" part of the area start?
Manhattan also has issues with requiring but not enforcing public access to space; buildings are built with special tax benefits as long as they have "public" space on the ground floor, but then no one checks to see if the space is actually open to the public. (Aha! Found the link! Happy Illithid Dance!)
My central point, though, is still that the sign itself doesn't mean anything. If management has the right to chase you off the sidewalk, the sign isn't what gave it to them. If management doesn't have the right to chase you off the sidewalk, putting up the sign doesn't change anything. It does, however, perhaps make it easier to explain why they're chasing you off.....
Any word on how Kim's first day back to work was? here's hoping she's doing her job
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In any event, don't most private businesses make a point of reserving the right to refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any reason (unless the customer can prove discrimination on the basis of race, gender, class etc.)?
It's been some years, but every retail or food service job I ever worked at this was the case, except that discrimination based on anything didn't apply at all. If any customer made you (the employee), uncomfortable, you had the right to refuse them services. Period. This was actually part of the initial training for a few of them. Now, on the various companies side, the normal procedure was to find me, another manager or employee, or to call the police on the spot if there was any resistance. But, that was policy, not law. We also had the right to ban individuals from the grounds, for any reason.
A more interesting case is the "we reserve the right to inspect all bags." No, you don't. You can't reserve rights you don't have. If you ask to look in my backpack and I refuse, all you can do is escort me out of the store, or call a cop and swear out a theft complaint. (And attempting to search someone without their consent is a bad move, and so is swearing a false complaint.
I'm 99% that is not correct. I know it was not a few years ago. In a privately owned residence or business, technically anything on that property is your responsibility. If someone brings a bag in, (assuming there is a sign declaring it), they are told that their bag needs to be searched before entering, the person with the bag has the option to leave or abide by the rules and stay under the conditions presented. By accepting to stay, the person with the bag is also therefore accepting that it may/will be searched. The sign says all for two reasons. 1.) because all bags will be searched such as in a lot of government or military buildings, or to avoid claims of discrimination. So, if you come in my home, and see a sign on the front door indicating you need to have your bag searched before entering, by entering and/or staying, you are agreeing to have your bag searched. What I can not do, without cause, is seize or take your bag without your consent. Now, if I find a knife/gun/bomb/drugs/etc. . . in your bag, something I would get in trouble for being that it was on my property, home or business, that's a different story. The only real argument or recourse the bag owner might have, and that's a huge longshot, would be if there was some legal reason they had to be there, could not leave, and had no other alternative. Not likely, and wouldn't excuse anything illegal or dangerous in their bag anyway.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, did this happen in the 60's too when they legalized interracial marriage? I'm sure it had to... Wonder how long it took to get it all figured out.
Oh, and for great info on 'traditional marriage' in the Bible presented in a fun way, check out Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian's video on the subject...
Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else Note, due to it being about the Bible, it's rather NSFW (which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who has actually read it... unlike Kim Davis and others like her.)
As for "refusal of service" and such, here's a good example of how it works, at least in Topeka.
See, Westboro you all know who they are (the irony of them attacking Kim Davis is hilarious.) Sunday mornings after their church services (they must do it at like 6am or such so they can be done by others churches start time) they head out to whatever other church they are picketing that day. Thing is, they have to stay on the OTHER SIDE of the street from the church, and can't be on any private property.
Now, if they decide to head down to Dillon's grocery store and protest in their parking lot? Dillon's very much can be like 'GTFO' because, it's still owned by a corporation, not the public.
However, there is one place in Topeka that they CAN protest that you might think they cannot, and that is the Topeka Performing Arts Center. They theoretically should be able to say 'GTFO' but... Westboro has a loophole. TPAC shares a building with the Shawnee County Courthouse. Bam. They are on government property. TPAC can't boot them, not even when the courthouse is closed. Therefore, if an act decides to play at the Kansas Expocentre, Westboro can legally be told to leave the premises... TPAC has no such luxury, and Westboro knows it. This is why Topeka can't have nice things.
Amusing link, though not entirely correct in what it's presenting. XD Definitely not what I'd call a reputable source.
|
|
Amusing link, though not entirely correct in what it's presenting. XD Definitely not what I'd call a reputable source.
How is it not correct? Yes, she's a comedian (Deven Green) but she knows the Bible. I've read the Bible. Remove the joking tone from what she says, and she's correct about all the things it says in the Bible about marriage, '1 man, 1 woman' isn't there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, did this happen in the 60's too when they legalized interracial marriage? I'm sure it had to... Wonder how long it took to get it all figured out.
Less how long it took to figure things out and more how long it took to drive opposition underground. Same arguments, same tactics, same people. Every time. They might as well just glue the white hoods on. So a realistic timeline until they give up the ghost? (Usually literally. Medical advances have their cruel side.) Alabama had laws banning interracial marriage on the books until 2000. Call it thirty-three years.
@Zelda: Oh, I agree that "One Man, One Woman" is less than completely Biblical. That, at least, is pretty clear. XD She didn't touch on every relevant detail, though (in fairness, that's hard for any video to do), and it's certainly not an unbiased account.