Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
No. If it's to code, what does it matter whom performs it?
Legislating morality
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
No. If it's to code, what does it matter whom performs it?
The license from the state proves you know the code. How else could you follow it?
Taft2016
Verified User
And the outcry wouldn't come from those living in blighted areas like Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn.
It would come from the Central Park Conservancy, multi-millionaires and billionaires who reside in outrageously costly housing surrounding the park.
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
No poor people visit private parks?
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
If residents of a state are of the opinion that it is not in their best interest to license an activity, then they shouldn't be forced to license it.
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
The Central Park is developed; it's not a wilderness. People who use it don't pay taxes to get into it.
You need to get the basic facts of an issue straight before you try to debate.
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
Read it?
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
Google, a book, prior experience...
Canceled.2014.1
New member
The problem with that analogy is that an unlicensed plumber can do harm. A gay couple marrying harms no one.
The line is drawn where the situation is such that regulating it involves a legitimate state interest.
The State has a legitimate concern for the health and safety of its people, including the poor ones.
Your original statement however was more broad. You said that Taxes in general were about legislating morality, and some are... but not all.
I prefer Central Park, my kids however prefer Bush Gardens. We don't particularly like Disney.
I don't agree that there is any real need for the state to license a plumber. But they absolutely can not be discriminated against on the basis of class, race, gender, creed, religion, etc., or any of those distinctions that are only intended to create invidious discrimination. If they are discriminated against on the basis of their skill or training then it can be assumed to be intended to protect the customer or third parties.
There is no analogy for that and marriage. If your neighbor does not know how to be married it's not going to flood your apartment. The analogy is stupid.
There is no analogy for that and marriage. If your neighbor does not know how to be married it's not going to flood your apartment. The analogy is stupid.
No, you see, gay people are just as eligible for a plumbers licence as straight people. State and local governments have a legit interest in ensuring that a person who works as a plumber has a certain standard of knowledge, and that is I assume, the requirement to get a licence to be a plumber. If one of the requirements was that you be a Man, for example, I would say that is akin to requiring one of each sex for a marriage licence.
If you could come up with a reason that allowing same sex couples to get married would materially harm you or others in general, you would have a better argument.
THIS!!!
When I go to Central Park, I pay taxes on the food I buy at the businesses close to it. I pay hotel tax where I stayed the night before. I pay tax on the paddle boats I rent. I bring jobs to NYC.
IF they can demonstrate why its not in their best interests and that the government has a legitimate roll in protecting that interest, otherwise some States would legislate all kinds of things because its in the majority's "best interest". Slavery is an example that comes to mind.
In my town, you can do your own plumbing without being a plumber, as long as you follow code, you just cant do it for others.
The difference is that you cant get the legal rights otherwise available to straight couples if you practice gay marriage without it being recognized by the government. A plumber does not compare.