Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Remember when "Gay Rights" was not about forcing people to endorse homosexuality
Author Message
Smaug Offline
Happnin' Dude
*

Posts: 61,211
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 842
I Root For: Dragons
Location: The Lonely Mountain

BlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk Award
Post: #121
RE: Remember when "Gay Rights" was not about forcing people to endorse homosexuality
(06-17-2012 05:00 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  My 2 cents:
It is a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution to deny gays the governmental marriage recognition when straight couples are given legal marriage rights. If the government drops legal benefits for marriage, this wouldn't be an issue. And as a practical matter, gays are getting married all the time, it's not destroying society. Only their legal benefits are being denied now.

No church should be required to marry anyone who's lifestyle they do not approve of; to hold otherwise would be to abridge their freedom of religion.

Nor should anyone be required to provide a service for anyone regardless of the reason. This is currently illegal under federal civil rights laws which are placed onto the states via the commerce clause and the fourteenth amendment. A private business should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason, even offensive reasons like race, gender, etc. To hold otherwise would violate the freedom of association and often times, freedom of religion.

As long as consenting adults wish to be married, there is not a valid reason to prohibit them. I'm legally okay with polygamy and even incestuous marriages so long as its with consenting adults and the issue of reproduction is addressed. I may find them both distasteful or offensive, but its none of the governments business if no one is being harmed. Animals and children can't consent legally. So that would never be okay.

Exactly.
06-17-2012 05:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #122
RE: Remember when "Gay Rights" was not about forcing people to endorse homosexuality
(06-17-2012 02:25 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  if any of you claim to be conservative, why do you want the government to decide who is married and who isn't? i thought that was the churches job? if you claim to want "small government" you should want it out of the marriage business...you should want the State out of the churches business.

I think I said specifically that. The government decided long ago that being married is a good thing they should promote and thus they have. Now, rather than petition the government to get out of the marriage business, they are petitioning individuals and churches to do so.. That is not, and never will be the churches job. You will NEVEr convince people to go against their moral code. I don't want the state in my business, or yours, but as my business is not being abridged by the state, asking ME to go against my moral character is absolutely wrong. I won't fight your battle. I won't support your cause. I won't hurt your cause either, and as it suits me, I will go along with those portions of your fight that I agree with.

Once again, the left isn't satisfied with having us agree on an outcome... We must agree on a cause. I don't care if you want to sleep with a man. I don't care if you want to leave your money to a man. I don't care if you want to let a man make decisions for you in the event you are incapacitated. If you denigrate MY position, I will fight you. If you merely elevate yours, I won't get in your way. Isn't that enough? Apparently not. I have to agree that your opinions are correct... And I'm sorry, but I don't. If you want me to live and let live, then afford me the same courtesy

Ftr, I am stating the general opinion of those to the right of me, rather than my own opinion.
(This post was last modified: 06-17-2012 05:16 PM by Hambone10.)
06-17-2012 05:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #123
RE: Remember when "Gay Rights" was not about forcing people to endorse homosexuality
(06-17-2012 03:27 PM)Smaug Wrote:  You're obfuscating. A gay person cannot marry the person he/she wants to marry.

The law is applied equivalently. That's an objective fact. Isn't that what's at question?
06-17-2012 08:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #124
RE: Remember when "Gay Rights" was not about forcing people to endorse homosexuality
(06-17-2012 05:00 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  My 2 cents:
It is a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution to deny gays the governmental marriage recognition when straight couples are given legal marriage rights. If the government drops legal benefits for marriage, this wouldn't be an issue. And as a practical matter, gays are getting married all the time, it's not destroying society. Only their legal benefits are being denied now.

That's not exactly correct. Legal benefits are not being denied, as gays are not getting married per the definition of the original offer.

Benefits aren't a right, they're consideration as part of the social contract.
06-17-2012 08:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #125
RE: Remember when "Gay Rights" was not about forcing people to endorse homosexuality
(06-17-2012 04:25 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  
(06-17-2012 03:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  
(06-17-2012 02:25 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  if any of you claim to be conservative, why do you want the government to decide who is married and who isn't? i thought that was the churches job?

You thought wrong. Marriage has been intertwined w/ government from the beginning. You should learn some history.

Quote: if you claim to want "small government" you should want it out of the marriage business...you should want the State out of the churches business.

You should learn some history.

where exactly did i say the government isn't or hasn't been involved in marriage? oh yeah, i didn't...so quit putting words in my mouth.

i said you should want the government out of the marriage business.

Don't put words in my mouth.
06-17-2012 08:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #126
RE: Remember when "Gay Rights" was not about forcing people to endorse homosexuality
(06-17-2012 04:31 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  
(06-17-2012 03:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  
Quote: "does not harm anyone" "those who don't understand it". Elaborate on how that was so blatantly wrong.

AIDS, hepatitis, alcoholism, suicide, domestic abuse...all higher among homosexuals. And pedophiles are 20x more likely to be homosexual than seen in the general population.

what a load of crap...

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/ht...ation.html

Ah, so someone tried to redefine the terms in order to make the fact go away.

That pretty much proves my point.
(This post was last modified: 06-17-2012 08:10 PM by DrTorch.)
06-17-2012 08:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bull_In_Exile Offline
Eternal Pessimist
*

Posts: 21,809
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 461
I Root For: The Underdog
Location:
Post: #127
RE: Remember when "Gay Rights" was not about forcing people to endorse homosexuality
(06-17-2012 05:03 PM)Smaug Wrote:  
(06-17-2012 05:00 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  My 2 cents:
It is a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution to deny gays the governmental marriage recognition when straight couples are given legal marriage rights. If the government drops legal benefits for marriage, this wouldn't be an issue. And as a practical matter, gays are getting married all the time, it's not destroying society. Only their legal benefits are being denied now.

No church should be required to marry anyone who's lifestyle they do not approve of; to hold otherwise would be to abridge their freedom of religion.

Nor should anyone be required to provide a service for anyone regardless of the reason. This is currently illegal under federal civil rights laws which are placed onto the states via the commerce clause and the fourteenth amendment. A private business should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason, even offensive reasons like race, gender, etc. To hold otherwise would violate the freedom of association and often times, freedom of religion.

As long as consenting adults wish to be married, there is not a valid reason to prohibit them. I'm legally okay with polygamy and even incestuous marriages so long as its with consenting adults and the issue of reproduction is addressed. I may find them both distasteful or offensive, but its none of the governments business if no one is being harmed. Animals and children can't consent legally. So that would never be okay.

Exactly.

Unfortunately thats not the way gays see it, and the modern interpretation of the 14th would gives some weight.

The initial post, which was ignored by the leftist delt not with gay marriage but with forcing a private company to provide services at such ceremonies depite their religious beliefs.
06-17-2012 08:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jugnaut Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,874
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 482
I Root For: UCF
Location: Florida
Post: #128
RE: Remember when "Gay Rights" was not about forcing people to endorse homosexuality
(06-17-2012 08:10 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  
(06-17-2012 05:03 PM)Smaug Wrote:  
(06-17-2012 05:00 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  My 2 cents:
It is a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution to deny gays the governmental marriage recognition when straight couples are given legal marriage rights. If the government drops legal benefits for marriage, this wouldn't be an issue. And as a practical matter, gays are getting married all the time, it's not destroying society. Only their legal benefits are being denied now.

No church should be required to marry anyone who's lifestyle they do not approve of; to hold otherwise would be to abridge their freedom of religion.

Nor should anyone be required to provide a service for anyone regardless of the reason. This is currently illegal under federal civil rights laws which are placed onto the states via the commerce clause and the fourteenth amendment. A private business should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason, even offensive reasons like race, gender, etc. To hold otherwise would violate the freedom of association and often times, freedom of religion.

As long as consenting adults wish to be married, there is not a valid reason to prohibit them. I'm legally okay with polygamy and even incestuous marriages so long as its with consenting adults and the issue of reproduction is addressed. I may find them both distasteful or offensive, but its none of the governments business if no one is being harmed. Animals and children can't consent legally. So that would never be okay.

Exactly.

Unfortunately thats not the way gays see it, and the modern interpretation of the 14th would gives some weight.

The initial post, which was ignored by the leftist delt not with gay marriage but with forcing a private company to provide services at such ceremonies depite their religious beliefs.

That's an important issue. It's problematic because of Congress' use of the commerce clause to enforce civil rights legislation. They've already stripped private business owners from their right to discriminate against anyone for any reason whatsoever. It's the logical next step in the argument to try to force it on churches. I wish they'd roll back those laws or the Supremes would take it up.

On the one hand, you don't want to roll back civil rights, but on the other a private business should be able to deny anyone service for any reason. The way to deal with racist businesses would be to not patronize them and let them go under.
06-17-2012 08:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Paul M Offline
American-American
*

Posts: 21,196
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 649
I Root For: OU
Location: Next to Boomer
Post: #129
RE: Remember when "Gay Rights" was not about forcing people to endorse homosexuality
(06-17-2012 08:10 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  
(06-17-2012 04:31 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  
(06-17-2012 03:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  
Quote: "does not harm anyone" "those who don't understand it". Elaborate on how that was so blatantly wrong.

AIDS, hepatitis, alcoholism, suicide, domestic abuse...all higher among homosexuals. And pedophiles are 20x more likely to be homosexual than seen in the general population.

what a load of crap...

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/ht...ation.html

Ah, so someone tried to redefine the terms in order to make the fact go away.

That pretty much proves my point.

Yeah, that was a silly assed paper. Gays who molest young boys aren't gay, they're fixated. What a joke.
06-17-2012 08:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bull_In_Exile Offline
Eternal Pessimist
*

Posts: 21,809
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 461
I Root For: The Underdog
Location:
Post: #130
RE: Remember when "Gay Rights" was not about forcing people to endorse homosexuality
(06-17-2012 08:17 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  
(06-17-2012 08:10 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  
(06-17-2012 05:03 PM)Smaug Wrote:  
(06-17-2012 05:00 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  My 2 cents:
It is a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution to deny gays the governmental marriage recognition when straight couples are given legal marriage rights. If the government drops legal benefits for marriage, this wouldn't be an issue. And as a practical matter, gays are getting married all the time, it's not destroying society. Only their legal benefits are being denied now.

No church should be required to marry anyone who's lifestyle they do not approve of; to hold otherwise would be to abridge their freedom of religion.

Nor should anyone be required to provide a service for anyone regardless of the reason. This is currently illegal under federal civil rights laws which are placed onto the states via the commerce clause and the fourteenth amendment. A private business should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason, even offensive reasons like race, gender, etc. To hold otherwise would violate the freedom of association and often times, freedom of religion.

As long as consenting adults wish to be married, there is not a valid reason to prohibit them. I'm legally okay with polygamy and even incestuous marriages so long as its with consenting adults and the issue of reproduction is addressed. I may find them both distasteful or offensive, but its none of the governments business if no one is being harmed. Animals and children can't consent legally. So that would never be okay.

Exactly.

Unfortunately thats not the way gays see it, and the modern interpretation of the 14th would gives some weight.

The initial post, which was ignored by the leftist delt not with gay marriage but with forcing a private company to provide services at such ceremonies depite their religious beliefs.

That's an important issue. It's problematic because of Congress' use of the commerce clause to enforce civil rights legislation. They've already stripped private business owners from their right to discriminate against anyone for any reason whatsoever. It's the logical next step in the argument to try to force it on churches. I wish they'd roll back those laws or the Supremes would take it up.

On the one hand, you don't want to roll back civil rights, but on the other a private business should be able to deny anyone service for any reason. The way to deal with racist businesses would be to not patronize them and let them go under.

Tis is what every gay marriage supporter and everyone on the fence needs to know. The end results will be small private businesses forced to either go out of business or to act against their faith.

Want to run a bed and breakfast? You better be willing to sell a honeymoon suite to two guys...
06-17-2012 08:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TOGC Offline
Resident genius

Posts: 24,967
Joined: Oct 2006
I Root For: Memphis
Location: constantly changing
Post: #131
RE: Remember when "Gay Rights" was not about forcing people to endorse homosexuality
(06-17-2012 03:14 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  
(06-16-2012 08:48 PM)TOGC Wrote:  
(06-16-2012 08:37 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  
(06-16-2012 04:50 PM)TOGC Wrote:  
(06-16-2012 04:26 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  They do, imbecile.

That is an outright lie. Same-sex marriage has been EXPLICITLY outlawed in 29 states and most of them have no provision for (or have explicitly banned) any type of domestic partnership or civil union.

They have identical rights as do straights. QED.

In fact, it's been pointed out this very thread multiple times. That's why it's so funny to see people argue this point; a clear demonstration of lack of reasoning ability.

No they don't. What the hell is your problem?

If they can't marry, they don't have identical rights. End of story.

They can marry, as has been clearly identified multiple times in this very thread.

So what the hell is your problem? Either you're illiterate, or you deny reality, a clear element of psychosis. Why do you think anyone here wants your mentally incompetent/deranged comments posted?

There's no way anyone can be as stupid as you. This has got to be an act.
06-17-2012 10:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UofMemphis Away
Official MT.org Ambassador of Smack
*

Posts: 48,795
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 1129
I Root For: Univ of Memphis
Location: Memphis (Berclair)

Donators
Post: #132
RE: Remember when "Gay Rights" was not about forcing people to endorse homosexuality
(06-17-2012 05:00 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  My 2 cents:
It is a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution to deny gays the governmental marriage recognition when straight couples are given legal marriage rights. If the government drops legal benefits marriage, this wouldn't be an issue. And as a practical matter, gays are getting married all the time, it's not destroying society. Only their legal benefits are being denied now.

No church should be required to marry anyone who's lifestyle they do not approve of; to hold otherwise would be to abridge their freedom of religion.for

Nor should anyone be required to provide a service for anyone regardless of the reason. This is currently illegal under federal civil rights laws which are placed onto the states via the commerce clause and the fourteenth amendment. A private business should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason, even offensive reasons like race, gender, etc. To hold otherwise would violate the freedom of association and often times, freedom of religion.

As long as consenting adults wish to be married, there is not a valid reason to prohibit them. I'm legally okay with polygamy and even incestuous marriages so long as its with consenting adults and the issue of reproduction is addressed. I may find them both distasteful or offensive, but its none of the governments business if no one is being harmed. Animals and children can't consent legally. So that would never be okay.

^ this
06-18-2012 01:07 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #133
RE: Remember when "Gay Rights" was not about forcing people to endorse homosexuality
(06-17-2012 08:33 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Tis is what every gay marriage supporter and everyone on the fence needs to know. The end results will be small private businesses forced to either go out of business or to act against their faith.

Want to run a bed and breakfast? You better be willing to sell a honeymoon suite to two guys...

Now wait.

If there isn't enough demand for your product from the people you want to serve, then you have no right to be in business. You can't make your own choice and then deny people their own choices.

The guy who runs chic fil a refuses to be open on Sunday. This costs him business. That is his choice and his right. If you choose not to frequent him on Tuesday because he is closed on Sunday, then you might put him out of business.

There is a difference between someone choosing to compromise their values to make a buck, and someone being forced by the government to compromise their values.

You an also open a bed and breakfast that caters only to gays, IMO.
(This post was last modified: 06-18-2012 08:16 AM by Hambone10.)
06-18-2012 08:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bull_In_Exile Offline
Eternal Pessimist
*

Posts: 21,809
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 461
I Root For: The Underdog
Location:
Post: #134
RE: Remember when "Gay Rights" was not about forcing people to endorse homosexuality
(06-18-2012 08:16 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(06-17-2012 08:33 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Tis is what every gay marriage supporter and everyone on the fence needs to know. The end results will be small private businesses forced to either go out of business or to act against their faith.

Want to run a bed and breakfast? You better be willing to sell a honeymoon suite to two guys...

Now wait.

If there isn't enough demand for your product from the people you want to serve, then you have no right to be in business. You can't make your own choice and then deny people their own choices.

The guy who runs chic fil a refuses to be open on Sunday. This costs him business. That is his choice and his right. If you choose not to frequent him on Tuesday because he is closed on Sunday, then you might put him out of business.

There is a difference between someone choosing to compromise their values to make a buck, and someone being forced by the government to compromise their values.

You an also open a bed and breakfast that caters only to gays, IMO.

See the photographers in the original article... They were sued for refusing to take pictures at a lesbian commitment ceremony. They won in a lower court but were defeated in an appeals court..

*THIS* is what 'tolerance' has always been for the homosexual right movement, and the left in general.
06-18-2012 08:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MTPiKapp Offline
Socialist
*

Posts: 16,857
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation: 716
I Root For: MiddleTennessee
Location: Roswell, GA
Post: #135
RE: Remember when "Gay Rights" was not about forcing people to endorse homosexuality
(06-17-2012 08:19 PM)Paul M Wrote:  
(06-17-2012 08:10 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  
(06-17-2012 04:31 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  
(06-17-2012 03:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  
Quote: "does not harm anyone" "those who don't understand it". Elaborate on how that was so blatantly wrong.

AIDS, hepatitis, alcoholism, suicide, domestic abuse...all higher among homosexuals. And pedophiles are 20x more likely to be homosexual than seen in the general population.

what a load of crap...

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/ht...ation.html

Ah, so someone tried to redefine the terms in order to make the fact go away.

That pretty much proves my point.

Yeah, that was a silly assed paper. Gays who molest young boys aren't gay, they're fixated. What a joke.

Just as straights who molest children are.

There is no link between pedophilia and homosexuality.
06-18-2012 11:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UofMemphis Away
Official MT.org Ambassador of Smack
*

Posts: 48,795
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 1129
I Root For: Univ of Memphis
Location: Memphis (Berclair)

Donators
Post: #136
RE: Remember when "Gay Rights" was not about forcing people to endorse homosexuality
(06-18-2012 11:17 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  
(06-17-2012 08:19 PM)Paul M Wrote:  
(06-17-2012 08:10 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  
(06-17-2012 04:31 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  
(06-17-2012 03:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  AIDS, hepatitis, alcoholism, suicide, domestic abuse...all higher among homosexuals. And pedophiles are 20x more likely to be homosexual than seen in the general population.

what a load of crap...

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/ht...ation.html

Ah, so someone tried to redefine the terms in order to make the fact go away.

That pretty much proves my point.

Yeah, that was a silly assed paper. Gays who molest young boys aren't gay, they're fixated. What a joke.

Just as straights who molest children are.

There is no link between pedophilia and homosexuality.

who cares what a bunch of MDs and PhDs think... 03-lmfao it's not like they know anything...
06-18-2012 01:04 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #137
RE: Remember when "Gay Rights" was not about forcing people to endorse homosexuality
(06-18-2012 08:37 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  
(06-18-2012 08:16 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(06-17-2012 08:33 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Tis is what every gay marriage supporter and everyone on the fence needs to know. The end results will be small private businesses forced to either go out of business or to act against their faith.

Want to run a bed and breakfast? You better be willing to sell a honeymoon suite to two guys...

Now wait.

If there isn't enough demand for your product from the people you want to serve, then you have no right to be in business. You can't make your own choice and then deny people their own choices.

The guy who runs chic fil a refuses to be open on Sunday. This costs him business. That is his choice and his right. If you choose not to frequent him on Tuesday because he is closed on Sunday, then you might put him out of business.

There is a difference between someone choosing to compromise their values to make a buck, and someone being forced by the government to compromise their values.

You an also open a bed and breakfast that caters only to gays, IMO.

See the photographers in the original article... They were sued for refusing to take pictures at a lesbian commitment ceremony. They won in a lower court but were defeated in an appeals court..

*THIS* is what 'tolerance' has always been for the homosexual right movement, and the left in general.


Oh I agree. That is the entire premise of my previous post. Many on the left want to enforce THRIR views, while being intolerant of opposing views, and claiming that THOSe views are intolerant.

The court is wrong to force someone to do something or face a fine... You at not forced to offer your services to anyone. You should bE able to refuse for any reason. Of vourse, someone will say, what it all the restaurants in a town refuse to serve black people. In 1965, few blacks owned their own restaurants. Today, that is t the case. Besides, a wedding photographer isn't a civil right
06-18-2012 01:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bull_In_Exile Offline
Eternal Pessimist
*

Posts: 21,809
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 461
I Root For: The Underdog
Location:
Post: #138
RE: Remember when "Gay Rights" was not about forcing people to endorse homosexuality
(06-18-2012 01:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(06-18-2012 08:37 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  
(06-18-2012 08:16 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(06-17-2012 08:33 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Tis is what every gay marriage supporter and everyone on the fence needs to know. The end results will be small private businesses forced to either go out of business or to act against their faith.

Want to run a bed and breakfast? You better be willing to sell a honeymoon suite to two guys...

Now wait.

If there isn't enough demand for your product from the people you want to serve, then you have no right to be in business. You can't make your own choice and then deny people their own choices.

The guy who runs chic fil a refuses to be open on Sunday. This costs him business. That is his choice and his right. If you choose not to frequent him on Tuesday because he is closed on Sunday, then you might put him out of business.

There is a difference between someone choosing to compromise their values to make a buck, and someone being forced by the government to compromise their values.

You an also open a bed and breakfast that caters only to gays, IMO.

See the photographers in the original article... They were sued for refusing to take pictures at a lesbian commitment ceremony. They won in a lower court but were defeated in an appeals court..

*THIS* is what 'tolerance' has always been for the homosexual right movement, and the left in general.


Oh I agree. That is the entire premise of my previous post. Many on the left want to enforce THRIR views, while being intolerant of opposing views, and claiming that THOSe views are intolerant.

The court is wrong to force someone to do something or face a fine... You at not forced to offer your services to anyone. You should bE able to refuse for any reason. Of vourse, someone will say, what it all the restaurants in a town refuse to serve black people. In 1965, few blacks owned their own restaurants. Today, that is t the case. Besides, a wedding photographer isn't a civil right

Well eating at a diner is not a civil right either. But the way the 14th is being interpreted by the courts you would lose a law suit if you refused to serve the Irish at your Diner...
06-18-2012 02:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.