• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Support the anti-gay boycotts

Coolguy said:
There is no Constitutional "right" to marriage, regardless of citing 'Loving'.

There is no 'right' being taken away from those who are homosexual.
They would have to have the 'right' in the first place (which they don't) in order for it to be taken away.

The Court in 'Loving' said:
Clearly the Court distinguished between a Constitutional "freedom" and "basic civil rights of man" in their decision.
They in no way declared it to be a Constitutional 'Right'.
But I can see how some would assume this to be so.

The Court stating that it was "fundamental to our very existence and survival" clearly indicates that marriage, this Constitutional "freedom" and "basic civil rights of man", is between those of the opposite gender.

If the person who provided the Wiki link would have read a little further they would have found that a New York Court of Appeals rejected the idea that 'Loving' applied to same sex couples.


And for those who don't believe gay people can see things any other way than a denial of 'rights', please check out the following blogger.
Gay Patriot
Click to expand...

What branch of the government determines the rights given and restricted to the public? :roll:
 
JMak said:
Liberal fascism, what?
Click to expand...


How is a private boycott equate fascism? Please explain.

disneydude said:
If you noticed, the vast majority of supporters weren't even from California. That's why we have been saying "keep your hate out of our state".
Click to expand...


Uhmm you guys dont do a very good job of that since California is notorious for having both Political extremes in surplus there.
 
Coolguy said:
There is no Constitutional "right" to marriage, regardless of citing 'Loving'.

There is no 'right' being taken away from those who are homosexual.
They would have to have the 'right' in the first place (which they don't) in order for it to be taken away.

The Court in 'Loving' said:
Clearly the Court distinguished between a Constitutional "freedom" and "basic civil rights of man" in their decision.
They in no way declared it to be a Constitutional 'Right'.
But I can see how some would assume this to be so.

The Court stating that it was "fundamental to our very existence and survival" clearly indicates that marriage, this Constitutional "freedom" and "basic civil rights of man", is between those of the opposite gender.

If the person who provided the Wiki link would have read a little further they would have found that a New York Court of Appeals rejected the idea that 'Loving' applied to same sex couples.


And for those who don't believe gay people can see things any other way than a denial of 'rights', please check out the following blogger.
Gay Patriot
Click to expand...

Loving aside...the CA Supreme Court said in its decision:
The court concluded that permitting opposite-sex couples to marry while affording same-sex couples access only to the novel and less-recognized status of domestic partnership improperly infringes a same-sex couple’s constitutional rights to marry and to the equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the California Constitution.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/presscenter/newsreleases/NR26-08.PDF


Rights WERE taken away unconstitutionally.
 
Coolguy said:
There is no Constitutional "right" to marriage, regardless of citing 'Loving'.

There is no 'right' being taken away from those who are homosexual.
They would have to have the 'right' in the first place (which they don't) in order for it to be taken away.

The Court in 'Loving' said:
Clearly the Court distinguished between a Constitutional "freedom" and "basic civil rights of man" in their decision.
They in no way declared it to be a Constitutional 'Right'.
But I can see how some would assume this to be so.

The Court stating that it was "fundamental to our very existence and survival" clearly indicates that marriage, this Constitutional "freedom" and "basic civil rights of man", is between those of the opposite gender.

If the person who provided the Wiki link would have read a little further they would have found that a New York Court of Appeals rejected the idea that 'Loving' applied to same sex couples.


And for those who don't believe gay people can see things any other way than a denial of 'rights', please check out the following blogger.
Gay Patriot
Click to expand...


Well....you are completely wrong and your case analysis is seriously flawed. Don't apply to law school anytime soon.
 
Kernel Sanders said:
Prop 8 ammended the constitution, didn't it?
Click to expand...

It has for now. My reply was to somebody who said there was no Constitutional right to marry and that there were no rights that were taken away when, in fact, there were.
 
Sorry, but it is you who are completely wrong and who has a seriously flawed case analysis.
 
Common Disney, seriously, would you boycott someone that provided 73% of your employment, in today’s economy, and yes I’m talking about it’s a Ca. company?
 
disneydude said:
If you noticed, the vast majority of supporters weren't even from California. That's why we have been saying "keep your hate out of our state".
Click to expand...




so people out of california are the ones who passed this? :roll::shock:
 
danarhea said:
Why should the government get involved at all in deciding who is married or not? Our forefathers never got a marriage license. They just got married and had a ceremony. Marriage licenses only came about because:

1) In the South, they wanted to keep blacks and whites from marrying each other.

2) In the North, marriage licenses were pushed by those who were in the eugenics movement.

The way I see it, if 2 people want to get married, they should just do it, and give the government nannies a big middle finger. Constitutionally speaking, it's none of the government's damn business.
Click to expand...





exactly.....
 
donc said:
Common Disney, seriously, would you boycott someone that provided 73% of your employment, in today’s economy, and yes I’m talking about it’s a Ca. company?
Click to expand...

Absolutely I would. I strongly believe that people need to vote with their pocketbooks as much as at the ballot box.
Every year I buy a book called "Shopping for a better world", that rates companies on a variety of issues from racial equality, gender equality, support of gay rights, support of environmental issues.

I shop at stores that support causes that I believe in and I avoid those that don't.

For instance, I used to love to shop at Nordstrom Department Store, until I found out that they had the worst record of promoting racial minorities into positions of upper management. Substantially worse than many other companies. As a result, I haven't shopped at a Nordstrom in almost 20 years and shop primarily at MACY's which has a much better record.

If Disney caved into right-wing activist pressure and eliminated their sex-same benefit policies, don't think I wouldn't boycott them in a second.
 
Our legal system is not only governed by the Constutition, but on common law as well. How else do you think the Supreme Court can make arbitrary decisions as they do?
 
jamesrage said:
Marriage is not a constitutional right. The only thing prop 8 does is preserve traditional marriage.
Click to expand...

That seems to be falling on deaf ears. The gays think it is a right, therefore it must be made so, with an amendment if they can swing it...
Lots of luck, gays, there are far more important issues to take care of first...
 
UtahBill said:
That seems to be falling on deaf ears. The gays think it is a right, therefore it must be made so, with an amendment if they can swing it...
Lots of luck, gays, there are far more important issues to take care of first...
Click to expand...

Well to gay people gay rights might be fairly important to them. Why people like jamesrage are so worried about it I really do not understand.
 
Last edited:
UtahBill said:
That seems to be falling on deaf ears. The gays think it is a right, therefore it must be made so, with an amendment if they can swing it...
Lots of luck, gays, there are far more important issues to take care of first...
Click to expand...

Deaf ears? The CA Supreme Court would disagree.
 
The intent of the OP is to get us to boycott, but it seems that the opposite effect is more likely.
I don't live in CA, so I didn't vote on the issue. Regardless of where the funding came from, it remains that the CITIZENS OF CA have spoken...
now it is up to the courts to decide if they have spoken correctly.
The court of public opinion, whether majority or minority, has no legal standing.
 
disneydude said:
Anti Gay Blacklist


This is a list of individuals who donated money to support the hateful anti-gay discriminatory prop 8.

If you patronize any of the individuals on this list, please consider boycotting their establishments.
Click to expand...

Not a very long list, and I don't recognize any of the names. As many rich LDS as I know, or know of, none of their names are on that list....
 
Wow, a teacher who gave $10,000 is on that list. No school supplies for her kids!
 
disneydude said:
If you noticed, the vast majority of supporters weren't even from California. That's why we have been saying "keep your hate out of our state".
Click to expand...

:2rofll: except for the majority of Californians who VOTED. :2rofll:
 
Thank you for the list of who to do business with.
Doesn't anyone have a list of who contributed against the proposition so I know who to boycott?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom