Page 9 of 21 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 203

Thread: The anti-Chick-fil-A protest - Starbucks [W:39]

  1. #81
    Guru Bobcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    The BIG easy
    Last Seen
    02-07-13 @ 09:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,646

    Re: The anti-Chick-fil-A protest - Starbucks [W:39]

    Starbucks = bad coffee at a high price. another example of the defective liberal gene in action.
    "Just get the hell out of my way" John Galt to the government in Atlas Shrugged.

  2. #82
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,887

    Re: The anti-Chick-fil-A protest - Starbucks [W:39]

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    The basic flaw in your argument is this. We are not discussing the difference between YOUR rights as a single male and the rights of a single gay male. Nor are we discussing desires to marry in ways that are OUTSIDE of sexual orientation... polygamy is not a sexual orientation. NOR are we discussing types of marriage where one party cannot consent, like that with children or animals. These are all false equivalencies, an error you have made in this discussion in the past, if I recall correctly. What we are discussing is why one individual can marry someone based on their sexual orientation and why another, with a different sexual orientation cannot and how, because of that there is a disparity in benefits available to those who are not allowed to marry based on their sexual orientation. Any other false equivalencies that you present are irrelevant to the argument. And, since you haven't presented anything that ISN'T a false equivalency, I anxiously await an on topic argument from you.

    Actually, there would be tax benefits for two straight men or two straight women to marry, so it really isn't about gay rights.

    I don't feel that the state should be involved in marriage, which is currently just a 3-person contract. If you eliminate the state from the contract, and allow individuals to designate a beneficiary, then it takes the social aspect out of it.
    Last edited by Samhain; 08-07-12 at 10:11 AM.

  3. #83
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,711

    Re: The anti-Chick-fil-A protest - Starbucks [W:39]

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobcat View Post
    Starbucks = bad coffee at a high price. another example of the defective liberal gene in action.
    Moderator's Warning:
    The anti-Chick-fil-A protest - Starbucks [W:39]You need to knock off the irrelevant, off topic baiting or you will be removed from the thread. At the very least.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  4. #84
    Cynical Optimist
    jambalaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Last Seen
    11-28-12 @ 05:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,481

    Re: The anti-Chick-fil-A protest - Starbucks [W:39]

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    Are you serious? For the 38905437894237890534905th time. Animals cannot and have not ever been legally capable of representing themselves. Animals cannot be charged nor found guilty of a crime, cannot enter contract, and do not retain constitutional rights...because they're goddamned animals. The 14th amendment applies to people, and when two people, based solely on sex, are allowed rights that two other people with different sexes are denied, that is a failure of application of the 14th amendment. Just like you cannot disallow women from voting, or blacks from marrying whites, why you can't segregate schools, buses, or water fountains.

    Did your history class just conveniently skip over everything from 1860 to 1970?
    Just a reminder that eventually your opinion of what is a right may may some day become so but as of now nobody is being denied a right because it does not exist. A small point but declaring something as a right that is not in fact a right is one of the most dishonest premises in this debate. Holding the opinion that SSM should not be allowed is not intolerant or biggoted in itself. Calling someone a bigot just for that opinion is dishonest. Doesn't matter what we did before regarding rights of any group. As of now there has been no failure of application of the 14th amendment even if it has been declared so in the opinion of one or two judges. Declaring victory and the moral high ground and making that the starting point of the debate is not fair. I know this is not going to matter to anyone who is passionately for SSM but I grow weary of the term "right" being abused in the debate.
    It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others.

  5. #85
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,711

    Re: The anti-Chick-fil-A protest - Starbucks [W:39]

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    Actually, there would be tax benefits for two straight men or two straight women to marry, so it really isn't about gay rights.
    I can agree with that in principle, but again, that's not what's really being discussed. What is being discussed is the difference from a benefit standpoint from what straights who want to marry based on their sexual orientation can do and what gays who want to marry based on their sexual orientation can do. Good point, though.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  6. #86
    Bring us a shrubbery!
    tessaesque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,910

    Re: The anti-Chick-fil-A protest - Starbucks [W:39]

    Quote Originally Posted by jambalaya View Post
    Just a reminder that eventually your opinion of what is a right may may some day become so but as of now nobody is being denied a right because it does not exist. A small point but declaring something as a right that is not in fact a right is one of the most dishonest premises in this debate. Holding the opinion that SSM should not be allowed is not intolerant or biggoted in itself. Calling someone a bigot just for that opinion is dishonest. Doesn't matter what we did before regarding rights of any group. As of now there has been no failure of application of the 14th amendment even if it has been declared so in the opinion of one or two judges. Declaring victory and the moral high ground and making that the starting point of the debate is not fair. I know this is not going to matter to anyone who is passionately for SSM but I grow weary of the term "right" being abused in the debate.
    It does matter what has been done in the past. Marriage is a contract. It has existed as a contract for several centuries. Denying somebody the right to enter contract because of their sex and sexual orientation is discriminatory. This was already decided in the SCOTUS on the basis of race and ruled to be a violation of the 14th amendment. There have been other rulings applying the premise of sex to equal rights decisions previously determined in relation to race.

    So I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that they aren't related, or that SSM is somehow different. It isn't. And eventually that'll be shown to be true.
    "Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton


  7. #87
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: The anti-Chick-fil-A protest - Starbucks [W:39]

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    If you eliminate the state from the contract, and allow individuals to designate a beneficiary, then it takes the social aspect out of it.

    Yes, but as we all know that is not going to happen. I would support something like that, but it's a pipedream. Therefore, the only recourse is for gay people to push for legalization of SSM.

  8. #88
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Golden City of the Risen Dead
    Last Seen
    10-05-12 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    4,310

    Re: The anti-Chick-fil-A protest - Starbucks [W:39]

    Quote Originally Posted by jambalaya View Post
    Just a reminder that eventually your opinion of what is a right may may some day become so but as of now nobody is being denied a right because it does not exist. A small point but declaring something as a right that is not in fact a right is one of the most dishonest premises in this debate. Holding the opinion that SSM should not be allowed is not intolerant or biggoted in itself. Calling someone a bigot just for that opinion is dishonest. Doesn't matter what we did before regarding rights of any group. As of now there has been no failure of application of the 14th amendment even if it has been declared so in the opinion of one or two judges. Declaring victory and the moral high ground and making that the starting point of the debate is not fair. I know this is not going to matter to anyone who is passionately for SSM but I grow weary of the term "right" being abused in the debate.
    It does exist. It's called due process. It's called the 14th Amendment. It's there in order to address topics exactly like this. It states no group of Americans can be seen differently under the law without compelling state interest.

    Seems like some on the right have differing opinions of what constitutes rights depending on the subject. Some times a right is inalienable and inherent regardless of a court's opinion on it. Other times, a right doesn't exist until a court approves it. So which is it?

  9. #89
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,887

    Re: The anti-Chick-fil-A protest - Starbucks [W:39]

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Yes, but as we all know that is not going to happen. I would support something like that, but it's a pipedream. Therefore, the only recourse is for gay people to push for legalization of SSM.
    Why not? Why does the state have to be involved in marriage?

  10. #90
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,692

    Re: The anti-Chick-fil-A protest - Starbucks [W:39]

    This is funny. SO...people that already pay too much to drink coffee from a 'corporation' are going to go pay too much drink more coffee from a corporation to show solidarity with SSM? Good on em!!! I hope Starbucks has a record setting day. Dont forget to tip your barista! This **** just keeps getting more and more funny.

Page 9 of 21 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •