• 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!

Gay marriage, once inconceivable, now appears inevitable

Yet those bakers compromise their values for baking cakes for dog weddings and in one case did a pentagram on a cake. Face facts, they compromised their values for money except in the case for a gay wedding.

They were shown to be the hypocrites they really are, like most bible thumpers that stand on the "holier-than-thou" soapbox.

I honestly neither know nor care what on Earth you are babbling about.
 
You need a lot to learn about freedom and even "bible thumpers"

You do realize those "bible thumpers" are usually Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and I don't like their aggressive behavior either.

Sorry, have seen Christians do it on the corners of Las Vegas year round for example. There are also plenty here in Reno, Nevada that do it to.

As far as service - why is it OK for blacks to turn whites away or Mexicans to turn whites away or Asians to turn whites away for jobs....

They don't. Please name a specific restraunt that does and for THAT reason.

Why should a company that receives a government contract be forced to meet a racial quota? - hell my dad had to put his business in my moms name just to get a government contract due to racial and sex quotas...

Well, that is where I disagree with the left on tremendously. There really was a time for affirmitive action, however, that time is long past IMO.

Furthermore who the **** does the government think it is telling businesses who they can and cannot hire?

Well as far as quotas are concerned you are correct. However, there shouldn't be discrimination based on labor laws. Sorry, but that is how it goes.
 
What compelling interest would that be?

Clubs like the KKK? That isn't a business, but it does raise the point of whiners here coming across as defending that kind of hatred.

Clubs like all-male or all-female clubs. They can operate like a business, with membership fees bringing revenue, and can restrict access to their services based on gender or other normally protected classes.
 
Go to every black urban area in the United States or any black suburb in the United States.....

I have and many places have white guys there too.

You ever go to a soul food restaurant and have a white server? I think not...

Yes, I have and yes I have.
 
Clubs like all-male or all-female clubs. They can operate like a business, with membership fees bringing revenue, and can restrict access to their services based on gender or other normally protected classes.

Clubs are not under public accomodation laws. They are considered private not public.
 
I honestly neither know nor care what on Earth you are babbling about.

Trust me, my replies are not for you nor do I care what you "really" think. They are to show everyone how ridiculous your comments are. And it's working, keep posting. I don't care if you respond or not.
 
I have and many places have white guys there too.



Yes, I have and yes I have.

Yeah, well I don't believe you..... You're just saying this to further your motive.
 
Yeah, well I don't believe you..... You're just saying this to further your motive.

The same can be said for your comments. You can't even name ONE restaraunt that does it. Sorry, but until you can provide that, you've lost.
 
Businesses should be able to hire whomever they want.



And pay children and women less than adult males, eh?

All of that was sorted out a while ago and the right lost.
 
Go to every black urban area in the United States or any black suburb in the United States.....

You ever go to a soul food restaurant and have a white server? I think not...

Areas with primarily black residents have primarily black employees? You don't say.
 
There is no such thing as same sex marriage. It can no more be legalized than square circles.

And yet, it does exist. In my state and many others.

Such denial destroys credibility.
 
True law can never condone such disgusting behavior. The documents which do so and purport to be laws are only corruptions of law, and no one is bound to obey them.

It is disgusting in your opinion.

We do not base law on your opinion.
 
And these "goods and services" can include things which celebrate their disordered conduct, as in the case of the wedding cake maker.

Who determines what 'disordered conduct' is and why should Americans be bound by law to it?
 
Who determines what 'disordered conduct' is and why should Americans be bound by law to it?

The nature of things determines what disordered conduct is. Americans should not be bound to support disordered conduct, that is the point.

Like what? What consequences?

Damnation.
 
I don't believe opposition to gay marriage in some cases has anything to do with "bible thumping."

Some gays are just way too flamboyant for me to tolerate.....

Not to mention I don't like the fact that some gays think they can just do whatever the hell they want even if it's not socially acceptable just because they're "gay" hence in their mind they're a "protected class."

LOL

I see women and straight couples and beer-guzzling man acting like pigs all the time. All of this 'socially unacceptable' IMO. The way some women dress, the way straight couples fondle each other in public, men acting like neanderthals catcalling women. It's just IMO tho. I am not the arbiter of 'socially acceptable' and I can just look away.

It's more evident everywhere than 'flamboyant' gays. All the above behavior is just as 'flamboyant' in the sense that it's in my face and obnoxious.

Your 'offensive meter' is very selective and bigoted. You live in America....people have free will and will act as they choose, within the law, in public. Dont like it....it's up to you to avoid it, not up the public to adapt to you.
 
As the Supreme Court prepares to decide the future of same-sex marriage--an institution described as "newer than cellphones or the internet by one justice last year--two things are clear.
Despite this year's breathtaking string of lower court victories, the battle for marriage equality hasn't been swift or easy. To the lawyers who devised the legal strategy decades ago, the journey has been arduous, the setbacks plentiful, and the battle scars deep.

And even after the high court rules--most likely striking down state bans on gay marriage at the end of its term in June--the fight won't be over. Another clash looms over the issue of religious freedom.

Read the article here: Gay marriage, once inconceivable, now appears inevitable

It looks like this battle has reached an important point.I don't believe that the 1st Amendment will stop this from happening.

Churches will be able to do what they want to do, but businesses will have to obey the law whether they like it or not.

yep equal rights is coming and some really dont like it
 
LOL

I see women and straight couples and beer-guzzling man acting like pigs all the time. All of this 'socially unacceptable' IMO. The way some women dress, the way straight couples fondle each other in public, men acting like neanderthals catcalling women. It's just IMO tho. I am not the arbiter of 'socially acceptable' and I can just look away.

It's more evident everywhere than 'flamboyant' gays. All the above behavior is just as 'flamboyant' in the sense that it's in my face and obnoxious.

Your 'offensive meter' is very selective and bigoted. You live in America....people have free will and will act as they choose, within the law, in public. Dont like it....it's up to you to avoid it, not up the public to adapt to you.

DING DING DING DING

nailed it!
 
LOL

I see women and straight couples and beer-guzzling man acting like pigs all the time. All of this 'socially unacceptable' IMO. The way some women dress, the way straight couples fondle each other in public, men acting like neanderthals catcalling women. It's just IMO tho. I am not the arbiter of 'socially acceptable' and I can just look away.

It's more evident everywhere than 'flamboyant' gays. All the above behavior is just as 'flamboyant' in the sense that it's in my face and obnoxious.

Your 'offensive meter' is very selective and bigoted. You live in America....people have free will and will act as they choose, within the law, in public. Dont like it....it's up to you to avoid it, not up the public to adapt to you.

You're missing two different ideas here: 1) being that states have constitutions of their own and 2) I really don't give a **** about the issue...

Don't confuse my knowledge of state and federal law with my opinions on issues - I'm merely telling you and giving you a legal argument NOT a moral or ethical argument. It's obviously clear that leftists cannot distinguish between the two.
 
The nature of things determines what disordered conduct is. Americans should not be bound to support disordered conduct, that is the point.

Damnation.

What 'nature' of things? Once again you are attempting your end run about a higher authority...that does not exist and 'man's' laws are not based on in this country. As such, using them to oppose actual law determined by *people* and their elected representatives is silly. Kind of like a little girl with a Barbie Doll inventing her own fantasy world around Barbie's Dream House. It has no more substance than that....altho certainly those types of beliefs are more widespread than Barbies.

As you can tell by human behavior....even for many religious...fear of damnation holds no influence over them :mrgreen: (That's the drawback about abstract beliefs)
 
1.)You're missing two different ideas here: A) being that states have constitutions of their own and B) I really don't give a **** about the issue...

2.)Don't confuse my knowledge of state and federal law with my opinions on issues - I'm merely telling you and giving you a legal argument NOT a moral or ethical argument. It's obviously clear that leftists cannot distinguish between the two.

1.) states constitutions are meaningless to this topic thats why they are being overruled. The state has not right her
2.) the knowledge you have posted as been proven wrong by many posters and posts

if you disagree simply present your best case to ignore the facts, rights, laws and court cases that prove your statements false
 
What 'nature' of things? Once again you are attempting your end run about a higher authority...that does not exist and 'man's' laws are not based on in this country. As such, using them to oppose actual law determined by *people* and their elected representatives is silly. Kind of like a little girl with a Barbie Doll inventing her own fantasy world around Barbie's Dream House. It has no more substance than that....altho certainly those types of beliefs are more widespread than Barbies.

As you can tell by human behavior....even for many religious...fear of damnation holds no influence over them :mrgreen: (That's the drawback about abstract beliefs)

Because you disbelieve for practical purposes, I specifically didn't refer to God, but if you want to play make believe and say that I did, feel free to.
 
You're missing two different ideas here: 1) being that states have constitutions of their own and 2) I really don't give a **** about the issue...

Don't confuse my knowledge of state and federal law with my opinions on issues - I'm merely telling you and giving you a legal argument NOT a moral or ethical argument. It's obviously clear that leftists cannot distinguish between the two.

There werent 2 different ideas in the post I quoted and responded to. Just your opinion...which is what I commented on. I didnt 'confuse' anything.

Do not invent something that wasnt there just because I called you out on a bigoted opinion. Just own it.

I don't believe opposition to gay marriage in some cases has anything to do with "bible thumping."

Some gays are just way too flamboyant for me to tolerate.....

Not to mention I don't like the fact that some gays think they can just do whatever the hell they want even if it's not socially acceptable just because they're "gay" hence in their mind they're a "protected class."

LOL

I see women and straight couples and beer-guzzling man acting like pigs all the time. All of this 'socially unacceptable' IMO. The way some women dress, the way straight couples fondle each other in public, men acting like neanderthals catcalling women. It's just IMO tho. I am not the arbiter of 'socially acceptable' and I can just look away.

It's more evident everywhere than 'flamboyant' gays. All the above behavior is just as 'flamboyant' in the sense that it's in my face and obnoxious.

Your 'offensive meter' is very selective and bigoted. You live in America....people have free will and will act as they choose, within the law, in public. Dont like it....it's up to you to avoid it, not up the public to adapt to you.
 
Because you disbelieve for practical purposes, I specifically didn't refer to God, but if you want to play make believe and say that I did, feel free to.

Really? We've already discussed, in depth, that there is no driving force behind nature with a higher purpose. NONE.

And exactly who is doing all that 'damnation' then? lol
 
I think you stated the reality of the matter. The government has set forth a list of "protected citizens" who are specifically identified as "those who can not be excluded" which is entirely different than the government providing a list of who "can be excluded". If the exclusion reason isn't covered in any of those lists, you can exclude until the day is done. You can't exclude someone because you disapprove of their sexual preferences in a mate, but you can exclude someone if you disapprove of their lifestyle choice of being a KKK member because the law only applies to "those you can not exclude".

It's so complex.

Here is a simpler way to think about it. As a business owner, you can serve anyone you wish...you do not have to exclude anyone.

If you serve KKK members there is no penalty for doing so. There is not many cases where KKK members have been ask to leave a restaurant...so KKK rights have not been tested.
 
Back
Top Bottom