• 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!

Christian Mingle and other dating sites MUST allow same sex matches

NotreDame said:
No, what is silly is you derided another poster for something you, yourself do not know.
Click to expand...
You have no clue what I do or do not know and the simple fact that I am not falling for your trolling clearly upsets you, a good thing too.
 
ARealConservative said:
no, your reasons are inapplicable for reasons I already discussed.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. You are referencing a product that is different from the service under discussion. As a result, your examples are not parallel and logically cannot be determinative of the outcome in regards to these facts.

All you did was regurgitate an argument I addressed and did not add anything new to your argument to respond to my remarks.

Your examples are not parallel.
 
prometeus said:
You have no clue what I do or do not know and the simple fact that I am not falling for your trolling clearly upsets you, a good thing too.
Click to expand...

The trolling was your hypocritical criticism of another poster for not knowing the meaning of "public" in the context of this lawsuit and applicable law when clearly you, yourself, do not know.

If you did, then you would have replied with the answer. But it's easier for you to feign knowing, obscure your lack of knowing with this BS troll remarks, and not answer the question showing your knowledge.

Next time, do not criticize others for ostensibly not knowing something when you do not know yourself.
 
NotreDame said:
The trolling was your hypocritical criticism of another poster for not knowing the meaning of "public" in the context of this lawsuit
Click to expand...
Perhaps if you took the effort to read what I actually posted you would have realized the reason I commented on the lack of that poster's understanding of the concept of "public" a lacking he demonstrated a number of times subsequently. Sorry to deflate your ego but you are still only trolling.

If you did, then you would have replied with the answer.
Click to expand...
That is because I do not entertain stupid challenges especially by those who troll, like you do.

Next time, do not criticize others for ostensibly not knowing something when you do not know yourself.
Click to expand...
Next time learn what is being discussed before making moronic challenges.
 
Howler63 said:
No, we are agreed as to the laws here. Public accommodation laws were violated. But my point is clear as well, WHY would a homosexual person associate himself with such an entity? They dont' have your interest in mind and have made that clear. So you sue them to force them to accept you? Why? To what end?

The end, is a witch hunt. Nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...

well, people have different motivations for everything so i can only speculate as to the plaintiffs here. If i were a homosexual christian and i heard of this rare service that helps christians date each other, and i register and everything and see i'm not allowed...

i may sue not to force acceptance, but to force equal treatment, or to punish them for discriminating and insisting that i'm not a christian due to my orientation. You can provide a non sexual service to a homosexual person without accepting everything he does in the bedroom. I also might just let it go...or a clever lawyer might persuade me it's a worthwhile cause. Difficult to say
 
Howler63 said:
I thought Christians couldn't be homosexual and vice-versa? Are these new-age Christians? Or a homosexual denomination? (I honestly don't keep up with all the religious sects.)
Click to expand...

see this is the kind of crap the pope was talking about and frankly it's medieval thinking. How is it everyone else gets to sin, mostly ignore them completely and go to church, but not homosexuals? How can everyone, even murderers, seek forgiveness for sins, but not homosexuals?

to answer your question, yes, they have even been openly gay priests for a while now
 
prometeus said:
Participation by a minority group of any variety in any public endeavor should never be an option but an automatic inclusion, yet unavoidably there can be circumstances where meeting that mandate can or would create an untenable requirement.
Click to expand...

courts have already ruled they'd have to prove they were unreasonably burdened. In this case, they gain gay customers. What exactly is untenable about this?


prometeus said:
I disagree on that. Removing a sign is not even en effort but creating code is and has to be done by a competent professional. As I mentioned earlier, I am not sure where a line can be drawn in light of requirements by businesses to meet ADA rules. That too requires a professional undertaking, etc.
Click to expand...

administrative inconvenience is not a legally defensible reason to discriminate. Every business has costs. Following safety regulations has costs. I'm sure they eagerly assist law enforcement requests too. Don't discriminate in the first place when opening the site, maturely offer the gay people who complain to add this code the next time the site is tinkered with, find a CS major looking to pad his resume for 30 minutes work, or do it yourself. Instead no, it took 2.5 years to follow the law, which undoubtedly ate up more of their business' time and profits than adding a gay option to the site, unacceptable
 
radcen said:
So you would favor eliminating restrictions against men from Curves, and eliminating black-only universities, and so on, correct? We want everybody to be able to participate equally, right? No discrimination, correct?

Or, is that somehow different?
Click to expand...

i don't know wtf Curves is so no comment, and "black only" colleges were established to keep blacks out of white colleges after brown v board...they are largely black because few white students want to go there, not because they can't. That is really a terrible example, i'm sure those black kids would love to go to the much better funded "white" college

but really any 'gotcha' you come up with that is marketed to minorities will fail because it's a *haven* for those minorities. If there's no jim crow, there's never any "black" colleges. If for example a christian dating site had allowed gay users all along, there would probably be no need for a separate gay christian dating site, and instead your problem with this arrangement is that a handful of heterosexuals might want to use the gay site for some reason
 
prometeus said:
Perhaps if you took the effort to read what I actually posted you would have realized the reason I commented on the lack of that poster's understanding of the concept of "public" a lacking he demonstrated a number of times subsequently. Sorry to deflate your ego but you are still only trolling.

That is because I do not entertain stupid challenges especially by those who troll, like you do.

Next time learn what is being discussed before making moronic challenges.
Click to expand...

And you have yet to illustrate you know the meaning of the word "public." You are as knowledgeable on the subject as the person you criticized, which is to say you are as clueless. You haven't answered the very simple question and you can't because you similarly do not know.

I know what was being discussed. You derided someone for ostensibly not knowing what "public" means in this legal context, but you are as clueless. The only "moronic challenge" was alleging someone else lacked sufficient knowledge but you are just as lost.

Your reason for what you did is irrelevant. If you are going to suggest someone is out of their league because they seemingly do not know the meaning of "public" in this legal context, then it follows, you should know the meaning or else your snotty suggestion of intellectually superiority is laughable, hypocritical, and baseless.

I suspected you are in the same boat as the person you were addressing and so far, this appears accurate. So, if the other poster should bow out, then perhaps you should as well since you similarly lack the same knowledge.

And another BS post in which you fail to answer the simple question will only further demonstrate you lack such knowledge, hence you repeatedly fail to answer the question.

The troll is you, suggesting intellectually superiority to another poster but clearly you are as intellectually vacuous as the poster you claimed to be intellectual challenged. Trolls engage in the very behavior you do, mock someone else for lacking some knowledge and in doing so, hoping to obscure their own deficiencies, which for you there are a plethora of them.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Do you realize allowing people to seek someone of the same sex is a different service?
Click to expand...

Allowing people to seek someone of a different race is a different service!
 
NotreDame said:
And you have yet to illustrate you know the meaning of the word "public."
Click to expand...
I do not have to do anything, especially for you or any other troller. That you are still hung up on this only confirms that all you seek is feeding your ego.

I know what was being discussed.
Click to expand...
Actually you have no clue.

You derided someone for ostensibly not knowing what "public" means in this legal context
Click to expand...
And yet again you prove that you are clueless., so as I said earlier go troll someone who cares.
 
prometeus said:
I do not have to do anything, especially for you or any other troller. That you are still hung up on this only confirms that all you seek is feeding your ego.

Actually you have no clue.

And yet again you prove that you are clueless., so as I said earlier go troll someone who cares.
Click to expand...

Non-responsive, failed to answer the query. You lack the knowledge you mocked another for seemingly also not knowing. You will not answer because you do not know the answer. Eat crow.
 
chromium said:
courts have already ruled they'd have to prove they were unreasonably burdened. In this case, they gain gay customers. What exactly is untenable about this?
Click to expand...
I made a general remark, but to answer your direct question, nothing in this particular case.

administrative inconvenience is not a legally defensible reason to discriminate.
Click to expand...
Altering or having to add to your product is not and administrative inconvenience.

Every business has costs.
Click to expand...
Yes and we see every day businesses closing because they can not meet the costs or regulatory compliance. In many cases that is a good thing because it protects the public and in some others not so much as it end the livelihood of some people.

Don't discriminate in the first place when opening the site
Click to expand...
I agree and as I mentioned I do not know the specific details of this case, but it is possible that when started no intent to discriminate existed.

Instead no, it took 2.5 years to follow the law, which undoubtedly ate up more of their business' time and profits than adding a gay option to the site, unacceptable
Click to expand...
Is it known why it took so long? It IS quite possible that culpability does or existed, I do not know, but it is also possible that they were fighting an unfair accusation, say as being willfully discriminatory. I do not know and if you do have some detailed information please share it so that I may better understand this case.
 
chromium said:
see this is the kind of crap the pope was talking about and frankly it's medieval thinking. How is it everyone else gets to sin, mostly ignore them completely and go to church, but not homosexuals? How can everyone, even murderers, seek forgiveness for sins, but not homosexuals?
Click to expand...

Repenting is a requirement. Are homosexuals repenting for their sins, or are they justifying or seeking permission to continue with that sin?


feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one's wrongdoing or sin.
Click to expand...
 
NotreDame said:
Non-responsive, failed to answer the query. You lack the knowledge you mocked another for seemingly also not knowing. You will not answer because you do not know the answer. Eat crow.
Click to expand...
The only one eating crow here is you because I refuse to fall for your trolling.
 
prometeus said:
The only one eating crow here is you because I refuse to fall for your trolling.
Click to expand...

Non-responsive, failed to answer the query. You lack the knowledge you mocked another for seemingly also not knowing. You will not answer because you do not know the answer. Eat crow.
 
NotreDame said:
Non-responsive, failed to answer the query. You lack the knowledge you mocked another for seemingly also not knowing. You will not answer because you do not know the answer. Eat crow.
Click to expand...
Repeating the same moronic drivel only proves that you are trolling. What is next stomping your feet and hissy fits?
 
prometeus said:
Repeating the same moronic drivel only proves that you are trolling. What is next stomping your feet and hissy fits?
Click to expand...

Non-responsive, failed to answer the query. You lack the knowledge you mocked another for seemingly also not knowing. You will not answer because you do not know the answer. Eat crow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom