Consenting Adults

[Integrityrespec]

Not everyone. But you are. “Force me to support it” is straight out of the bigot’s propaganda book. If you were really so uninterested in what two dudes do in the bedroom, you wouldn’t spend time on the internet ranting about how it degrades society.

I also don't like cottage cheese but that doesn't mean I'm vilifying it. Freedom of expression and right to voice an opinion does not mean anyone is vilifying anything. I'm not advocating harm to homosexuals, I just disagree with the lifestyle.

 

[Deuce]

I also don't like cottage cheese but that doesn't mean I'm vilifying it. Freedom of expression and right to voice an opinion does not mean anyone is vilifying anything. I'm not advocating harm to homosexuals, I just disagree with the lifestyle.

The way in which you choose to express that disapproval is where the vilifying happens. It’s not my fault you repeat the propaganda phrases of those who hate homosexuals.

 

[SDET]

*votes for a guy who has cheated on all three of his wives with various pornstars*

If you think that I voted for Trump, you haven't been reading my posts.

 

[Babykat]

I think the you want to discern business's that are individually owned and those that are inexistence because of government for purposes of assessing freedom and access issues. The best way would be differentiating sole proprietorships and unincorporated partnerships as being essentially the sole owners of a company that are liable for its running, and government issued limited liability companies that are incorporated or otherwise where the owners of said company have limited liability.

So what you could say is in exchange for the limited liability granted by the state, the public at large, the company in question has an obligation to serve in its entirety the public at large. A sole proprietorship, or partnership on the other hand having asked for no privileges also reserves their rights to do as they see fit.

I think that is the best way to cut this baby in half, which is to clarify what is pretty much already done.

Yes your right that is exactly what I’m saying but in more legal terms. Love the reference as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Babykat]

Not everyone. But you are. “Force me to support it” is straight out of the bigot’s propaganda book. If you were really so uninterested in what two dudes do in the bedroom, you wouldn’t spend time on the internet ranting about how it degrades society.

I’m sure there are things people can do legally that you don’t support (I.E. abortion or military grade gun ownership) You shouldn’t force individuals who don’t support these ideas to take part in them. Now you as an individual are responsible to make sure you don’t end up in a situation where you would be required to take part in them (I.E. taking a job that would require to to take part in them) So if a nurse doesn’t approve of abortion they would be responsible for getting a job somewhere it wouldn’t be required of them. If they took a job where it was possible they may be required to preform an abortion. Then they relinquish they right to discriminate against abortion while at work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[VanceMack]

So then couples should not be allowed to adopt kids or have step kids? Or not use surrogates or IFV etc to have kids?

If you answer is that they should, isnt that the opposite of what you just wrote?

Consenting Adults

Since you are reviewing an old thread and a discussion between two people, one of them beign NOT you, why dont you just read the discussion? It answers your question. You arent adding anything to the exchange.

 

[Babykat]

Consenting Adults

Since you are reviewing an old thread and a discussion between two people, one of them beign NOT you, why dont you just read the discussion? It answers your question. You arent adding anything to the exchange.

Lmao I’m sorry. It’s funny and true. Lursa you really are going over points that have already been settled. For 80% of this thread I have been arguing for same sex marriage and equal rights. You come in here and take the stance against me like I’m opposing same sex marriage.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Eriech]

Marriage is between one man and one woman. If we called it something else I'd be fine. Corporate marriage as in Robert Rimmer would be fine with me......any configuration.
The issue should have been decided by an elected legislature not a judge. Maine had gay marriage. It was a justification for nationwide gay marriage. Maine has constitutional carry. The exact same rational could be used for a national constitutional carry. Constitutional carry should be thr law of the land like gay marriage.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Babykat]

Marriage is between one man and one woman. If we called it something else I'd be fine. Corporate marriage as in Robert Rimmer would be fine with me......any configuration.
The issue should have been decided by an elected legislature not a judge. Maine had gay marriage. It was a justification for nationwide gay marriage. Maine has constitutional carry. The exact same rational could be used for a national constitutional carry. Constitutional carry should be thr law of the land like gay marriage.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Just curious where are you getting the info the marriage is between one woman and one man.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deuce]

I’m sure there are things people can do legally that you don’t support (I.E. abortion or military grade gun ownership) You shouldn’t force individuals who don’t support these ideas to take part in them. Now you as an individual are responsible to make sure you don’t end up in a situation where you would be required to take part in them (I.E. taking a job that would require to to take part in them) So if a nurse doesn’t approve of abortion they would be responsible for getting a job somewhere it wouldn’t be required of them. If they took a job where it was possible they may be required to preform an abortion. Then they relinquish they right to discriminate against abortion while at work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nobody is forcing you to bang a dude, hope this reassured you.

 

[Deuce]

Marriage is between one man and one woman. If we called it something else I'd be fine. Corporate marriage as in Robert Rimmer would be fine with me......any configuration.
The issue should have been decided by an elected legislature not a judge. Maine had gay marriage. It was a justification for nationwide gay marriage. Maine has constitutional carry. The exact same rational could be used for a national constitutional carry. Constitutional carry should be thr law of the land like gay marriage.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

The word “marriage” does not belong to you.

 

[Eriech]

The word “marriage” does not belong to you.

Apparently so, no word, words are regulated to those appointed in black.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Deuce]

Apparently so, no word, words are regulated to those appointed in black.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Nope. The constitution limits the government's power to restrict individual liberty. The government has no basis for having marriage laws apply to only heterosexual couples.

 

[Babykat]

Nobody is forcing you to bang a dude, hope this reassured you.

I’m not banging a dude unless your using the word dude to describe my wife and mother of my 2 daughters. But mostly no one is forcing you to be a dick but here you are. You know what they say you are what you eat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deuce]

I’m not banging a dude unless your using the word dude to describe my wife and mother of my 2 daughters. But mostly no one is forcing you to be a dick but here you are. You know what they say you are what you eat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right. You're not. And nobody is forcing you.

So what's the problem, again?

 

[Babykat]

Right. You're not. And nobody is forcing you.

So what's the problem, again?

Have you read all my post on this thread if not go back and read them so you know what side I am on. If you have read them all then get a dictionary and research the words I used that you didn’t understand. Unless you believe that a individual doesn’t have the right to discriminate( recognize a distinction; differentiate. If you take away the individuals right to discriminate. You strip them of there right to be unique. To form their own ideas and opinions. I don’t want to live in a world of robots. I find the differences in the individuals beautiful. But I support the right of homosexuals to be unique and beautiful. I support same sex marriage. But I also support the right of the individual to not like homosexuals or even not like heterosexuals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deuce]

Have you read all my post on this thread if not go back and read them so you know what side I am on. If you have read them all then get a dictionary and research the words I used that you didn’t understand. Unless you believe that a individual doesn’t have the right to discriminate( recognize a distinction; differentiate. If you take away the individuals right to discriminate. You strip them of there right to be unique. To form their own ideas and opinions. I don’t want to live in a world of robots. I find the differences in the individuals beautiful. But I support the right of homosexuals to be unique and beautiful. I support same sex marriage. But I also support the right of the individual to not like homosexuals or even not like heterosexuals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You should take your own advice because you’re attacking a straw man.

 

[btthegreat]

No for gay couples who wish to marry.

There are those signatures on the bottom of the license, just like there are for straight couples. Not a lot of coercion claims hit the county registrars office

 

[Babykat]

You should take your own advice because you’re attacking a straw man.

All I’m saying is while same sex marriage should be legal. You shouldn’t be able to force an individual to take part in a same sex marriage that doesn’t agree with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deuce]

All I’m saying is while same sex marriage should be legal. You shouldn’t be able to force an individual to take part in a same sex marriage that doesn’t agree with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, and it also shouldn't be legal to force someone to kill a puppy. Great. Who was arguing for this?

 

[Babykat]

Not everyone. But you are. “Force me to support it” is straight out of the bigot’s propaganda book. If you were really so uninterested in what two dudes do in the bedroom, you wouldn’t spend time on the internet ranting about how it degrades society.

This is the first time I quoted you and I did it because of your 3rd sentence. There is a difference between someone supporting something and someone accepting that individuals have the right to do things we don’t support. The one that is really hard for me is abortion. I do not support abortion and I will never support abortion. But I accept that they have the right to choose what is right for them. So even though I don’t support it I don’t oppose it either. But if someone wanted me to do the electrical on a abortion clinic I would refuse that work. Because as an independent contractor I have that right. But if I was working for a electrical company and they did the electrical on a abortion clinic I couldn’t refuse the work. I could quite. But I couldn’t go to my boss and refuse to work that job and expect them to keep me employed without me working on that job. You can’t expect everyone to support everything. You can expect them to accept it though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AGENT J]

Back when we had standards, the argument was that certain activities degrade society as a whole. Of course that ship has already sailed.

What factual standards?
What factual degradation of society?

 

[AGENT J]

You're missing the point.

Gay people need society. Society doesn't need gay people. That's a biological and scientific fact.

Gay couples benefit from taxpayer money. My money. Ergo they need taxpayers permission. They're not automatically entitled to that.

another person who has no idea what a fact is let alone a biological and scientific one :lamo

 

[AGENT J]

Heaps. I can be legally forced to participate in said marriage, even if my religious beliefs prohibit it. That's a violation of my rights. That marriage is affecting me and every Christian out there who may be called upon to support it yet be morally obliged by their faith not to do so.
2.) If I pass away and my kids end up in adoptive care, I should have a right to pre-determine that they should not be raised by homosexuals. That is my right as a parent and a Christian.
3.)If I ran a business and was happy to hire a gay person, I cannot in moral objectivity pay for their parental leave. It is against my religion.
4.)This extends into a plethora of other complex issues. To be clear, the mere act of two people having sex and signing a document does not affect me, but what that act leads to on a wider scale certainly does. If gays were happy to allow reasonable exceptions to the above scenarios I would have no problem with them getting married. Live and let live. But this is not the case. The larger gay community has clearly shown they are not interested in equality when it comes to the equality of those who do not agree with them. Every gay wedding increases the chance that I could be forced to participated else I risk being sued and shut down. That's a huge effect on me personally.

1.) well that sucks for you and your country but in america this factually cant happen, Maybe move here if you can.
2.) again your country sucks, i hope you can move to america
3.) again in america you cant violate peoples rights. Rights > than your feelings and want to commit crimes
4.) what scenarios did you provide that is force? and again i dont know what goies on in your horrible country but in america theres already tons of ways can avoid breaking the law and it is EQUAL here.

I feel bad for you and your country, try to get out or participate to be a country like the use where we all have rights and freedoms

 

[AGENT J]

1.) I don’t know what you do for a living. But let’s say you own your own bakery. It’s been in your family for years. One day this pregnant woman comes in and she wants you to make a cake for the party after her abortion. According to new laws passed no one can refuse service for any reason. So now your forced to help some celebrate murder of a child. If we remove the right of the individual to discriminate this could become a very real situation.
2.) Individual persons should have the right to discriminate.
3.) Organization should not have the right to discriminate.
4.)Discrimination against any group is wrong for any reason.
5.) At what point do we cross the line between from supporting equal rights for one group to discriminating against another.
Is it right for me to force myself into a women’s bathroom because I identify as a female even though I have male genitals.
6.) At this point am I fighting for equality or am I forcing my well onto all the other females in the bathroom.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1.) right now in america though you can refuse service for any reason you want, you just cant break the law or violate the rights of others so your example is the exact opposite of reality and not analogous.
2.) all of us already do, again see #1
3.) yes they should it only depends on the discrimination. if my org doesnt want to buy your bolts cause they break easier than somebody else bolts thats fine
4.) but its not
5.) I dont know but in america we arent even close to that line most of us are protected equally and we are getting BETTER at it not worse.
6.) nobody can "force" themselves in to a bathroom but if the bathroom is public and you are in fact transgender yes you should have every right to use that PUBLIC restroom anybody that doesnt like it is free to not use it. Currently this isnt a law/protection yet but it should be and eventually it will be
7.) its equality because if it was an actual law it would protect EVERYBODY since we all have a gender identity or lack of one. If you disagree tell me the person not protected by that trait .. you cant . . you can only point to people that have "feelings" that others shouldn't be protected

Its basic common sense, anybody who can convince themselves that this is not equality then has to be against EVERY SINGLE OTHER RIGHT that involves this stuff cause its the same based on their logic . . race protects everybody cause we all have one, gender protects everybody race we all have one, religion protects everybody cause we all have one or a lack of one. Nobody gets special treatment.

pretty easy :shrug: