Previous 11 - 20 Next
The Supreme Court has not ruled on this yet.
Skull wrote: " "The courts have been stuffed with liberal judges who "interpret" the law."" This judge was recommended by 2 Republican Senators and nominated by a Republican President.
You are absolutely free to refuse to obey a law you think is evil and immoral. If you are surprised when there are legal consequences to that, you are an idiot. I did not say every law is by definition right. I disagree with current laws in many respects. I have long disagreed with laws that prohibit same sex marriages. As a result, I work to change those but until they are changed (or, rather, were changed in my state) I could not actually get married. Do you think someone that thinks everything related to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is immoral (and there are those people out there) should actually be able to get away with discriminating against black people or Jews or Christians or Italians just because they disagree with the law?
"It is not we heterosexuals who are marching in the streets and forcing business to accommodate OUR bedroom behavior, regardless of your religious beliefs (or lack thereof)!" I'm going to venture to say you and your husband or wife have never been turned away from getting a hotel room because of your orientation. My partner and I of 12 years have been turned away from a hotel (late at night too) in a state where it is still perfectly legal to deny service on the basis of sexual orientation. We had to drive another 100 miles to the next urban area late at night after driving all day. It kind of sucked and wasn't safe on the road either since we were already tired. Do you approve of that? How about a gas station in a rural area refusing to sell gas to a gay couple when there are no other gas stations for 100 miles. While this hasn't happened to me, it would have been perfectly legal for the one gas station during a recent 100 mile drive between two national parks in Utah to deny us service. See, you think this is all about forcing businesses to accommodate our "bedroom behavior" but it is really about us just being able to live our lives without being discriminated against.
"You take that sort of thing public, you'd better be prepared to deal with whatever criticism might come your way." You are well within your rights to criticize whatever behavior you want so go right ahead and criticize. However, if you take your criticism public, you'd better also be prepared to deal with whatever criticism comes your way. It works both ways.
You simply don't understand the law, then. Let's assume I own a bakery that makes wedding cakes. Assume I am also an opposed to mixed-religion couples getting married and that the reason I am opposed to it is that my religion does not approve of it for whatever reason. According to the law, If I bake and sell wedding cakes for single-religion couples (or wedding cakes at all) I also have to bake and sell wedding cakes for the mixed-religion couple that is getting married. It doesn't make a bit of difference that I am fine with mixed-religion couples in general and only disapprove of their action of having wedding ceremonies. That is the law. If you don't like our civil rights laws, work to get them changed through your government. Good luck with the argument that businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, and national origin because I'm sure that will go over just great.
1. Transgender and gay are not the same thing. 2. "Some people are clearly "born" gay." Do you have a source for this claim? Whether it's chosen or not does not really matter, either, and has no real bearing on civil rights for gay people. 3. No one is stopping adults from seeking conversion therapy, however silly it might be. When the author states "No gay American should be pressured, harassed or involuntarily forced to go to therapy to try to treat their gayness" he should then support laws that make it illegal for parents to force their kids into conversion therapy. I am sure he doesn't, however. 4. There are bullies in every group. However, if you're talking about non-discrimination in public accommodations, then business have to follow federal and state laws. You don't like those laws, work to change them or discontinue doing business altogether so that you don't have to serve people you don't like or don't agree with. I personally don't like Scientologists and I think they're creepy but if I own a business I still have to serve them just as I would any other customer. 5. Let's assume for a second that there is a correlation between gay people and pedophiles even though the vast majority of pedophiles are actually heterosexuals. Wouldn't an openly gay scout master have a much bigger incentive to make sure they don't do anything inappropriate with the kids since people like Hawkins make disparaging assumptions that they are likely to molest kids? Why worry about the openly gay people when there are plenty of pedophiles running among straight people with wives and kids.
In response to:

MA Lawmaker Launches Sweeping Gun Bill

ca7 Wrote: May 29, 2014 5:25 PM
"This inverse correlation between gun ownership and crime is easily observed in places like Illinois. Crimes rates dropped to their lowest since 1958 this April after concealed carry was finally made legal in the state." 1. This is the second time Townhall has lied about this. While the homicide rate (not the crime rate) in Chicago (not Illinois) dropped to it's lowest point since 1958 during the first quarter of 2014, concealed carry licenses were not issued until March of 2014. The vast majority of licenses were not sent out until the tail end of the quarter. I'm not saying concealed carry won't have an effect on crime rates in Illinois, but it is not the cause of this drop in homicides in Chicago. 2. If your arguments for concealed carry are so strong, why lie about the details and facts when writing about it? What purpose does that serve?
Both are cynical but at least the Democrat president you refer to is now on the right side of this issue whereas the civil union people are still trying to limit rights.
In response to:

Maya Angelou Dead at 86

ca7 Wrote: May 28, 2014 2:32 PM
That's a very nice tribute, Mr. Doherty. If you haven't read "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings", it is absolutely worth the time and effort and will stick with you for a long time.
"some of us would never have used the tainted phrase Separate But Equal in any way but ironically. As in, "Too many Southern school systems, whether black or white, are separate but equally inferior."" This says a lot about the author. Does Greenberg really think the "separate but equal" white and black schools were "equally inferior"? I don't doubt for a second that the schools were all inferior but equally inferior? That opinion completely ignores actual history. The rest of this is the same old arguments that Townhall posts at least 3-4 times a week. You know, conservatives, if you are so much for civil unions for gay couples, you shouldn't have opposed them for the last 20 years. Considering the vast majority of the state constitutional amendments also banned civil unions, domestic partnerships, and other arrangements approximating marriage, your sudden concern for "separate but equal" rights for gay couples rings false. From Wikipedia: "Thirty-one U.S. state constitutional amendments banning legal recognition of same-sex unions have been adopted. Of these, nine make only same-sex marriage unconstitutional; seventeen make both same-sex marriage and civil unions unconstitutional; two make same-sex marriage, civil unions, and other contracts unconstitutional; two have been found unconstitutional; and one is unique. Hawaii's amendment is unique in that it does not make same-sex marriage unconstitutional; rather, it allows the state to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. Virginia's amendment prevents the state from recognizing private contracts that "approximate" marriage. Observers have pointed out that such language encompasses private contracts and medical directives.[2][3] Furthermore, the Michigan Supreme Court has held that the state's amendment bans not only same-sex marriage and civil unions, but also domestic partnership benefits such as health insurance"
Previous 11 - 20 Next