Way to go California Supreme Court

aquaknight

aquaknight

Active Member
Originally Posted by salty blues
http:///forum/post/2614026
Are some of you typing "gay" instead of "homosexual" because gay is shorter to type or because gay is a more politically correct term? I mean, "homosexual" justs sounds kinda' not so good, don't it?
Thinking in reverse, it reminds me of how some abortionists will say anti-choice when referring to pro-lifers to diminish them.
It think those typing homosexual out, are actually trying to be more PC. I've always thought of "gay" as only applying to the male side. Homosexual applies to both.
You always always hear gay in a derogatory way as well.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
I posted the link to the photographer news story in this thread. page 2 I think. It took place in New Mexico. When the female photographer said she was uncomfortable with the job she was fined for discrimination.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2614055
I think he has the right to refuse, especially if the job makes him uncomfortable.. which would be an uncomfortable workplace... the only problem I think would be a question is if they booked him weeks in advance, and he showed up on the day and refused to shoot... leaving them w/o a photographer...
And what about the ban... if there was a ban on it, why should he participate
?
Rylan, this is exactly why many of us around here argue so vehemently against activist judges.... http://www.lcsun-news.com/ci_8893673
"Vanessa Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission in 2006, contending that Albuquerque photographer Elaine Huguenin told her she photographed only traditional marriages..."
 
D

dragonzim

Active Member
Originally Posted by salty blues
http:///forum/post/2612855
Did you read the second part of my post? Take out morality or "religion" as you say. I still don't get the physical and s e x ual aspect of same s e x attraction. It just makes no natural sense. It doesn't just go against moral principles, it goes against nature's principles.
I see one of your points though in that it is likely difficult for a homo s e xual to believe in God.
You don't have to "get it" since you are not in that situation. But for you to tell people that they can not get married simply because you feel it is against some rule written the bible is ludicrous. What if they dont read the bible or believe in anything it says?
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by DragonZim
http:///forum/post/2614113
You don't have to "get it" since you are not in that situation. But for you to tell people that they can not get married simply because you feel it is against some rule written the bible is ludicrous. What if they dont read the bible or believe in anything it says?
The issue is to me not a religious one.
It is actually more of an "activist" issue.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Now that definition is being changed. Words mean things. When we start changing the meanings of words to accomodate social agendas we jump down a slippery slope. Words like "adult", "consensual", "in-cest", "polygamy", "responsibility", "murder", etc. could just as easily be changed to accomodate alternative social views. Let's take it further; Say a caucasian student applies for a Native American scholarship at a University and claims "Native American" means lives in America. Should they be eligible for the scholarship? Should that student be allowed to change the definition of a word for their own benefit?
Again, if you want to argue for civil unions go to town. Specifically targeting marriage, however, carries a lot more issues than are honestly being discussed.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by renogaw
http:///forum/post/2613940
you didn't read this i'd guess

I read it. You don't think hetro couples have ever had to deal with that?
You think a kid that would otherwise be shuffled around the foster care system or in some kind of a state home is worse off being raised by a gay couple?
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Scotts
http:///forum/post/2613696
Conversely there is no constitutional basis to ban gay marriages.

But as put forth in the constitution through the 10th amendment powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states. That give the state every right to ban gay marriage.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2613733
I seem to remember a heck of a lot of lawsuits against the Catholic Church recently... Last time I checked they were a Church.
Of course churches can be sued.
I have not polled every gay couple, have you? I am simply pointing out that once non-traditional marriages are legalized then churches will begin to lose their rights to only perform traditional marriages.
If they want a choice fight for civil unions. Don't try to redefine "marriage" while arguing it's only about legal rights. That's nonsense.
So is that why you are against this? Simply because they may want to get married in your precious church? You want to keep them from redefining a concept basically. The institution of "marriage" is taboo to you. So it's OK to you if they are joined simply by a civil union? Hate to tell you, but you can't just be married in a church and be considered LEGALLY married. Being married under 'God's Roof' has no bearing in the legal sense of marriage. Again, ask the majority of gay's who want to be "married", and see if they care if it occurs in a church. I bet you'll find a majority of them that say no.
Here's Webster's definition of marriage:
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite --- as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same --- in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same---- marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
Look at number 2. The dictionary even recognizes same-$ex marriages. I personally believe number 3 sums up the true definition of marriage. You want to keeps gays from marrying because of some terminology. Ridiculous.
 
renogaw

renogaw

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2614136
I read it. You don't think hetro couples have ever had to deal with that?
You think a kid that would otherwise be shuffled around the foster care system or in some kind of a state home is worse off being raised by a gay couple?
omg no, hetro couples would never call their 2 year old BOY pretty and dress him in a skirt!!!
as for the foster home kids, most of them are already usually messed up enough with abandonment issues, and they NEED a strong male/female presense in their lives to help fix their issues--why compound a gay relationship?
and i use gay for both men and women, because thats what they are. its a slang for homos-exual, not derogatory.
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2614072
You can get married all your want, it just won't be recognized legally. (like those cultist in texas were basically married but did not get legally married) But there is no law stopping me and anyone or anything from renting a church or something putting a dress on and putting someone or something in a tux and saying wedding vows. I have no clue what the cerimony was, I don't think it was in mass. Journey posted an article for it earlier in this thread.
Back in the day judges decided that the civil rights acts applied to homosexuals. So you can't deny service based on gender preference just like you can't deny service based on color.
Okay... here is a scenario
If a couple wants to get married and they are not wearing clothes.. does a photographer have the right to deny service... based on relgious principle or a uncomfortable workplace environment?
Is there something to protect people for having the right to be offended?
 
renogaw

renogaw

Active Member
depends on the laws... i personally would not take the job.
imagine being around hundreds of gays all at the same place???
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2614212
Okay... here is a scenario
If a couple wants to get married and they are not wearing clothes.. does a photographer have the right to deny service... based on relgious principle or a uncomfortable workplace environment?
Is there something to protect people for having the right to be offended?
Dude it is your party that has laid the groundwork for this so you tell me. I'm simply pointing out that this business was fined for discrimination, because liberal judges decided that civil rights laws included homosexuals. Even though it violated this individuals personal religious belief structure.

I don't think being a ---- wedding would be a civil rights issue.
 
teresaq

teresaq

Active Member
Originally Posted by renogaw
http:///forum/post/2614174
omg no, hetro couples would never call their 2 year old BOY pretty and dress him in a skirt!!!
.
I dont know, my two yr old wears headbands and hair bows and we tell him he is a pretty boy.
 
teresaq

teresaq

Active Member
Because he has two older sister that like to dress him up. He is a baby. He dosent know any better. He still plays with cars and does all the things a boy should. Playing dress up or with dolls or with dishes will not turn my son gay. I truley believe that it is genetic. If he was born that way then so be it. would be love him any less, NO. Would you love your daughter any less. I dont think so. Would you keep your daughter from playing with cars, or t-ball, socer because these are boy things.
T
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by TeresaQ
http:///forum/post/2614290
Because he has two older sister that like to dress him up. He is a baby. He dosent know any better. He still plays with cars and does all the things a boy should. Playing dress up or with dolls or with dishes will not turn my son gay. I truley believe that it is genetic. If he was born that way then so be it. would be love him any less, NO. Would you love your daughter any less. I dont think so. Would you keep your daughter from playing with cars, or t-ball, socer because these are boy things.
T
lol, as a guy I say poor kid that is like dressing up your dog! But then again people do that too
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2614232
Dude it is your party that has laid the groundwork for this so you tell me. I'm simply pointing out that this business was fined for discrimination, because liberal judges decided that civil rights laws included homosexuals. Even though it violated this individuals personal religious belief structure.

I don't think being a ---- wedding would be a civil rights issue.
There were probably 50 other photographers in that area that would have done it... but if a person refuses to offer his services at an event that makes him/her uncomfortable.. I think they should have the right to refuse.. I agree I don't want judges who are extremist either way... and I do think that civil rights laws should apply to people who are homosexual... I guess this is a difficult issue, I take my history as an african american and try to compare the two b/w what happened w/ our civil rights issues... I do think the photographer has their own rights that are being overlooked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top