Boycott - Proposition 8 protesters target businesses

[Shogun]

Precedent you say? You mean like the fact for the 200 plus years we have been a country marriage has ALWAYS been defined as between a Man and a woman?

yea, just like how over 75% of our national history held blacks on cotton fields, dude. THAT precedence changed too. Just because blacks had ALWAYS been slave vending field labor doesn't mean that we as a nation didn't rise above the racist bullshit. Indeed, you people will eventually become just as despicable as we think of Archie Bunker types 20 years after it was socially OK to poke fun at darkies and kikes.

 

[Shogun]

And, truly, it's fucking RICH to see a bunch of capitalist loving conservatives to cry about the reality of boycotting given your usual quickness to react in the EXACT SAME WAY when, say, Microsoft decides to extend their policies equally despite your gay hating agenda.


Religious Right to boycott Microsoft over support for gay rights
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...tt-Microsoft-over-support-for-gay-rights.html


you silly fucking dogma junky bastards.. if irony were a snake it would ahve swallowed your fucking head by now.

 

[Navy1960]

True, gays aren't routinely being strung up from trees like african americans were. There's no systematic terrorization of gays to the same degree. Although Mathew Shepard is a grim reminder of anti-gay hate crimes.

Still, anti-gay discrmination is widespread and appalling. You can't serve in the US military if you're gay. You will be fired from your job.

You can be fired from any job, in most states, simply for being gay and its totally legal. Culturally, in many parts of the country, particularly the red states, there are enourmous amounts of bias, fear, and discrimination against gays.

Its not an equal country for gay americans, not by a long shot.

While I won't deny that this nation is chalk full of people that have issues with tolerance, and the gay community is no exception when it comes to people who would act out on them due to their lifestyle choice. However, there are many gay people in the Military and the simple fact is it is the proclaimation of begin gay that would exclude someone from military service and not the fact that someone has chosen to be gay. I submit in some states you can be fired if your employer doesn't like your choice of hair color as well (see "right to work states" ) . While I tend to agree that there is plenty of anti-gay bias to go around, that choice of lifestyle is theirs and so be it, it is not a choice that everyone agree's with. My position is that if you wish to have someone come about to your way of thinking, it is often best you educate them rather than force your beliefs upon them. Further, gay people live in both worlds as well, in that a white man proclaiming discrimination one day because of his choice to be gay, can at anytime take advantage of his non-minority status. Secondly, if that gay person should decide that one day the gay lifestyle is not for them then they are no longer a minority. I am hispanic and you know something, I just can't up and say , well today I won't be hispanic.

 

[Shogun]

chock-full, dude.

chock full - Google Search

 

[Navy1960]

I disagree with you, but I'm sure there will be a lot of tussling over the issue in the coming months. I always like to think about these issues substituting a different minority group...now it's the Republicans. If Florida wouldn't let Republicans marry they'd also be violating the US Constitution, even though the Republicans would be free to marry someone of another political party.

Well thats a great thing about this country Ravi we can disagree and agree at the same time on issues as well, it's too bad that at some point some common ground cannot be found here. This issue is clearly a state issue as thre is NOTHING in the US Constitution that supports or deny's marriage. See the Tenth Amendment. You can see this play itself out where states like Mass. and Conn. both allow gay marriage and states like the one I live in do not.

 

[Red Dawn]

Wrong. If someone openly states you are denied these things because you are gay they will lose in court. Why? Because the gay person has all the same rights as the straight. If you can prove you were denied housing or a job, or fired from a job for being gay you win in court, EVERY WHERE.

You don't know what you're talking about. Just like last night, when you claimed the Senate majority leadership position was given to those who ranked in seniority. You didn't realize that Bill Frist was elected senate majority leader after only 8 years in the senate. Did you ever go back to that thread and admit you were wrong?

Anti-discrimination laws are narrowly defined, to race, religion, gender, disability and ethnicity. All laws have boundaries and parameters. Otherwise someone could claim they were discriminated against because they have green eyes.

There is no inclusion in federal civil rights statutues for gay discrimination. Even though we know gay discrimination is widespread and prevalent.

There are some liberal and enlightened states that have anti-gay discrimination state-level statutes. But, its not applicable at the national level, therefore YOUR rights as they pertain to housing, employment, and adoption are protected. But, you don't want your rights extended to another huge group of americans.

 

[Navy1960]

As always, I tremendously appreciate your thoughts.

I'm not gay my brother .. thus, I make no assumptions about how deeply this issue affects them, nor do I believe It's necessary that their struggles have to meet criteria set by the struggles of others. I believe the same thing about the struggles of women in this country. I'm not a woman, but I understand injustice.

I also understand that gays were on the froint lines in the struggles of African-Americans and I take every opportunity to remind blacks of that fact because we are homophobic stupid as hell .. spawned by religion.

Gays are in a position to demand an end to injustice, an injustice that does not require one to be gay to understand .. and I fully support their right to demand.

Unfortunately, Americans are wimps and we should have demanded and found the mechanisms to demand, long before we found ourselves in the mess we are in today.

The right to demand is detailed fully in the Declaration of Independence.

Citizens demand

As I mentioned earlier BaC on a personal level on this issue as far as granting rights which IMHO to group who already enjoy's rights and protections under the constitution is somewhat redundant. The only reasons for granting further rights would be based on the choices they make. Personally I don't care one way or the other if those rights are granted or not , as I mentioed earlier that already enjoy them. It is in the end up to the individual states in which the person(s) reside to decide if those rights which they seek will be granted. I would say however that once they are, then look for other lifestyle choice groups to demand those very same rights. At what point does a society say this is ethical and this is not ethical? If for example in one state the majority of the residents that live there say, that the lifestyle choice that people make is not ethical as it applies to marriage then how are those people in that state wrong when they are expressing their will? Conversely, if a state should decide that marriage is ethical in that state then how are they wrong as again they are expressing their will ? See what I mean? Forgive me here, but while I admit that gay people do suffer from many forms of bias thats true, but IMHO that lifestyle choice places many gay people into that position. If gay marriage were allowed in my state , frankly it would not effect me in the least, I will say this however, do not be surprised that as minority status is increasingly given to the gay community that many will take advantage of that, that may or may not be gay. In fact if a young person both of the same ethnic origin were to apply for grant and one was given a minority status because of a lifestyle choice and the other not, how does that not build in a bias against the other person? Further, what makes you think that the other person and in many cases will not claim gay status to get minority status and benefits? Once again, this issue we both agree will not go away anytime soon thats true, but it would seem to me that if more time were spent on understand how one side felt and the other did as well perhaps there is some common ground there, where both can meet in the middle.

 

[Ravi]

Navy, what exactly do you mean by minority status?

 

[Valerie]

Any man or woman can marry in the state of California at anytime Ravi so how are any rights being abridged?

The federal government gives special status to married couples under the law. The continued basis of sanctifying marriage as only between one man and one woman as opposed to any two individual consenting adults, is discriminatory. The arguments against that are based in religious morality and social tradition and nothing more. Time to get real.

Each and every person within the gay community enjoys rights under the constitution that any other American enjoys, the lifestyle they choose to live places them in the status they are in and therefor that choice precludes them from acting upon privliedges that they clearly can exercise at anytime should they so choose.

Essentially you're saying it's okay for the government to give financial incentives to prevent gay people from "choosing" to marry who they really love? Who decides whether one type of Civil Union should be less socially secure than any other and how exactly is that not inequality under the law?

 

[Valerie]

Very true. People in other states have seen when they are allowed to vote. They can easily defeat the homo agenda.

If a majority of people voted to enslave an entire race, wouldn't the American legal process eventually find the right avenue to undo such a discriminatory and unconstitutional voting result?

 

[aztech]

You have got to love the looney left....all for democracy as long as you vote for what they want....god forbid you have an opinion that is different from them.

What would these nut jobs do if people did the same thing to those that voted to for propositions to ban hand guns in certain cities.....hmmmmmm....would they be saying..."thats OK, your allowed to do that"

Would they fuck...they would be jumping up and down complaining about what the facists were doing.

 

[Valerie]

You have got to love the looney left....all for democracy as long as you vote for what they want....god forbid you have an opinion that is different from them.

What would these nut jobs do if people did the same thing to those that voted to for propositions to ban hand guns in certain cities.....hmmmmmm....would they be saying..."thats OK, your allowed to do that"

Would they fuck...they would be jumping up and down complaining about what the facists were doing.

The right to bear arms is in the constitution, just as equal protection under the law is. These rights should not be brought to a vote. We are not a democracy, we are constitutional republic.

 

[bk1983]

You have got to love the looney left....all for democracy as long as you vote for what they want....god forbid you have an opinion that is different from them.

What would these nut jobs do if people did the same thing to those that voted to for propositions to ban hand guns in certain cities.....hmmmmmm....would they be saying..."thats OK, your allowed to do that"

Would they fuck...they would be jumping up and down complaining about what the facists were doing.

Codified by the First Amendment and upheld over time as one of our most basic rights as Americans, the right to assemble, protest, and petition still continue.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Earth to Aztec:

You have got to love the looney left....all for democracy as long as you vote for what they want....god forbid you have an opinion that is different from them.

You think the radical right is any different. Terri Schiavo?????????????

Sunni Man, you sound homophobically braindead.

 

[sky dancer]

If a majority of people voted to enslave an entire race, wouldn't the American legal process eventually find the right avenue to undo such a discriminatory and unconstitutional voting result?

That's a great point. The issue of marriage equality is civil rights--it has nothing to do with religion.

Religion was previously used as justification to prevent interracial marriage, and women's voting rights. Religion has been used to justify terrorism.

Marriage equality is a civil rights issue--not a religious issue.

 

[Navy1960]

The federal government gives special status to married couples under the law. The continued basis of sanctifying marriage as only between one man and one woman as opposed to any two individual consenting adults, is discriminatory. The arguments against that are based in religious morality and social tradition and nothing more. Time to get real.



Essentially you're saying it's okay for the government to give financial incentives to prevent gay people from "choosing" to marry who they really love? Who decides whether one type of Civil Union should be less socially secure than any other and how exactly is that not inequality under the law?

No I think I made myseld pretty clear Valerie that there is no right that the Federal Govt grants that cannot be taken advantage of by a gay person if they so choose. The Lifestyle that a gay person chooses places them in a position of inequality. Why then would you have the Federal Govt. grant license to someone that could easily enjoy the same rights as anyone else by making a choice to enjoy them? Married couples enjoy tax benefits because they choose to enter into marriage. What you are talking about is a tax code issue and not a constitutional issue. I have said it before and I will say it again, there is NOTHING in the constitution that defines what marriage is, so in the absence of that it becomes a state issue according to the Tenth Amendment. If a state so chooses to define it's marriage laws in whatever form they do, then that is up to the states. I have not in any argument mentioned any religious issue other than to state that if a majority of voters considers the lifestyle that gay people lead to be unethical then the gay people in that state speak through the ballot box. The same can be said for those states that have laws allowing gay marriage. If someone takes issue with the tax code as it defines what marriage is, then they need to take that up with the IRS.

 

[Murf76]

Some gay rights activists also have gone onto the restaurant website yelp.com, giving bad reviews to eateries linked to the Yes on 8 movement.

I'm all for voting with our dollars. In fact, there are quite a few libs and illegal alien employers who'll never see another dime from me. But... slander/libel should not be engaged in by any who don't want to end up in court with egg on their face. All a business has to prove is damages, and in a down economy, the books are more likely than not to reflect losses anyway.

Honesty really IS the best policy.

 

[Navy1960]

Navy, what exactly do you mean by minority status?

minority status Ravi, by that I mean a group or groups that claim redress through affirmative action and legal authority.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

I'm all for voting with our dollars. In fact, there are quite a few libs and illegal alien employers who'll never see another dime from me. But... slander/libel should not be engaged in by any who don't want to end up in court with egg on their face. All a business has to prove is damages, and in a down economy, the books are more likely than not to reflect losses anyway.

Honesty really IS the best policy.

Who are they going to sue .. the internet?

The internet is used for free expression and any business who doesn't like that .. tough shit.

The mechanism of boycott has evolved.

The best policy is freedom for all Americans.

There can only be one end to this story .. giving them what they want.

 

[Turboswede]

Wrong. If someone openly states you are denied these things because you are gay they will lose in court. Why? Because the gay person has all the same rights as the straight. If you can prove you were denied housing or a job, or fired from a job for being gay you win in court, EVERY WHERE.

RetiredGySgt, I can understand why you may think this because the idea of denying employment or housing on the basis of sexual orientation does not make sense to you personally. From your posts I get a very strong “whatever gets the job done” vibe and I appreciate that.

The fact of the matter is that employment decisions and housing decisions are made “at the will of” the employer, seller or landlord. From the 50’s on the American public has decided that there are some thing that the decision to hire, fire or ret may not be based on and these arise from the level of protection a specific class is afforded under the constitution.

Race, National Origin, birth status & Religion are the most suspect classes and were the first to be afforded protection in the U.S. Later gender was added as a semi-protected class. In order to bring suit for discrimination, one must be in a protected class.

I think lots of folks that buy into the “special rights” argument are just unaware that employers can say they refuse to hire an individual solely on the basis of sexual orientation and have it be legal. I don’t think you would refuse to hire someone, or rent housing on that basis so you feel no one else would either.

Unfortunately there are many out there who would be inclined to refuse service, or employment or housing to an individual based on sexual orientation and under current law the individual suffering discrimination would have little legal recourse.

While most large employers have an internal policy that prevents discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, it is connected with the negative public perception of the company as a discriminator rather than fear of federal labor laws. All that GLBT people ask is that, in the event they are discriminated against on the basis of their status, they have the same rights as any other group who has suffered exclusion from the marketplace due to arbitrary or capricious decisions based on a “class” rather than individual traits.

I know that this post deals with prop 8 and I do think (as a religious institution) the term “marriage” should be denied same sex partners, but I do believe that, given our numerous legal codes there should be a Federally defined term for a committed contractual relationship between partners people that states:

“For all intents and purposes the term ***** shall be interpreted as marriage, spouse, etc, in application to all state and federal law”

And that “Marriage” should be only be a colloquial and religious term.