"..Marriage has always been between a man and a woman."

[Seawytch]

first of all....this is probably the very first serious and extensive study about same-sex household effects on children....with not as much data available as one would like....so Dr. Regnerus can't be as definitive as the court would demand...however that does not mean the study is bogus...



second....Regnerus testified that there is no conclusive evidence that same-sex household do NOT have an adverse effect on children...



in fact....looking at the results it appears that same-sex households produce children with as many defects as children from broken homes...

The only thing his study showed was that intact families are superior to broken ones.

Ursine mammals evacuate in sylvan environments too.

does a bear shit in the woods......gay homes are broken homes by definition....

You obviously don't know what the definition of broken is. An intact home is one in which both parents are present in the home. This would be my family. Now, every single one of my kid's friends? Broken home...parents living separately and the kids having to divide their time between them. Know what ALL the studies show? The intact home is best, the gender of the parents irrelevant.

 

[Seawytch]

Third World Country-like.

Well, they do have roads, running water and electricity...but yeah, when we talk about attitudes and education...kinda.

You are talking about a very large part of this great nation. Watch your mouth.

California is the most populous state in the union...and like third in pure landmass...I'll go look for your "watch your mouth" in the CA bash threads...BRB

Gosh, imagine that...couldn't find a thing.

 

[Pop23]

I always chuckle at posters like you who are completely clueless about what bisexuality is.

Now this is exactly what a self proclaimed bisexual explained that it was.

Is he clueless too?

And you bought it.

You know how to use google?

Prolly not

 

[Unkotare]

Well, they do have roads, running water and electricity...but yeah, when we talk about attitudes and education...kinda.

You are talking about a very large part of this great nation. Watch your mouth.

Third-world countries are a very large part of the world too.

Who said they weren't?

 

[Unkotare]

Well, they do have roads, running water and electricity...but yeah, when we talk about attitudes and education...kinda.

You are talking about a very large part of this great nation. Watch your mouth.

California is the most populous state in the union...and like third in pure landmass...I'll go look for your "watch your mouth" in the CA bash threads...BRB

Gosh, imagine that...couldn't find a thing.

Go look for me "bashing" California. Gosh, imagine that...you couldn't find a thing.


Watch your mouth.

 

[bodecea]

Now this is exactly what a self proclaimed bisexual explained that it was.

Is he clueless too?

And you bought it.

You know how to use google?

Prolly not

Aw...lecture us more about what a bisexual is....*chuckle

 

[Seawytch]

You are talking about a very large part of this great nation. Watch your mouth.

California is the most populous state in the union...and like third in pure landmass...I'll go look for your "watch your mouth" in the CA bash threads...BRB

Gosh, imagine that...couldn't find a thing.

Go look for me "bashing" California. Gosh, imagine that...you couldn't find a thing.


Watch your mouth.

No, I couldn't find you telling CA bashers to "shut their mouths". How come?

 

[MrMax]

you bet we do.....those 'fundamentals' are very important....in fact critical...

but as a leftie you want to 'fundamentally change' things....obviously due to emotions since you cannot intellectually nor factually defend your position when it comes to the children....

Gay peeps have children all the time. Sperm donors and surrogates, do those words mean anything to you?

Your in favor of polygamy? Name the same sex couple that ever had a child from sex between the partners. I can assure you, that's never occurred.

And to that point, single heterosexuals have children, none of which are granted single marriage status.

Polygamy has nothing to do with it, and plenty of heteros need help conceiving, in vitro, sperm donors, surrogates... more so than gay couples, that's for sure.

 

[Seawytch]

Bisexuality Is Really Not That Complicated

 

[Unkotare]

California is the most populous state in the union...and like third in pure landmass...I'll go look for your "watch your mouth" in the CA bash threads...BRB

Gosh, imagine that...couldn't find a thing.

Go look for me "bashing" California. Gosh, imagine that...you couldn't find a thing.


Watch your mouth.

No, I couldn't find you telling CA bashers to "shut their mouths". How come?

You couldn't find me "bashing" California; you mouthy, dishonest punk.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Funny how some get fired and publicly ridiculed, yet others simply get instantly forgiven and supported. All depends on which side of the political fence you're standing on.

While I have no issues with gays tying the knot, I am forever amazed at the hypocrisy on the left when it comes to whose feet they hold to the fire. The CEO donated money to let his opinion be heard. Fair enough, as that is how it works here in America. Debate openly and let the people vote and decide. However, the Clintons were against gay marriage and legislation was passed that made their opinion law without another vote by the people.

I'm a stringent supporter of gay marriage, however I don't think it was right to fire the guy.

However, public opinion is a thing that companies need to be cognizant of, and if a figurehead is doing something that may generate negative opinion I suppose a company needs to protect itself - whether or not the public opinion is in "the right".

I mean, if a bartender in wrigleyville was publicly known to support the white sox (which is in it of itself not a "bad" thing), I think the owner aught to have the ability to terminate him if business suffers as a result - right?

Public opinion is just public opinion, and companies are bound to conform to it.

Funny, did you give the baker that refused to bake a dick that same lattitide?

 

[martybegan]

No, it's enforcing the laws that don't allow you to discriminate...

...no, the freedom to discriminate is not the new freedom. You have wandered intellectually down the wrong road.

Unless you are the government there should be freedom to discriminate. There already is in the private sector, unless you are a member of a protected class, and then all of a sudden you are more equal than anyone else.

Mandated anti-segregation was required in the south due to the pervasiveness and the government approval of said segregation. There is no such condition when it comes to gays.

You're a crackpot. Thank god there aren't enough of you in this country to do any real damage.

My views would not do the country any damage. The government would be a fair arbiter, and would not have the power to punish people for their morals.

And i note you didn't respond to any of my points, just did the usual dismissal of them, as progressives do.

 

[Ava]

Funny how some get fired and publicly ridiculed, yet others simply get instantly forgiven and supported. All depends on which side of the political fence you're standing on.

While I have no issues with gays tying the knot, I am forever amazed at the hypocrisy on the left when it comes to whose feet they hold to the fire. The CEO donated money to let his opinion be heard. Fair enough, as that is how it works here in America. Debate openly and let the people vote and decide. However, the Clintons were against gay marriage and legislation was passed that made their opinion law without another vote by the people.

I'm a stringent supporter of gay marriage, however I don't think it was right to fire the guy.

However, public opinion is a thing that companies need to be cognizant of, and if a figurehead is doing something that may generate negative opinion I suppose a company needs to protect itself - whether or not the public opinion is in "the right".

I mean, if a bartender in wrigleyville was publicly known to support the white sox (which is in it of itself not a "bad" thing), I think the owner aught to have the ability to terminate him if business suffers as a result - right?

Public opinion is just public opinion, and companies are bound to conform to it.

Funny, did you give the baker that refused to bake a dick that same lattitide?

Any decision of the owner of any business, should stand. He or she, will go out of business or remain in business, based upon their business practices.

 

[martybegan]

I'm a stringent supporter of gay marriage, however I don't think it was right to fire the guy.

However, public opinion is a thing that companies need to be cognizant of, and if a figurehead is doing something that may generate negative opinion I suppose a company needs to protect itself - whether or not the public opinion is in "the right".

I mean, if a bartender in wrigleyville was publicly known to support the white sox (which is in it of itself not a "bad" thing), I think the owner aught to have the ability to terminate him if business suffers as a result - right?

Public opinion is just public opinion, and companies are bound to conform to it.

Funny, did you give the baker that refused to bake a dick that same lattitide?

Any decision of the owner of any business, should stand. He or she, will go out of business or remain in business, based upon their business practices.

The only exception i would place is companies that work on government contracts, and of course, the government themselves. If you provide service to the government, any government, you cannot discriminate, you have to be a neutral arbiter as intended.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The only exception i would place is companies that work on government contracts, and of course, the government themselves. If you provide service to the government, any government, you cannot discriminate, you have to be a neutral arbiter as intended.

Ummmm... just being picky Marty.

The wording still sounds like the government telling them who they can or cannot service.

Try thinking of it this way...

Public Accommodation laws should only apply to government entities. As organizations funded by taxpayer dollars they are not allowed to discriminate against taxpayers. These laws should also prevent them from purchasing goods and services or entertaining into contracts with private businesses that have discriminatory business models.​

It's subtle, and I know that, but the difference one way says it is the businesses responsibility not to discriminate. Nope, if Public Accommodation laws being applicable to private business are repealed, they are free to discriminate. The responsibility rests with the government not to do business with them.



>>>>

 

[hangover]

"..Marriage has always been between a man and a woman."

And cons also believe that women should be subservient to men, barefoot, pregnant and chained to a stove.

 

[martybegan]

The only exception i would place is companies that work on government contracts, and of course, the government themselves. If you provide service to the government, any government, you cannot discriminate, you have to be a neutral arbiter as intended.

Ummmm... just being picky Marty.

The wording still sounds like the government telling them who they can or cannot service.

Try thinking of it this way...

Public Accommodation laws should only apply to government entities. As organizations funded by taxpayer dollars they are not allowed to discriminate against taxpayers. These laws should also prevent them from purchasing goods and services or entertaining into contracts with private businesses that have discriminatory business models.​

It's subtle, and I know that, but the difference one way says it is the businesses responsibility not to discriminate. Nope, if Public Accommodation laws being applicable to private business is repealed, they are free to discriminate. The responsibility rests with the government not to do business with them.



>>>>

If a company decides it wants to work on government contracts, or provide a service that flows from the government, then I have no issue with the contract the company signs stating the whole company has to follow public accommodation/anti-discrimination laws. In fact other companies could do the same thing to subcontractors and I would not have an issue.

I also have misgivings about actual "public accommodations" being able to discriminate, such as hotels, and rest stops, places where getting alternate service is an issue. To me the real problem is courts currently are considering ANY business a public accommodation, and I don't think that is how the laws were intended.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The only exception i would place is companies that work on government contracts, and of course, the government themselves. If you provide service to the government, any government, you cannot discriminate, you have to be a neutral arbiter as intended.

Ummmm... just being picky Marty.

The wording still sounds like the government telling them who they can or cannot service.

Try thinking of it this way...

Public Accommodation laws should only apply to government entities. As organizations funded by taxpayer dollars they are not allowed to discriminate against taxpayers. These laws should also prevent them from purchasing goods and services or entertaining into contracts with private businesses that have discriminatory business models.​

It's subtle, and I know that, but the difference one way says it is the businesses responsibility not to discriminate. Nope, if Public Accommodation laws being applicable to private business is repealed, they are free to discriminate. The responsibility rests with the government not to do business with them.



>>>>

If a company decides it wants to work on government contracts, or provide a service that flows from the government, then I have no issue with the contract the company signs stating the whole company has to follow public accommodation/anti-discrimination laws. In fact other companies could do the same thing to subcontractors and I would not have an issue.

I also have misgivings about actual "public accommodations" being able to discriminate, such as hotels, and rest stops, places where getting alternate service is an issue. To me the real problem is courts currently are considering ANY business a public accommodation, and I don't think that is how the laws were intended.

Then you don't really understand the legislation.

It's not the courts that currently consider any business as a public accommodation - it's the way the laws are written that include business which offer goods and services. You appear to be blaming the courts, not the case. It's the laws that are inclusive.



>>>>

 

[martybegan]

Ummmm... just being picky Marty.

The wording still sounds like the government telling them who they can or cannot service.

Try thinking of it this way...

Public Accommodation laws should only apply to government entities. As organizations funded by taxpayer dollars they are not allowed to discriminate against taxpayers. These laws should also prevent them from purchasing goods and services or entertaining into contracts with private businesses that have discriminatory business models.​

It's subtle, and I know that, but the difference one way says it is the businesses responsibility not to discriminate. Nope, if Public Accommodation laws being applicable to private business is repealed, they are free to discriminate. The responsibility rests with the government not to do business with them.



>>>>

If a company decides it wants to work on government contracts, or provide a service that flows from the government, then I have no issue with the contract the company signs stating the whole company has to follow public accommodation/anti-discrimination laws. In fact other companies could do the same thing to subcontractors and I would not have an issue.

I also have misgivings about actual "public accommodations" being able to discriminate, such as hotels, and rest stops, places where getting alternate service is an issue. To me the real problem is courts currently are considering ANY business a public accommodation, and I don't think that is how the laws were intended.

Then you don't really understand the legislation.

It's not the courts that currently consider any business as a public accommodation - it's the way the laws are written that include business which offer goods and services. You appear to be blaming the courts, not the case. It's the laws that are inclusive.



>>>>

I understand the legislation.

the text:

any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation;

The question is if a contracted photographer is a public accommodation. Plus, the government should not be able to force a person to either go out of business or accommodate people anyway.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I understand the legislation.

the text:

any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation;

Good, then you realize it's not the "judges currently" doing anyting. It's the way that that laws are written.

OK.

The question is if a contracted photographer is a public accommodation.

Under current law, yes they are. They operate as a business and offer goods and services to the public.

Plus, the government should not be able to force a person to either go out of business or accommodate people anyway.

Our personal opinion of what the law should be does not necessarily reflect the way the laws are.



>>>>