- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,993
- Reaction score
- 60,557
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
also, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
your turn to state something obvious.
Since an employer is already not able to discriminate, nothing has changed, hence no rights lost.
Only libertarians would come up with something as insane as this.
personal attack noted.
Not subjective at all, but is a matter of law. You are not allowed to deny blacks the right to vote, nor are you allowed to decide that you don't have to sell a home to a black, gay, or anybody else you don't happen to like.
hence the dilemma - individual bigotry is a right.
No. It's a choice.
hence the dilemma - individual bigotry is a right.
yes, you have a right to not have black friends.
but the Supreme Court has decided that you do NOT have a right to not serve blacks at your restaurant, not allow blacks at your hotel, not hire blacks at your company, not sell blacks your merchandise, not allow blacks on your cruise ship, etc etc.
discrimination on a private level, is your right. but when it involves commerce, it is not your right.
sowwy...
yes, you have a right to not have black friends.
but the Supreme Court has decided that you do NOT have a right to not serve blacks at your restaurant, not allow blacks at your hotel, not hire blacks at your company, not sell blacks your merchandise, not allow blacks on your cruise ship, etc etc.
discrimination on a private level, is your right. but when it involves commerce, it is not your right.
sowwy...
it is still a right, just not a protected one (like gay marriage in 44 states)
That is going to change dramatically in the next few years.
these terms are not mutually exclusive.
Are religious ceremonies a matter of commerce?
it is still a right, just not a protected one..
No, its not a right. Its a choice.
Rights do not exist unless society decides to recognize them.
In the jungle, by the laws of the jungle, rights do NOT exist. Even the Bible fails to list any "rights". It only says what you must do, what you cannot do, and what makes God angry.
No, its not a right. Its a choice.
Rights do not exist unless society decides to recognize them.
In the jungle, by the laws of the jungle, rights do NOT exist. Even the Bible fails to list any "rights". It only says what you must do, what you cannot do, and what makes God angry.
I think this is a good thing. States should have the right to define marriage for themselves considering they are the ones that issue marriage licenses.
I'm pleased to see another state recognizing that homosexuals are entitled to the same marital rights as heterosexuals, along with all the perks and responsibilities that go with it. However, eventually the federal government is going to have to step in. This is a constitutional issue. States' rights stop at the point that states deliberately violate constitutional rights by "legally" discriminating against a certain group of people. SCOTUS will eventually recognize that the constitution grants homosexuals the right to not be discriminated against. It may not happen in my lifetime, but it most certainly will happen.
Why do I have this insane idea that the right to SSM is more of a natural right than owning a weapon? :shrug:
people have a natural right to have a loving & committed relationship with anyone they like.
they do not, however, have a "right" to get married. Marriage is a purely human and cultural construct.
nor is owning a Glock...a natural right.
No, its not a right. Its a choice.
Rights do not exist unless society decides to recognize them.
In the jungle, by the laws of the jungle, rights do NOT exist. Even the Bible fails to list any "rights". It only says what you must do, what you cannot do, and what makes God angry.
Question: why should religious instititions and religious affiliatted groups and non-profits, be able to discriminate against gays, but not everybody else?
what if a regular band doesn't want to play at a gay-wedding?
what if a regular wedding hall doesn't want to host a gay wedding?
what if a private employer doesn't want to give pension and other beneficiary rights to gay couples?
why should religious groups have the right to live by their moral views, but not other folks?
(devil's advocate asks: should a wedding hall be allowed to refuse to serve an inter-racial wedding? hmmmm.....this is gonna bring up some serious issues of freedom of speech and association)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?