San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure[W:208]

[AGENT J]

[h=1]San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure - ABC News

San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure[/h]
San Antonio's leaders on Thursday approved anti-bias protections for gay and transgender residents, over the disapproval of top Texas Republicans and religious conservatives who packed a City Council hearing and occasionally shamed supporters for comparing the issue to the civil rights movement.
The 8-3 City Council vote in favor of the ordinance was a victory for gay rights advocates and for Democratic Mayor Julian Castro, a top surrogate of President Barack Obama. Castro has called the ordinance overdue in the nation's seventh-largest city, where there is a stronger current of traditionalism and conservatism than other major Texas cities that already have similar gay rights protections.
San Antonio joins nearly 180 other U.S. cities that have nondiscrimination ordinances that prohibit bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity, according to the Human Rights Campaign.
"This ordinance is about saying there are no second-class citizens in San Antonio," Castro said.

backup link:San Antonio adopts disputed gay rights measure - Dallas News | myFOXdfw.com

seems this stuff is spreading like wildfire, equality and ending discrimination is fanning out!

with other recent victories and cases in NM
Photographers Discriminated Against Gay Couple, Court Rules - Law Blog - WSJ
and Oregon which have also made news and discrimination is losing.
TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests | Fox News

Soon i hope these discrimination laws that include sexual orientation are nation wide, many states have them but many do not.

Not sure if it will be picked off one by one or if equal gay rights will nationally happen first with gay marriage.

anyway my state, PA is the only North West state not too but 12 out of 15 of its largest cities do

1. Philadelphia* - pop. 1,526,006 (passed this law in 1954, amended 2002)
2. Pittsburgh* - pop. 305,704 (passed this law in 1992, amended 2005)
3. Allentown* - pop. 118,032 (passed this law in 1964, amended 2002)
4. Erie (as part of Erie County) - pop. 101,786 (passed this law in 2002)
5. Reading* - pop. 88,082 (passed this law in 1955, amended 2009)
6. Scranton - pop. 72,485 (passed this law in 2003)
7. Bethlehem* - pop. 71,329 (passed this law on June 21st, 2011)
8. Lancaster* - pop. 55,381 (passed this law in 1991)
10. Harrisburg* - pop. 47,196 (passed this law in 1992)
12. York - pop. 40,862 (passed this law in 1998)
13. State College* - pop. 38,420 (passed this law in 2008)
15. Easton*[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif] - pop. 26,080 (passed this law in 2007)[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]anyway congratulations San Antonio good job joining the places, cities and states that ending discrimination and practicing equality, hopefully more catch up soon![/FONT]

 

[SBu]

Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

[h=1]San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure - ABC News

backup link:San Antonio adopts disputed gay rights measure - Dallas News | myFOXdfw.com

seems this stuff is spreading like wildfire, equality and ending discrimination is fanning out!

with other recent victories and cases in NM
Photographers Discriminated Against Gay Couple, Court Rules - Law Blog - WSJ
and Oregon which have also made news and discrimination is losing.
TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests | Fox News

Soon i hope these discrimination laws that include sexual orientation are nation wide, many states have them but many do not.

Not sure if it will be picked off one by one or if equal gay rights will nationally happen first with gay marriage.

anyway my state, PA is the only North West state not too but 12 out of 15 of its largest cities do

1. Philadelphia* - pop. 1,526,006 (passed this law in 1954, amended 2002)
2. Pittsburgh* - pop. 305,704 (passed this law in 1992, amended 2005)
3. Allentown* - pop. 118,032 (passed this law in 1964, amended 2002)
4. Erie (as part of Erie County) - pop. 101,786 (passed this law in 2002)
5. Reading* - pop. 88,082 (passed this law in 1955, amended 2009)
6. Scranton - pop. 72,485 (passed this law in 2003)
7. Bethlehem* - pop. 71,329 (passed this law on June 21st, 2011)
8. Lancaster* - pop. 55,381 (passed this law in 1991)
10. Harrisburg* - pop. 47,196 (passed this law in 1992)
12. York - pop. 40,862 (passed this law in 1998)
13. State College* - pop. 38,420 (passed this law in 2008)
15. Easton*[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif] - pop. 26,080 (passed this law in 2007)

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]anyway congratulations San Antonio good job joining the places, cities and states that ending discrimination and practicing equality, hopefully more catch up soon![/FONT]

I'm so sick of this sh*t. It's 2013 and we're still talking about gay rights? Who cares, give them the rights that they've always had because they are unalienable rights and move on. People that don't support gay rights, consider this...you are going to hear about stupid mini-victory stories like this over and over for the next 15 years, so just get it over with and don't put up a fight so we can move on to important sh*t.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

PA is a North West state? When did they move? (just picking, not trying to derail the thread)

I pretty much agree with what SBu wrote.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

1.)PA is a North West state? When did they move? (just picking, not trying to derail the thread)
2.) I pretty much agree with what SBu wrote.

1.) lol sorry north east state, my mistake
2.) well in ways i do to but until it happens ill be celebrating the road but yes instead of a back road here, and an alley there a mega interstate national highway just needs to open up.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

1.) lol sorry north east state, my mistake
2.) well in ways i do to but until it happens ill be celebrating the road but yes instead of a back road here, and an alley there a mega interstate national highway just needs to open up.

Maybe it's just me, but I just can't fathom why ANYONE in this country would have to fight for rights afforded to us ALL by the Constitution. It shouldn't even be a question, much less a debate or legal fight.

But like I said, maybe its just me....

 

[AGENT J]

Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Maybe it's just me, but I just can't fathom why ANYONE in this country would have to fight for rights afforded to us ALL by the Constitution. It shouldn't even be a question, much less a debate or legal fight.

But like I said, maybe its just me....

well i agree but somehow some people have themselves falsely convinced that they either ALREADY have the same rights when they factually dont or that giving them equal rights will take away theirs.

its actually interesting and mind boggling at the same time.

but i agree in 2013 how do people support discrimination and fight against equal rights.

its not just you, its NORMAL people also

 

[winston53660]

Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Maybe it's just me, but I just can't fathom why ANYONE in this country would have to fight for rights afforded to us ALL by the Constitution. It shouldn't even be a question, much less a debate or legal fight.

But like I said, maybe its just me....

I think Wendy Davis is the choice for my state even though I'm skeptical about Texan politicians these days after the Perry hurrah

 

[Grendel]

Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

I don't know if I agree with the decision in the photography case. It would have required the photographers to actually attend the wedding, which they think is tied to bad magic or something. It's not the same as a recent wedding cake case. In the photography case, they would have had to actually be present in the ceremony, and they can have legitimate complaints about that. At the same time, though, anti-discrimination laws are generally good. So I'm not sure which way I would go on that particular case.

As far as SBu's concerns over the droning argument, I'm glad it sticks around, mostly just because the GOP and their base made a huge push for legal, and even Constitutional, discrimination against homosexuals, and the backlash is damaging them. They hung the label of 'homophobe' around their own necks, and I'm glad they can't ditch it. They deserve the electoral costs of appealing to bigotry

As for gay rights in general, and gay marriage in particular, I can't believe it's not legal in all states yet. There's no basis for discriminatory law against it.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

1.)I don't know if I agree with the decision in the photography case. It would have required the photographers to actually attend the wedding, which they think is tied to bad magic or something. In the photography case, they would have had to actually be present in the ceremony, and they can have legitimate complaints about that. At the same time, though, anti-discrimination laws are generally good. So I'm not sure which way I would go on that particular case.
2.) It's not the same as a recent wedding cake case.

3.) As far as SBu's concerns over the droning argument, I'm glad it sticks around, mostly just because the GOP and their base made a huge push for legal, and even Constitutional, discrimination against homosexuals, and the backlash is damaging them. They hung the label of 'homophobe' around their own necks, and I'm glad they can't ditch it. They deserve the electoral costs of appealing to bigotry

4.) As for gay rights in general, and gay marriage in particular, I can't believe it's not legal in all states yet. There's no basis for discriminatory law against it.

1.) dont have the full story but they arent begin forced to go to the wedding like by armed guard, supposedly they got a fine which is more than just for blatant discrimination and that's lucky for them.
2,) the bakers did it right the second time, they learned from their mistake. They arent civil enough to play by public rules and laws so they moved their business to a private practice, that's one of their three common sense options.

it works like this
in the PUBLIC realm we all have to play by the same rules/laws of a public access business

if a person is to bigoted and or uncivil to play by these rules the solutions are very easy and common sense based

A.) you dont go into public access business
B.) you dont do anything that may offend you so easily or its counterparts. IE if you are christian you cant say you wont do gay weddings but then do bar mitzvahs, you option is to do NOTHING religious
C.) open up a private practice like out of your home or online like the bakery did

they were smart and learned from their short sighted mistake, it was stupid to be a bakery and do wedding cakes and think you wouldnt get a wedding you disagreed with. So now they run there company on line so they arent public access and or dont know their customers. Liberty in tact.

3.) well i partially agree there are many chrisitans and GOPers that are also appalled by bigotry and discrimination like this so its unfair to paint them all with the same brush. But having said that no matter who came up with it I am happy in ways that so many states "banned" eqyual rights for gays and gays marriage because when pushed in the courts thats actually going to make it easier to establish equal gay rights which is funny and poetic justice.

4.) i think its pathetic also but its changing and id say 5 years max

 

[Bronson]

Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

I don't know if I agree with the decision in the photography case. It would have required the photographers to actually attend the wedding, which they think is tied to bad magic or something. It's not the same as a recent wedding cake case. In the photography case, they would have had to actually be present in the ceremony, and they can have legitimate complaints about that. At the same time, though, anti-discrimination laws are generally good. So I'm not sure which way I would go on that particular case.

As far as SBu's concerns over the droning argument, I'm glad it sticks around, mostly just because the GOP and their base made a huge push for legal, and even Constitutional, discrimination against homosexuals, and the backlash is damaging them. They hung the label of 'homophobe' around their own necks, and I'm glad they can't ditch it. They deserve the electoral costs of appealing to bigotry

As for gay rights in general, and gay marriage in particular, I can't believe it's not legal in all states yet. There's no basis for discriminatory law against it.

Gay Marriage is sham pretend marriage

It shouldn't be legal anywhere. Sodomites whined however, so they get to play dress up and pretend they are normal.

 

[sangha]

Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

 

[AGENT J]

Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

shhhh dont ruin "his" fun he thinks nobody shes through his post

 

[Grendel]

Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

1.) dont have the full story but they arent begin forced to go to the wedding like by armed guard, supposedly they got a fine which is more than just for blatant discrimination and that's lucky for them.

I'm not religious. I understand spirituality and the idea of a greater universal spirit or something, but to me, dogmatic religion is indistinguishable from magic and voodoo. So that there are so many people who really, truly do believe there's some kind of dark magic or curses from angry invisible monsters in the sky is absolutely insane. That being said, though, people really do believe that stuff, and they have every right to practice it, however insane I may find it to be. So if the photographers would have offered something like an in-studio shoot before or after or something, but refused to actually attend the service out of fear of the dark magic that may happen, I have to sympathize. Like if a photographer had a bad phobia of dogs, and refused to shoot at a sight that had a dog running around, I wouldn't think he should be forced to. It's like that, but with a horrific, hateful monster in space instead of just a yappy little pooch.

That being said, though, you can't refuse service to someone because you don't like whatever class you feel they belong to. Gay couples shouldn't have to keep going to shop after shop being told they're not good enough to do business. The days of separate but equal business are over and should never be invited back.

So I can definitely see two different sides to the story. That's why, with that case, I'm not sure which way I would go were I to cast a jury vote or something. Would be up in the air. The cake makers were just assholes, though. A cake is just a cake, and it's not their business where it goes after it's carried out of their shop.

 

[Grendel]

Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Gay Marriage is sham pretend marriage

It shouldn't be legal anywhere. Sodomites whined however, so they get to play dress up and pretend they are normal.

It's always funny when theocrats pretend to be libertarians. I like that. It's none of the government's business. Not a bit. They're free to marry and find happiness, and you're free to sit and stew in bitterness and anger.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Gay Marriage is sham pretend marriage

It shouldn't be legal anywhere. Sodomites whined however, so they get to play dress up and pretend they are normal.

You don't even know what the word Sodom means and represents which points to how uneducated you are on this issue.

 

[Bronson]

Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

You don't even know what the word Sodom means and represents which points to how uneducated you are on this issue.

What issue would that be?

What exactly are you trying to dispute?

 

[Gipper]

Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

It's just another victory for fascism. I don't think the public sector should be able to discriminate on any factor (orientation included). However, I virulently detest governments determining what the private sector can do.

It's like all those people who cry "First Amendment!" to only defend freedoms they agree with. Voltaire would be disappointed.

We've become a nation of ******s, afraid that someone's feelings will get hurt. That trumps your right to commerce, preference, or morality. When someone sheds a tear, we lose a little more liberty.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

I'm not religious. I understand spirituality and the idea of a greater universal spirit or something, but to me, dogmatic religion is indistinguishable from magic and voodoo. So that there are so many people who really, truly do believe there's some kind of dark magic or curses from angry invisible monsters in the sky is absolutely insane. That being said, though, people really do believe that stuff, and they have every right to practice it, however insane I may find it to be. So if the photographers would have offered something like an in-studio shoot before or after or something, but refused to actually attend the service out of fear of the dark magic that may happen, I have to sympathize. Like if a photographer had a bad phobia of dogs, and refused to shoot at a sight that had a dog running around, I wouldn't think he should be forced to. It's like that, but with a horrific, hateful monster in space instead of just a yappy little pooch.

That being said, though, you can't refuse service to someone because you don't like whatever class you feel they belong to. Gay couples shouldn't have to keep going to shop after shop being told they're not good enough to do business. The days of separate but equal business are over and should never be invited back.

So I can definitely see two different sides to the story. That's why, with that case, I'm not sure which way I would go were I to cast a jury vote or something. Would be up in the air. The cake makers were just assholes, though. A cake is just a cake, and it's not their business where it goes after it's carried out of their shop.

there is no force though and ONE is breaking the law. Thats all it take for me. Refusing to shot a dog is not breaking the law, legal discrimination is breaking the law.

Can i sorta see what there issues is? a little but i blame them for being stupid, dont go into a public business if you are so easily offended its just basic common sense or dont do anything related to those things. No weddings, no religious items. They admitted they didn't want to because they were gay. thats their fault and now they are guilty of committing a crime and must pay a fine. Many Christians think this type of discrimination is repulsive so these people shouldnt be grouped with others.

as for the bakers IF the stories are true about what they posted on line they are despicable people and i hope their on line business fails too

 

[Bronson]

Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

It's always funny when theocrats pretend to be libertarians. I like that. It's none of the government's business. Not a bit. They're free to marry and find happiness, and you're free to sit and stew in bitterness and anger.

Theocrat?

I'm just talking basic biology here. Gay Marriage serves no social or economic purpose. You can toss out every (you're a religious nut) strawmen out there all you want. If homosexuality was biological than evolution over time would have found a way to adapt. If homosexuality is a mental issue however, (as it was known before they changed the DSM criteria because of political reasons) then society shouldn't be made to conform to such obviously irrational behavior (sodomy/homosexual sex being normalized/put on a pedestal).

Besides, an atheist government is still a Theocracy, in the sense that The State determines it's own morality. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Grendel]

Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

I'm just talking basic biology here. Gay Marriage serves no social or economic purpose.

It serves the exact same social and economic purpose that heterosexual marriage does -- namely, settles property rights and power of attorney questions. How does that not apply to homosexuals?

If homosexuality was biological than evolution over time would have found a way to adapt.

That's too simplistic a view. Genetics isn't that straight. The most widely accepted research right now shows a very strong correlation between women with certain genetic traits that have both more children and more gay sons. The obvious evolutionary cost of a gay son is offset by the evolutionary benefit of having more children -- enough to offset the difference.

Even if it weren't, it still wouldn't be the state's business. If you want to call it a birth defect (only for the sake of argument), are you also going to say that people with other birth defects should also be prevented from marrying? Should the be sterilized to prevent evolutionary damage or something? Should we do full-scale eugenics? I'd say no, that's not the govenrment's function.

People born with an extra toe, for example. The extra toe serves no function. Should it be cut off? How far are you going to take biological imperative in setting government policy?

If homosexuality is a mental issue however, (as it was known before they changed the DSM criteria because of political reasons)

Almost the entire psychological profession says you're wrong. But you know more about psychology than the entire psychological profession, right?

society shouldn't be made to conform to such obviously irrational behavior (sodomy/homosexual sex being normalized/put on a pedestal).

You are still just as free to despise them after they're married as you were before they were married. The government can't mandate that you must accept gay sex as normal. But the government has to apply the law equally to all parties in all classes. If you want to end gay marriage, then you have to end straight marriage, as well.

Besides, an atheist government is still a Theocracy, in the sense that The State determines it's own morality. What could possibly go wrong?

No one I know is asking for an atheist government, just a secular one. One that has no say in any religious matter (except, of course, where it's also a civil matter -- for example you can't sacrifice virgins at the altar).

 

[Bronson]

Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

It serves the exact same social and economic purpose that heterosexual marriage does -- namely, settles property rights and power of attorney questions. How does that not apply to homosexuals?

Don't play stupid

Biology is what it is. You believe in science right?

That's too simplistic a view. Genetics isn't that straight. The most widely accepted research right now shows a very strong correlation between women with certain genetic traits that have both more children and more gay sons. The obvious evolutionary cost of a gay son is offset by the evolutionary benefit of having more children -- enough to offset the difference.

There is no gay gene. Nothing. Zip. Nada.

Even if it weren't, it still wouldn't be the state's business. If you want to call it a birth defect (only for the sake of argument), are you also going to say that people with other birth defects should also be prevented from marrying? Should the be sterilized to prevent evolutionary damage or something? Should we do full-scale eugenics? I'd say no, that's not the govenrment's function.

So people born gay are born with birth defects? Is that your argument?

Obama and the Democrats are already running a full scale eugenics program. It's called Planned Parenthood and Hip Hop Culture.

People born with an extra toe, for example. The extra toe serves no function. Should it be cut off? How far are you going to take biological imperative in setting government policy?

How did you get from marriage to killing people. Hyperbole much? I'm not interested in debating you if you're going to act hysterical like this.

Almost the entire psychological profession says you're wrong. But you know more about psychology than the entire psychological profession, right?

Homosexuality was never removed from the DSM Criteria for scientific reasons. Purely political ones. Money buys morality in US Politics.

You are still just as free to despise them after they're married as you were before they were married. The government can't mandate that you must accept gay sex as normal. But the government has to apply the law equally to all parties in all classes. If you want to end gay marriage, then you have to end straight marriage, as well.

Not accepting homosexuality as normal doesn't mean I hate gay people. This is why people like you are really the bigots. You paint people as villains when they don't go along with the politically correct narrative. It's not against the law yet to have an opinion in this country. It's still my right to determine my own morality. This the real problem with homosexuality being normalized and gay marriage. The State is now becoming a religion. You must accept sodomy as normal and support homosexual marriage or you will be a moral outcast.

No one I know is asking for an atheist government, just a secular one. One that has no say in any religious matter (except, of course, where it's also a civil matter -- for example you can't sacrifice virgins at the altar).

Tell that to the photographers being targeted for not wanting to take pictures of gay weddings

 

[winston53660]

Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

It's just another victory for fascism. I don't think the public sector should be able to discriminate on any factor (orientation included). However, I virulently detest governments determining what the private sector can do.

It's like all those people who cry "First Amendment!" to only defend freedoms they agree with. Voltaire would be disappointed.

We've become a nation of ******s, afraid that someone's feelings will get hurt. That trumps your right to commerce, preference, or morality. When someone sheds a tear, we lose a little more liberty.

What liberty has been lost? They can say they hate fags or whatever.

 

[Gipper]

Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

What liberty has been lost? They can say they hate fags or whatever.

They can no longer "reserve the right".

 

[Grendel]

Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Don't play stupid

Biology is what it is. You believe in science right?

You said it served no social or economic purpose. It serves the same social and economic purpose as hetero marriage does. It's all about property rights. Whether or not it serves a biological purpose isn't the states business.

There is no gay gene. Nothing. Zip. Nada.

Based on what? Honestly, where is your evidence of this? You realize that what I posed is about well researched findings, right? On what do you argue that?

So people born gay are born with birth defects? Is that your argument?

No, of course not. Maybe I misunderstood, but that seemed to be your argument. Are you saying instead that they aren't born gay? If so, how do they become gay?

How did you get from marriage to killing people. Hyperbole much? I'm not interested in debating you if you're going to act hysterical like this.

I'm trying to understand to what extent you want the government to go in governing based on perceived biological imperative.

Homosexuality was never removed from the DSM Criteria for scientific reasons. Purely political ones. Money buys morality in US Politics.

Based on what? Why do you say this? Where do you get this information?

Not accepting homosexuality as normal doesn't mean I hate gay people. This is why people like you are really the bigots. You paint people as villains when they don't go along with the politically correct narrative. It's not against the law yet to have an opinion in this country. It's still my right to determine my own morality. This the real problem with homosexuality being normalized and gay marriage. The State is now becoming a religion. You must accept sodomy as normal and support homosexual marriage or you will be a moral outcast.

I just finished saying you don't have to accept anything as normal and you don't have to support anything and you're free to have your bitter, angry and judgemental opinions about other people. No one cares, at all. Not a single person. But you don't have the right to circumvent the Constitution to create discriminatory law.

Tell that to the photographers being targeted for not wanting to take pictures of gay weddings

That's not an "atheist government". I'd love to hear how you think that's an "atheist government".


You keep making assertions, that you seem to be very sure of, with no backing, at all. There is no gay gene, homosexuality was removed from the DSM for political reasons, People aren't born gay. But what research are you basing this on? Or is it just how you feel about it, and you haven't bothered to question it? How do you know there are no genes that influence homosexuality? how do you know that the DSM was changed for political reasons and that someone "bought" it? How do you know they aren't born gay? What evidence do you have?

 

[winston53660]

Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

They can no longer "reserve the right".

I don't think to discriminate because of race religion sex sexual orientation is a right. Ater all we are all equal under the law.