Justices may decide if vendors can sn...

Justices may decide if vendors can snub gay weddings

There are 2814 comments on the Daily Press & Argus story from Mar 20, 2014, titled Justices may decide if vendors can snub gay weddings. In it, Daily Press & Argus reports that:

When Vanessa Willock wanted an Albuquerque photographer to shoot her same-sex commitment ceremony in 2006, she contacted Elane Photography.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Daily Press & Argus.

Soapbox Hero

Huntington, MA

#2523 Apr 25, 2014
Lides is a Bolshevik wrote:
<quoted text>
Three women and a baby in Massachusetts now Wondering.
Indeed.
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#2524 Apr 25, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
"Respect" (Latin "respicere" to look again for what is good), is a quality of the individual. Like a muscle, it's capability is strengthened through use. It is also a quality of character.
Character is not for sale ... except to mercenary types.
But then it's not really "respect", but something else.
My respect still must be earned. My standard is the only one I need live up to, just as yours is the only one you need live up to. I am satisfied with my character, and you are absolutely correct that it is not for sale.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2525 Apr 25, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
No disagreement there. Your problem seems to be that you think gay kids aren't included in 'all.'
Your problem is that you consider excluding the experiences of gay people--or even mention of their existence-- to somehow be including them. That's all we ask: to be included in the curriculum, just as any other group with identifiable traits and experiences.

“Common sense prevails.”

Since: Mar 14

3rd rock from the sun.

#2526 Apr 25, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>

You prove that no such law exists.
Who said the law didn't exist, Rev. Moron? Prove that parents cannot tighten their belts and send their children to the school they think appropriate, or take the time to home school them.

I know many people who do one or the other. Parents have to decide their priorities the same as any other adults. If they're not choosing to prioritise their children, well....that should tell even YOU something.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2527 Apr 25, 2014
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Is elementary school the time and place to start the discussion about sexuality?
Elementary school is the appropriate time to answer children's questions about the world they observe around them. Perhaps they noticed that two women or two men show up with Sally on parents' day. Maybe they asked their own parents about this and received evasive or even disparaging answers. Maybe, as a result, other students began to ostracize Sally.

Maybe the teacher decided that, in order to encourage respect and understanding for all members of her class, she would read the story of two penguins or another girl with two moms. Maybe the teacher had watched other kids grow up with fear and doubt about their own sexuality, and she decided to provide positive role models for the unidentified members of her class who would some day struggle with their emergent sexual feelings.

Yes, these are every bit as appropriate as the lessons we were taught about families that differed from ours by faith, race, or ethnicity.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2528 Apr 25, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe not but you would have created an enemy. I've read your posts and don't expect you to understand.
Pray, tell us what an enemy would do? Come to this forum everyday and tell us that we're abnormal and that we should stop bothering decent people with the reality that we exist?
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#2529 Apr 26, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Elementary school is the appropriate time to answer children's questions about the world they observe around them. Perhaps they noticed that two women or two men show up with Sally on parents' day. Maybe they asked their own parents about this and received evasive or even disparaging answers. Maybe, as a result, other students began to ostracize Sally.
Maybe the teacher decided that, in order to encourage respect and understanding for all members of her class, she would read the story of two penguins or another girl with two moms. Maybe the teacher had watched other kids grow up with fear and doubt about their own sexuality, and she decided to provide positive role models for the unidentified members of her class who would some day struggle with their emergent sexual feelings.
Yes, these are every bit as appropriate as the lessons we were taught about families that differed from ours by faith, race, or ethnicity.
What can say other than, maybe that was total bullsh!t.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2530 Apr 26, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Being "ignorant" about blacks (or any group) does not have to involve not being able to see that they exist. It can mean believing wrong and harmful information about them. Awareness doesn't ONLY occur in the eyeballs.
It's about time you admit that you want to go far beyond telling kids that gays exist. You even want to decide for everyone what's wrong and harmful. Amazing. How about we put all kids in a public school classroom and teach them catechism? We can start them in kindergarten and should have them fully indoctrinated by the end of 3rd grade? To hell with what the parents think. Anyone opposed can send their kids to private school or home school them.
BS Detector

Sherman Oaks, CA

#2531 Apr 26, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
"Respect" (Latin "respicere" to look again for what is good), is a quality of the individual. Like a muscle, it's capability is strengthened through use. It is also a quality of character.
Character is not for sale ... except to mercenary types.
But then it's not really "respect", but something else.
Further, Latin is a dead language which, a well-educated man like yourself surely knows, is (per WiseGeek.com ) "a dead language is a language which is no longer learned as a native language." I speak English in the US where it is often spoken badly and spelled even worse. But I digress. I go to dictionary.com for a more contemporary definition which tells me that respect is defined as, "the condition of being esteemed or honored. The condition of being esteemed or honored is important (to me) and not frivolously given/squandered away which would severely diminish its value and which, when received by those whom I respect, is, in turn, highly valued by me.

Character, by the way (and I don't think we really disagree about this one) is defined as "3. moral or ethical quality:'a man of fine, honorable character.' 4. qualities of honesty, courage, or the like; integrity: as in 'It takes character to face up to a bully.' 5. reputation:'a stain on one's character.'
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2532 Apr 26, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
I don't REMEMBER doing any of that, but you say that kids calling other kids "homo" never happened, so maybe my memory is starting to go.
I never said that. In fact, I said the opposite. When I said it never happened it should have been obvious that I was talking about my family and their public school experience.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#2533 Apr 26, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
It's about time you admit that you want to go far beyond telling kids that gays exist. You even want to decide for everyone what's wrong and harmful. Amazing. How about we put all kids in a public school classroom and teach them catechism? We can start them in kindergarten and should have them fully indoctrinated by the end of 3rd grade? To hell with what the parents think. Anyone opposed can send their kids to private school or home school them.
Because teaching them a specific religion in pubic school would violate the constitution.

Teaching them to respect gays & lesbians and treat them with common decency DOESN'T violate the constitution.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#2534 Apr 26, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Because teaching them a specific religion in pubic school would violate the constitution.
Teaching them to respect gays & lesbians and treat them with common decency DOESN'T violate the constitution.
The Government Indoctrination Centers can teach children about specific religions all they want, there is nothing unconstitutional about educating children. And the Indoctrination Centers can teach that gay people exist. What you are confused about is that teaching about religion is not the same thing as teaching children that Jesus is real and is their savior. Just like children can be taught that some children have two daddies and some have two mommies. What they can't be taught is how to grease up their ass hole and bend over.

And teaching children to disrespect gays and lesbians and to treat them like they are the kiss of death also does not violate the Constitution. Where does the Constitution say anything about what Children are to be taught?

You are one of the most ignorant and ill-informed morons I have ever encountered in Topix. And I am not saying that to be mean, you do not know what you are talking about and you just make things up and post them if they make you feel comfortable. Why do you enjoy deceiving people?

The Constitution guarantees that everyone in America has a right to be stupid. That is guaranteed in the first Amendment where it says Congress shall not pass laws against religion.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#2535 Apr 26, 2014
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Further, Latin is a dead language which, a well-educated man like yourself surely knows, is (per WiseGeek.com ) "a dead language is a language which is no longer learned as a native language." I speak English in the US where it is often spoken badly and spelled even worse. But I digress. I go to dictionary.com for a more contemporary definition which tells me that respect is defined as, "the condition of being esteemed or honored. The condition of being esteemed or honored is important (to me) and not frivolously given/squandered away which would severely diminish its value and which, when received by those whom I respect, is, in turn, highly valued by me.
Character, by the way (and I don't think we really disagree about this one) is defined as "3. moral or ethical quality:'a man of fine, honorable character.' 4. qualities of honesty, courage, or the like; integrity: as in 'It takes character to face up to a bully.' 5. reputation:'a stain on one's character.'
Do you ever tire of telling us how wonderful you think you are?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#2536 Apr 26, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
It's about time you admit that you want to go far beyond telling kids that gays exist. You even want to decide for everyone what's wrong and harmful. Amazing. How about we put all kids in a public school classroom and teach them catechism? We can start them in kindergarten and should have them fully indoctrinated by the end of 3rd grade? To hell with what the parents think. Anyone opposed can send their kids to private school or home school them.
I would consider it educational for children to be taught that in say, Japan most of the people are Buddhists and in America the majority are Christians and that there are different kinds of Christians and that many people do not believe in any religion and don't believe in God.

Imagine if your son comes home and says, "We learned in school today that in Japan most of the citizens are not Christians. We also learned that some people do not believe in God and some do not believe in Hell." But if he came home and said, "Today in school we prayed to Jesus." That is a whole different situation.

Just like if your child came home and said he learned that some kids don't have a mommy and a daddy but two daddies or two mommies. That might raise an eyebrow and you might ask, what else did they teach? Oh, nothing, that's all.

However if the teacher brings out a tube of KY and explains how to use it, one might have a far different reaction.

Many of the low IQ'd gays here in Topix do want more that knowledge of the existence of gay couples with children mentioned in the indoctrination centers. They want homosexuality mentioned at ever opportunity and the children taught that it should be celebrated and not just acknowledged.

Many parents may not trust, but would accept, having their children told that gay people exist. Their kids already know this anyway. But the low IQ'd gays want much more than knowledge of their existence taught to children, they want children to join them in celebrating homosexuality and they want it taught often, repeatedly, endlessly.

Why the low IQ'd gays can't understand all these distinctions is really not a surprise based on all the other things they are confused about.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#2537 Apr 26, 2014
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> What can say other than, maybe that was total bullsh!t.
There is no maybe about it. It was total bullshit. You got it right this time.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2538 Apr 26, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Because teaching them a specific religion in pubic school would violate the constitution.
Teaching them to respect gays & lesbians and treat them with common decency DOESN'T violate the constitution.
We can change that. Gays and religion should be treated equally. It might do a world of good for gay kids or kids with gay parents to engage in religious discussion. It would help them understand where the religious are coming from. Like you always say, the more diversity the better.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2539 Apr 26, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Your problem is that you consider excluding the experiences of gay people--or even mention of their existence-- to somehow be including them. That's all we ask: to be included in the curriculum, just as any other group with identifiable traits and experiences.
My focus here is on bullying, ALL kids should feel safe in school.
Your focus is on re-education. Any other group? Really? How about these 'fundies' that gays are so bigoted against? They certainly are a group with identifiable traits and experiences.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#2540 Apr 26, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Elementary school is the appropriate time to answer children's questions about the world they observe around them. Perhaps they noticed that two women or two men show up with Sally on parents' day. Maybe they asked their own parents about this and received evasive or even disparaging answers. Maybe, as a result, other students began to ostracize Sally.
Maybe the teacher decided that, in order to encourage respect and understanding for all members of her class, she would read the story of two penguins or another girl with two moms. Maybe the teacher had watched other kids grow up with fear and doubt about their own sexuality, and she decided to provide positive role models for the unidentified members of her class who would some day struggle with their emergent sexual feelings.
Yes, these are every bit as appropriate as the lessons we were taught about families that differed from ours by faith, race, or ethnicity.
Your post sends up lots of red flags. First off, children are NOT as stupid as you are assuming they are. If they see two dads or two moms at Parents Night with a class mate, they see two dads or two moms at Parents Night. They do not need to have the teacher explain it to them.

The reason is because most Government Indoctrinators can not keep their personal opinions about it, good and bad, out of it. Their explanation is going to be slanted one way or the other. So it is best if teachers recognize the existence of gay people but do not explain it. Children will find out about it on the play ground talking to other students.

What you want to do, like most all low IQ'd authoritarian gays is to have the schools celebrate homosexuality. You want a rainbow flag in every class room prominently displayed next to the Flag of the United States of America. You want children taught to accept gay people instead of letting them make up their own minds. If parents teach their kids to hate fags you want the schools to counter that and teach them to not only accept gay people but to celebrate their existence and accept that people should be prevented by law for refusing to accept them.

If the Government Indoctrination Centers were real schools they would teach the students to think and not teach them what to believe.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#2541 Apr 26, 2014
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> My respect still must be earned. My standard is the only one I need live up to, just as yours is the only one you need live up to. I am satisfied with my character, and you are absolutely correct that it is not for sale.
Except for the coin that suits your ego and idiosyncrasies.

Mine aren't at all.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#2542 Apr 26, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
We can change that. Gays and religion should be treated equally. It might do a world of good for gay kids or kids with gay parents to engage in religious discussion. It would help them understand where the religious are coming from. Like you always say, the more diversity the better.
Well, Sheepie just says more diversity, what he means is more homosexuality, with a lot more discussion about it and a lot more celebration of it. You know how he lies.

As far as discussing religion I assert it is good that people know about it. I for one, an Anti-theist know more about it than most all the pastors and priests in the world who only know a small part of it. What I object to is being told that I am immoral because I have not accepted Jesus. Hitler accepted Jesus and what? That makes Hitler moral? When children are taught about religion they will not be taught the truth about it. Like Christians get divorced at a much higher rate than non-believers. That believers are say 75% of the population but are 98% of the prison population. People who want religion taught in the Indoctrination Centers want children taught to believe in some things and to remain ignorant of other things, things I consider the important things.

I would have no problem having priests and pastors brought into the GIC's to tell kids about what they believe as long as I could be in the class room and point out all the lies they are telling the children. If they say they believe in Jesus it is one thing, but if they say to be good people you have to believe in Jesus that is quite another. Just like if they say some kids have two dads that is fine but if they then some Sissy-Mary like Sheepie to explain what he does in bed I would really object.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Photography Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Some of earliest US landscape photos coming to ... Sun Rosa 3
News Pick out your best shots for Camera Club's Phot... (Feb '09) Sep 2 ODSP picks on her 3
News New coffee-table book highlights Columbus' crea... Aug '17 Zoe Regen 3
News Coastal Country Jam in Huntington Beach combine... Aug '17 Appalled 1
News Paula McConnell: Our fabulous Fair Aug '17 illegal gardener 6
News Has the Steelcase brand lost its appeal with cu... (Jan '12) Jun '17 Jason 4
News Local Brides Say Photographer Owes Them Wedding... (Aug '08) Jun '17 AmPieJam UncleSam 620
More from around the web