NOM Sets Sights on Starbucks for Gay Marriage Support

Nov 14, 2012 Full story: EDGE 263

The leaders of the anti-gay marriage group the National Organization for Marriage are furious that the LGBT community made great strides after Election Day.

Full Story

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#43 Nov 15, 2012
3OHY wrote:
<quoted text>
It's gays generating the lists identifying Hershey's as encouraging more gay access to children, not NOM.
It's really creepy that you are so focused on sex with children.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#44 Nov 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
are you suggesting Chick Fil-A is advocating for the murder of gays?
that would be breaking news...
A little out of the loop aren't you?

Chick-Fil-A May Have More Than Just Chicken Blood On Its Hands

August 1, 2012, 5:31 pm

http://www.thetruthpursuit.com/society/societ...

In 2009, Chick-Fil-A's charitable arm, Winshape [1], donated to Exodus International [2], a group whose mission was "to effectively communicate the message of liberation from homosexuality." [3]

Later in 2009, three American Evangelical speakers, including a board member from Exodus, attended a conference on homosexuality in Uganda.

The New York Times reported [4] that the three men were "Scott Lively, a missionary who has written several books against homosexuality, including '7 Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child'; Caleb Lee Brundidge, a self-described former gay man who leads 'healing seminars'; and Don Schmierer, a board member of Exodus International."

The focus of the conference, as reported by the Times, was on 'the gay agenda that whole hidden and dark agenda' and the threat homosexuals posed to Bible-based values and the traditional African family."

The three American men discussed, according to the Times, "how to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage boys and how 'the gay movement is an evil institution' whose goal is 'to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.'"

One month after the conference, a Ugandan politician introduced the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009, which threatened to hang homosexuals. It quickly became known as the "Kill the Gays" bill.

Upon learning that they had inspired so much anger with their rhetoric, all three men tried to distance themselves from "Kill the Gays". They told the Times that they had not intended to stoke such hostility as to inspire a bill that would impose a death penalty for homosexuality."

LMAO @ Jane D'OH!

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#45 Nov 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
are you suggesting Chick Fil-A is advocating for the murder of gays?
that would be breaking news...
I humbly suggest you become more informed before you start posting on topics you are clueless about.

You try to act as an expert legal beagle on all issues about gays and lesbians. Yet you didn't know Chick Fil-A donated to the Kill Gays group in Uganda?

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#46 Nov 15, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
Jane refuses to look where the donations are going or what the groups donated to believe in.
What do you expect from someone who insists Baker vs. Nelson is Federal law?

I've pointed out to Jane D'oh a number of times that if Baker WERE legally established precedent, DOMA would not have been possible to pass.

Jane ignores that point.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#47 Nov 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
1. We have not been through this before, I have no idea what you are talking about as to Nigeria...
but that is just a front anyway, since that is hardly the sole company you guys have gone after...
I was merely saying you guys SAY you worry about the poor people's jobs except when you don't...as in Chik-fil-A or EVERY other organization that doesn't support gay marriage...then the poor employees are expendable...
There is a HUGE difference between disliking a company's social policies and wanting harm to come to employees of those companies.

I oppose Chik Fil-A's policies but have always condemned the attack on it's headquarters (which you know).

Maybe once you and Luv Sarah Palin stop lying, you'll start to see some of the reasons you lost so badly this election cycle.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#48 Nov 15, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
Well look what I found by scrolling back:
"google "lesbians sue bed and breakfast" and read away about how those owners cannot have a personal opinion in theitr own home...
wait til the gay B&B owners have to host an event they find offensive...maybe a sanctity of marriage rally....
we on the right think about the precedent set, that's why you liberals are so dangerous, you never think more than 1 move ahead...."
and this:
"and the black panthers guard the polls for the dems...whats your point?
MY point was that you will not like how this personal objection is overruled in your business when YOU are forced to host an event to which you object...
in other words, the rules work both ways, do you guys grasp that?
so at some point, anti-gay marriage folks will plan a rally at a gay B&B and the gay owners will have to host it..."
Who could have written those posts????????
great, thanks, I do appreciate your taking all that time to prove my point...any of those say protected class?
why no...

and the slippery slope argument I claimed it was is clearly evident:
"we on the right think about the precedent set, that's why you liberals are so dangerous, you never think more than 1 move ahead."
and so is my point:
"MY point was that you will not like how this personal objection is overruled in your business when YOU are forced to host an event to which you object..."

as soon as YOU said "protected class" i said first amendment and showed you the article...
that's the fact jack and so you lied for months now!

thanks for doing the the work I wouldn't do since I am used to your delusional lies and wouldn't take the time to go back to prove you wrong so you can deny it anyway!
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#49 Nov 15, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>What do you expect from someone who insists Baker vs. Nelson is Federal law?
I've pointed out to Jane D'oh a number of times that if Baker WERE legally established precedent, DOMA would not have been possible to pass.
Jane ignores that point.
I do not ignore it, I specifically refuted it and you refuse to google it...
so while you expect me to know that a business sent money to UGANDA, you can't bother to wiki baker v nelson and apologize to me...

Saying Baker is not a federal case is not an argument or a fact, its just ignorant.
Baker and McConnell appealed the Minnesota court's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. There, they claimed the Minnesota marriage statutes implicated three rights: they abridged their fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; discriminated based on gender, contrary to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and deprived them of privacy rights flowing from the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[12] On October 10, 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a one-sentence order stating "The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question."[13]
In most cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court's refusal to hear the case is not an endorsement of the decision below.[14] However, since this case came to the Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal is a decision on the merits of the case.[15] As binding precedent, the Baker decision prevents lower courts from coming to a contrary conclusion when presented with the precise issue the Court necessarily adjudicated in dismissing the case.[16]
[edit]Application of the Baker precedent

When dealing with precedents like Baker, lower courts may have to guess at the meaning of these unexplained decisions.[17] The Supreme Court has laid out rules, however, to guide lower courts in narrowly applying these summary dispositions:[18]
The facts in the potentially binding case must not bear any legally significant differences to the case under consideration.[19]
The binding precedent encompasses only the issues presented to the Court, not the reasoning found in the lower court's decision.[20]
Of the issues presented, only those necessarily decided by the Court in dismissing the case control.[21]
Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment.[22]
[edit]Baker in federal courts
In applying the guidelines for summary dispositions, federal judges have come to differing conclusions on where and how Baker controls.

while its precedential value may be subject to debate, to deny it is a federal case with law on point is, again, just ignorant.

baker = state law,
DOMA = federal law.
A point made plain in EVERY single DOMA decision...funny you don't know that...
but then again, Baker is basic and you proved your self to be, well you know...

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#50 Nov 15, 2012
TomInElPaso wrote:
So said your parents about those negroes in the '60s.
Don't you haters ever learn. Your going to lose this one just as your parents did against the negroes.
And of course you call yourselves Christian while telling your God to take that "love thy neighbor thing" and shove it.
There's a price you'll pay for your hatred.
<quoted text>
Today I saw NJeff post something on another thread that I thought was really good.

He was talking to an undecided lady on election day. She was conflicted about how to vote because she has gay family members and friends, but still had doubts about "re-defining marriage".

He pointed out that when women were finally admitted to the military no one talked about re-defining the word soldier.

I think he made a great point and one that should be given a lot of exposure and promotion.

We are NOT redefining marriage. We are simply saying we are just as entitled to it as anyone else, that our sex and sexual orientation shouldn't matter.

We don't limit marriage to heterosexuals based on their sexual habits or their "sins" so there is no reason to apply a different standard to gays and lesbians when it comes to marriage.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#51 Nov 15, 2012
your day will come wrote:
<quoted text>
Wish you queers would stop molesting little boys.
wish you'd stop fantasizing about it as well.

No wonder you aren't registered on Topix. If I had such an obsession with sex with children I wouldn't want anyone to know where I lived either.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#52 Nov 15, 2012
your day will come wrote:
<quoted text>
Wish you queers would stop molesting little boys.
You and Brian from NOM both have this creepy obsession with raping male children.

Maybe the local authorities need to keep an eye on both of you.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#53 Nov 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not ignore it, I specifically refuted it and you refuse to google it...
so while you expect me to know that a business sent money to UGANDA, you can't bother to wiki baker v nelson and apologize to me...
Saying Baker is not a federal case is not an argument or a fact, its just ignorant.
The reason I don't apologize is because there is nothing to apologize for.

Get over yourself. And PLEASE stop posting lies about me.

I never claimed Baker wasn't a legal precedent. I have been saying it isn't National (Federal) Law. If it was DOMA wouldn't have been able to be passed.

I have googled Baker and looked it up on several other sites as well. I also followed it as it was happening. Can you make the same claim?

Baker was NOT heard by SCOTUS but was returned to the State of MN. For you to claim it established a Federal Precedent when SCOTUS itself said in it's decision the case had no Federal question. That means it's still a State case not a Federal one and therefore only legally binding in MN. Perhaps you missed that part when reading about it on Wiki.

Now back to what you are trying to wiggle out of. You STATED you didn't know Chick Fil-A supported the Ugandan kill the gays effort. I pointed out your error.

Now you want ME to apologize to YOU?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#54 Nov 15, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>The reason I don't apologize is because there is nothing to apologize for.

Baker was NOT heard by SCOTUS but was returned to the State of MN. For you to claim it established a Federal Precedent when SCOTUS itself said in it's decision the case had no Federal question. That means it's still a State case not a Federal one and therefore only legally binding in MN. Perhaps you missed that part when reading about it on Wiki.

Now back to what you are trying to wiggle out of. You STATED you didn't know Chick Fil-A supported the Ugandan kill the gays effort. I pointed out your error.
Now you want ME to apologize to YOU?
so you expect me to know, and apologize for, not knowing that a sandwich shop sends money to Uganda but you cannot even google Baker?

"In most cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court's refusal to hear the case is not an endorsement of the decision below.[14] However, since this case came to the Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal is a decision on the merits of the case.[15] As binding precedent, the Baker decision prevents lower courts from coming to a contrary conclusion when presented with the precise issue the Court necessarily adjudicated in dismissing the case."

Baker is a federal case and it is a federal precedent binding on all federal courts...
saying anything else is simply ignorant.

So again, you want to apologize?

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#55 Nov 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
so you expect me to know, and apologize for, not knowing that a sandwich shop sends money to Uganda but you cannot even google Baker?
"In most cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court's refusal to hear the case is not an endorsement of the decision below.[14] However, since this case came to the Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal is a decision on the merits of the case.[15] As binding precedent, the Baker decision prevents lower courts from coming to a contrary conclusion when presented with the precise issue the Court necessarily adjudicated in dismissing the case."
Baker is a federal case and it is a federal precedent binding on all federal courts...
saying anything else is simply ignorant.
So again, you want to apologize?
Sigh. Better check the number of Federal Courts who have said Same Sex Couples deserve equal treatment under the 14th Amendment.

google "Federal Courts that ruled in favor of SSM" and you will find:

Federal appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/18/justice/new-yor...

Federal court strikes down key part of federal law banning same-sex marriage
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/31/us/massachusett...

If Baker was legal precedent for Federal Courts then these Courts couldn't rule the way they did.

There goes your whole argument up in flames.
Faithman

Rancho Cordova, CA

#56 Nov 15, 2012
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah..another example of the wrongs of the Christian right.
Thank you for using the term "Christian right". They are just one kind of Christian and don't represent all of us other Christians (though they think they are the ONLY TRUE representatives of Jesus).
Faithman

Rancho Cordova, CA

#57 Nov 15, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
The antigay are simply not logical. In fact, by some indications I'm reading and seeing, you're now witnessing just the beginning of their utter hysteria on this subject: NOW I believe they are going to get extreme.
Getting "desperate" is not a good thing to call it, as I see some saying; they're far from over with this fight. What they will get is *extreme*, even sabotaging their own self-interests.
This is because their viewpoint is based, for them, in *ideology* which is unchangeable and unbudgeable. It is antigay *ideology* based on a *moral imperative* which drives them to behave in this way: In short, you're seeing what indoctrination does to otherwise normal people who become batshit demons, hysterical with hatred.
The "ideology" they claim to espouse isn't the real problem. The "anti-gay" passages of the bible are wide open for scholastic debate, and aren't uniformly understood the same way by all Christians. However, the real culprit is that the "moral imperative" propelling such hateful tactics rests upon a deceitful & seductive need for self-righteousness.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#58 Nov 15, 2012
"...so at some point, anti-gay marriage folks will plan a rally at a gay B&B and the gay owners will have to host it..."

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#59 Nov 15, 2012
Faithman wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for using the term "Christian right". They are just one kind of Christian and don't represent all of us other Christians (though they think they are the ONLY TRUE representatives of Jesus).
I agree. I thank you as well.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#60 Nov 15, 2012
Faithman wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for using the term "Christian right". They are just one kind of Christian and don't represent all of us other Christians (though they think they are the ONLY TRUE representatives of Jesus).
The only religious people I have a thing against are those who try to force their religious opinions on others.
I respect other people's rights to have their religion, but I lose that respect when they attempt to force me to believe whatever they say.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#61 Nov 16, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>1. We have not been through this before, I have no idea what you are talking about as to Nigeria...
but that is just a front anyway, since that is hardly the sole company you guys have gone after...

I was merely saying you guys SAY you worry about the poor people's jobs except when you don't...as in Chik-fil-A or EVERY other organization that doesn't support gay marriage...then the poor employees are expendable...

2. If you want to ramble about state marriage law, go ahead, but you would be surprised to know that i find states voting for themselves to be beautiful....democracy at work regardless of the outcome...CA voting and then the court play, that's ANOTHER STORY...as is any claim that court entitles you to marriage. It simply DOESN'T. That play is just an end run...

So in sum, love the votes, hate the use of the consitution to say what it has never said...
I am thinking further down the road and about more important issues than gay marriage, although, states no longer having an encouragement to biological families will be kind of a loss in my opinion, but that's democracy!
Democracy at work? What a laugh!

Did you happen to know that one of the founding principles of democracy as created by the Greeks is that a majority is never supposed to vote on the rights of a minority? It should be obvious. Can you imagine if we were left to vote on whether slavery got to stay legal?
Texas would still have it.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#62 Nov 16, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>NOPE!
Jane knows you are a lying fraud...
did I ever use the words "protected class"?
NO! YOU DID!
I said first amendment like in the ARTICLE...

the KKK's first amendment right will prevail over your right to be free from them in your private business was the idea that you have MAULED by now with your own inability...
again, it was a slippery slope argument that has support by the ACLU aiding the KKK in the highway department fight...
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/14/us/georgia-kkk-...

you are such a fraud Mona...
and angry troll fraud.
I got your number dude.

How about you either fully ignore me or respond to me, but besides pathetic, what you are doing is very petty...
but then again, you enable me, so thanks AGAIN.
How is a highway a private business?

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Miss. ban on same-sex marriage challenged in... 7 min Jumper The wise 3
Local Same-Sex Couple Speaks Out About Gay Marr... 21 min jwdudley 2
Gay kiss couple 'thrown off bus' 35 min Chance 22
Christian Pastors Given Choice: Perform Same-Se... 37 min Chance 39
Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler? 39 min George 1,944
What Kind Of Adult Diapers Do Gay Men Wear? 39 min Pei Wei herman 4
The Erasure of 'Gay' From Black History & the B... 40 min Zombie Corpse Rental 49
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 2,995
Houston Tells Pastors to Turn Over Sermons or F... 2 hr Reverend John Mcfart 226
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 3 hr KiMare 580
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 3 hr Christsharian Law 1,367

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE