NOM Sets Sights on Starbucks for Gay ...

NOM Sets Sights on Starbucks for Gay Marriage Support

There are 263 comments on the EDGE story from Nov 14, 2012, titled NOM Sets Sights on Starbucks for Gay Marriage Support. In it, EDGE reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#63 Nov 19, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>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.
nope, it doesn't...just as the decision in my favor do not make yours irrelevant...

BUT, I notice you do not cite any support as to Baker..we both know why...

again, you fail to see that DOMA is a FEDERAL statute, which DISTINGUISHES Baker...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#64 Nov 19, 2012
AscendedFalmer wrote:
<quoted text>
How is a highway a private business?
The article shows that the KKK has a FIRST AMENDMENT right as to a public project, my point was that it is a short leap to applying that to PRIVATE business owners who have a place of PUBLIC accommodation.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#65 Nov 19, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
"...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..."
where does it say "PROTECTED class"...
wait, it doesn't?

"at some point" is a slippery slope argument (which necessarily accepts that time is not NOW you twit)

and I actually stand behind that right now...
at some point...
gay B& B owners will have to account for the first amendment rights of someone THEY don't like...
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#66 Nov 19, 2012
"Forcing" a "christian" B&B to hold a gay wedding has nothing to do with First Amendment rights. The plantifs filed suit because they have protected class status in public accommodation anti-discrimination law. The KKK does NOT have protected class status to file suit for discrimination in public accommodations. They have the 1ST Amendment right to whine about it. Any claim of a gay B&B violating anti-discrimination law by denying the KKK public accommodation would be LAUGHED out of Court.
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#67 Nov 19, 2012
AscendedFalmer wrote:
<quoted text>
How is a highway a private business?
It's not, of course. It was Jane's bogus attempt to prove that the KKK could sue a gay B&B for refusing to hold and anti-gay marriage rally. I find it very strange that a "lawyer" would try to confuse an "adopt-a-highway" case against the State with a discrimination in public accommodation case. The KKK doesn't have protect class status. Jane doesn't seem to realize that phrase as "legal-ese" for groups actually mentioned in the anti-discrimination statute.
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#68 Nov 19, 2012
Protection from discrimination in public accomodation is NOT a First Amendment right.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#69 Nov 19, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
"Forcing" a "christian" B&B to hold a gay wedding has nothing to do with First Amendment rights. The plantifs filed suit because they have protected class status in public accommodation anti-discrimination law. The KKK does NOT have protected class status to file suit for discrimination in public accommodations. They have the 1ST Amendment right to whine about it. Any claim of a gay B&B violating anti-discrimination law by denying the KKK public accommodation would be LAUGHED out of Court.
so you said. But the part about me saying the KKK was a protected class that is a LIE as you have proven...
BUT for places of public accommodation, it is possible a first amendment claim could be successful...

thanks again for PROVING I never said the KKK was a protected class...
and that you lied every time you said so...

now explain to all of us how we are not "forced" to pay taxes since we merely pay a fine or go to jail if we do not...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#70 Nov 19, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
Protection from discrimination in public accomodation is NOT a First Amendment right.
this is just stupid, please do not try to later attribute this idiocy to me like you did with protected class status...

Would a KKK rally be an expression of free speech, chump?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#71 Nov 19, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not, of course. It was Jane's bogus attempt to prove that the KKK could sue a gay B&B for refusing to hold and anti-gay marriage rally.
perfectly incorrect as usual...

what you wrote doesn't make sense on its face....

the point was that my forcing B&B owners to accept customers whom they do not like will BACKFIRE on you...and I stand by that...

and so you went off about protected status to which I responded about FIRST AMENDMENT rights...and supplied you with an article showing even the ACLU thinks the KKK has first amendment rights...
and then you went off on your foolishness of "forcing" and here we are...
all of us knowing you lie...
but your posting to others about me and refusing to post to me should tell anyone all they need to know about you...
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#72 Nov 19, 2012
First Amendment rights do not include protection from discrimination in public accommodations.

Refusing to rent out a B&B to the KKK has absolutely NOTHING to do with the first amendment.
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#73 Nov 19, 2012
Protected class is a term used in United States anti-discrimination law. The term describes characteristics or factors which can not be targeted for discrimination and harassment. The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" and persons cannot be discriminated against based on these characteristics:
Race – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Color – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over)– Federal: Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex – Federal: Equal Pay Act of 1963 & Civil Rights Act of 1964
Familial status - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII (Housing, cannot discriminate for having children, exception for senior housing)
Disability status – Federal: Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 & Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status – Federal Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974
Genetic information – Federal: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

Wait..... what was that very first sentence?

Protected class is a term used in United States anti-discrimination law.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#74 Nov 19, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
First Amendment rights do not include protection from discrimination in public accommodations.
You were the only one who spoke of protected class status so...
Mona Lott wrote:
Refusing to rent out a B&B to the KKK has absolutely NOTHING to do with the first amendment.
my point was, and is, that it soon MAY!!!

again, do you know what a slippery slope is?

If its PUBLIC accommodations its not a far leap to calling it a PUBLIC PLACE, where the restrictions to speech must be reasonable time and place only, not content....
that you do not have the capacity to understand does not make me a liar...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#75 Nov 19, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
Protected class is a term used in United States anti-discrimination law. The term describes characteristics or factors which can not be targeted for discrimination and harassment. The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" and persons cannot be discriminated against based on these characteristics:
Race – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Color – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over)– Federal: Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex – Federal: Equal Pay Act of 1963 & Civil Rights Act of 1964
Familial status - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII (Housing, cannot discriminate for having children, exception for senior housing)
Disability status – Federal: Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 & Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status – Federal Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974
Genetic information – Federal: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
Wait..... what was that very first sentence?
Protected class is a term used in United States anti-discrimination law.
see?

You are going off on something I never mentioned, only you did..
so as usual, you made a ludicrous and dumb statement, attributed it to me, and then attacked me for it...
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#76 Nov 19, 2012
Public accommodation = public place??

hahahahahaha
ahahhahahahaha
ahahahahahahah
ahahahahahhaha
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#77 Nov 19, 2012
Fallacy: Slippery Slope

Also Known as: The Camel's Nose.

Description of Slippery Slope

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.

Examples of Slippery Slope

"We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!"
"The US shouldn't get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die."
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#80 Nov 19, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
Fallacy: Slippery Slope
"
Quasi-Public Places .--The First Amendment precludes government restraint of expression and it does not require individuals to turn over their homes, businesses or other property to those wishing to communicate about a particular topic. 115 But it may be that in some instances private property is so functionally akin to public property that private owners may not forbid expression upon it.

The slope is iced up and ready....
some have already started sliding down...
Hi there

Storrs Mansfield, CT

#81 Nov 24, 2012
Can't we all just get along
www.starbucksoffer.net

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#82 Nov 25, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
nope, it doesn't...just as the decision in my favor do not make yours irrelevant...
BUT, I notice you do not cite any support as to Baker..we both know why...
again, you fail to see that DOMA is a FEDERAL statute, which DISTINGUISHES Baker...
No D'Oh. You insist on claiming you know what I do and don't see. And of course you're blowing smoke.

Baker was a State Law that made it to SCOTUS and was dismissed. It was never heard by SCOTUS, was in fact dismissed, and therefore is not legally binding outside MN.

You keep insisting it is binding all across the country.

You are the one confusing what DOMA does with what Baker does.(Though I don't believe you're really confused, rather you are trying to make a case for your own personal animosity for gays and lesbians).

FYI I was one of the first on these boards that pointed out DOMA, though it denies legal parity to heterosexual marriages, still makes SSM legal ON A FEDERAL LEVEL precisely because it is a Federal Statute.

Attack me as a person all you want. I'm used to it. It's what someone does when they have nothing left in their arsenal. But you have never succeeded in demonstrating my arguments have less merit than yours. In fact most of the time, your claims are rejected, not only here but in actual court cases as well.

You remind me of the legal "experts" portrayed on the play "8". They came across as idiots and lost their case. Not just in the play but in the actual trial as well.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#83 Nov 25, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
First Amendment rights do not include protection from discrimination in public accommodations.
Refusing to rent out a B&B to the KKK has absolutely NOTHING to do with the first amendment.
Jane D'OH is a trip. The right to privacy doesn't come from the 1st Amendment as "she" claims but actually from the 4th Amendment.

Considering they screwed up that part of their legal argument, I hope everyone will take any legal claims "she" makes with a few CUPS of salt.

The Issue: Does the Constitution protect the right of privacy?
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials...

"The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial. Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists. The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment. Polls show most Americans support this broader reading of the Constitution."

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#84 Nov 25, 2012
correction: 14th not 4th.

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
News Gay pride stabber sentenced to life in prison 2 min Manny 3
News Albuquerque Muslims mourn with, look to local L... 2 min SPAM 5
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 12 min Frankie Rizzo 12,963
News Britain, EU plunged into uncertainty by exit vote 14 min Fa-Foxy 2
News Manitoba MP refuses to attend pride parade in B... 18 min Eltons Johnson - UK 5
News Sanders: Don't blame Islam for Orlando shooting 1 hr Ibn Ali Qatari 592
News Christine Wicker: Learning to Talk About God an... (Sep '10) 1 hr Joy to the World 29
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr lides 37,248
News Obama: Notion that being armed would have saved... 4 hr Go Blue Forever 898
More from around the web