Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61387 comments on the Los Angeles Times story from Mar 28, 2013, titled Gay marriage. In it, Los Angeles Times reports that:

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering two controversial cases involving whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry: Proposition 8, California's 2008 ban on gay marriage, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which since 1996 has defined marriage for federal purposes as a union between a man and a woman.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Los Angeles Times.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4984 Aug 29, 2013
AntiGlobalist Easterner wrote:
There is something called 'business ethics' or 'work ethics', right? It means you do not allow to sell your soul for money, right? It is simply in their business ethics to refuse gay-marriage offers.
You are going to have to try a little harder than that. A business and or work ethics have nothing to do with projecting one's personal morality onto others via a business. Your rationalization is poor at best.
AntiGlobal Easterner

Chennai, India

#4985 Aug 29, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You are going to have to try a little harder than that. A business and or work ethics have nothing to do with projecting one's personal morality onto others via a business. Your rationalization is poor at best.
I don't see how your personal morality is not going to reflect on your business. It always does. They can't be kept apart in water tight compartments. They are bound to spill over. Personal values affect all facets of our lives. You can't deny that. Don't try to divide 'life' into personal & business. Its just one big show, with everything deeply interconnected. Moreover, its upto individuals to evolve their own business ethics, unless expressly forbidden by the state. I don't see why 'anti-gay' cannot be a business ethic. You simply do not want to be party to something absurd. Thats all!
BTW,'refuse to work' is a passive thing. It is not 'projecting', which is 'imposing'. You can always find another photographer.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4986 Aug 29, 2013
AntiGlobal Easterner wrote:
I don't see how your personal morality is not going to reflect on your business. It always does. They can't be kept apart in water tight compartments. They are bound to spill over. Personal values affect all facets of our lives. You can't deny that. Don't try to divide 'life' into personal & business. Its just one big show, with everything deeply interconnected. Moreover, its upto individuals to evolve their own business ethics, unless expressly forbidden by the state. I don't see why 'anti-gay' cannot be a business ethic. You simply do not want to be party to something absurd. Thats all!
BTW,'refuse to work' is a passive thing. It is not 'projecting', which is 'imposing'. You can always find another photographer.
Simply put, if you are any good at business, you set your personal views aside at the door.
If you live in a state with a non-discrimination law, doing so is mandatory.

This isn't rocket science. One's personal religious moral views are not a legitimate reason to deny service.
AntiGlobal Easterner

Chennai, India

#4987 Aug 29, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Simply put, if you are any good at business, you set your personal views aside at the door.
If you live in a state with a non-discrimination law, doing so is mandatory.
This isn't rocket science. One's personal religious moral views are not a legitimate reason to deny service.
Again, I insist that this is about 'business ethics'. When I do business I am bound to see the consequences of my dealings and I can review my decisions.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4988 Aug 29, 2013
AntiGlobal Easterner wrote:
Again, I insist that this is about 'business ethics'. When I do business I am bound to see the consequences of my dealings and I can review my decisions.
Again, you are wrong. Many jurisdictions have laws denying a business the right to discriminate for a number of reasons, including sexual orientation.

In those jurisdictions, one cannot deny service on the basis of sexual orientation regardless or "business ethics." Your inclusion of quotation marks is singularly appropriate. What you propose is by no means ethical.
AntiGlobal Easterner

Chennai, India

#4989 Aug 29, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you are wrong. Many jurisdictions have laws denying a business the right to discriminate for a number of reasons, including sexual orientation.
In those jurisdictions, one cannot deny service on the basis of sexual orientation regardless or "business ethics." Your inclusion of quotation marks is singularly appropriate. What you propose is by no means ethical.
I know your ilk is gloating over few favourable rulings. This will not go far. Truth will triupmh.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4990 Aug 29, 2013
AntiGlobal Easterner wrote:
I know your ilk is gloating over few favourable rulings. This will not go far. Truth will triupmh.
Actually, it will. Do you know why? Because providing a service to someone who holds different views than you does not impact upon your rights or freedoms, and denying said service does impact upon others.

It really isn't a difficult concept. If you don't like it, don't form a business in a state that won't allow you to project your bigotry through your business.

The truth is that equality will come to pass, and the bigots will continually make themselves look foolish.
AntiGlobal Easterner

Chennai, India

#4991 Aug 29, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Your inclusion of quotation marks is singularly appropriate. What you propose is by no means ethical.
Used quotations to juxtapose 'business ethics' against 'personal morals'. I cannot deride my own words, when I firmly believe in them.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4992 Aug 29, 2013
AntiGlobal Easterner wrote:
Used quotations to juxtapose 'business ethics' against 'personal morals'. I cannot deride my own words, when I firmly believe in them.
I am not projecting my personal morals. You are the one advocating denial of services based upon personal animus, which is absurd, and in many states illegal. Don't like it, stay in India.
AntiGlobal Easterner

Chennai, India

#4993 Aug 29, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
The truth is that equality will come to pass, and the bigots will continually make themselves look foolish.
Pray, whats this 'equality' you refer to.
Can we flog a dog because it cannot fly like a dove. They have different anatomy to serve different life purposes. We have to play by our sexual anatomy and not insists we mimic the opposite sex. It has not been possible.
I'm sorry you're forcing me to address you like your parent. May be thats what you desire. Parental loving guidance. So long, Dear.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4994 Aug 29, 2013
AntiGlobal Easterner wrote:
Pray, whats this 'equality' you refer to.
You know, treating others the same. Which is to say, if one runs a business offering the same service regardless of the race, creed, sexuality, etc of one's clients or one's personal view of their beliefs or politics. It isn't a difficult concept.
AntiGlobal Easterner wrote:
Can we flog a dog because it cannot fly like a dove.
We could, it would be futile, as is your suggestion of discrimination through business.
AntiGlobal Easterner wrote:
They have different anatomy to serve different life purposes.
They also are not human, and as such are not included in equality under the law.
AntiGlobal Easterner wrote:
We have to play by our sexual anatomy and not insists we mimic the opposite sex. It has not been possible.
Of course, this argument is futile. At issue is civil marriage, which does not contain a requirement of procreation. Ergo, your reference to procreative ability is utterly irrelevant. I often find those with no rational basis for their argument return to this non-sequitur.
AntiGlobal Easterner wrote:
I'm sorry you're forcing me to address you like your parent. May be thats what you desire. Parental loving guidance. So long, Dear.
Actually, my parents are a great deal more intelligent than you. You may feel that you are talking down to me, but that says more about you than it does about me. No good parent would advocate for their progeny to hold others as lesser people deserving of lesser things. A truly great parent would raise their child to treat others with the respect and dignity that they would themselves expect.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#4995 Aug 29, 2013
lides wrote:
I have a right to be free from discrimination or religious persecution. Businesses have no right to project their religious beliefs onto me, or to refuse me service based upon their religious beliefs.
No, you can't walk into a Christian photographer's business and demand they attend your same sex marriage; what kind of selfish person is that? Why not find another photographer? This isn't about homosexuals; the issue is the definition of marriage.

.
lides wrote:
A photographer does not have the right to thrust their religious morality onto others, demanding that customers conform to their religious moral beliefs in order to use their services. Doing so violates the free exercise of the customer. Your photographer's case perfectly illustrates how mindless your argument is, as they have already lost in court 3 times. Guess what? They will continue to lose. Shooting photographs for a gay wedding doesn't violate the photographer's religious freedom.
The florist, baker and photographer refused to attend same sex weddings. This is persecution, against Christians.

.
lides wrote:
They too shall lose in court. They have no valid defense.
The problem may not be the courts as much as the law. We'll rewrite law and elect representatives more faithful than Obama, Clinton and Carter. Those Democrats ran on marriage as one man and one woman, until they changed.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4996 Aug 29, 2013
Brian, I have already conceded that you are dumber than a rock. Just how dumb do you want people to believe you are? I have regularly asked this question, and you fail to respond. I am curious as to just how dumb you would like to be perceived as being.
Brian_G wrote:
No, you can't walk into a Christian photographer's business and demand they attend your same sex marriage;
No, however they can hire said photographer to provide their services.
Brian_G wrote:
what kind of selfish person is that?
What kind of idiot runs a business that turns away clientele?
Brian_G wrote:
Why not find another photographer?
Why should they? If they like the work of the photographer in question, there is no reason to go elsewhere.
I ask again, Brian, should I be able to deny you service because you are a mentally deficient twit?
Brian_G wrote:
This isn't about homosexuals; the issue is the definition of marriage.
Actually, it is about discrimination, plain and simple.
Brian_G wrote:
The florist, baker and photographer refused to attend same sex weddings. This is persecution, against Christians.
No, it isn't. Providing the services in question in no way negates the rights or freedoms of the proprietors involved. If they don't like it, they are free to shut their doors.
Brian_G wrote:
The problem may not be the courts as much as the law.
So work to change the law. You will fail. Do you know why? Because we have always moved towards equality and non discrimination. You are unlikely to pass a discrimination law, and it would be unlikely to stand in the courts as being constitutional.
Brian_G wrote:
We'll rewrite law and elect representatives more faithful than Obama, Clinton and Carter. Those Democrats ran on marriage as one man and one woman, until they changed.
Brian, you are an idiot, you are behind the times, and you are wrong. Equality is here to stay. Grow up, grow a brain, and deal with it.
anonymous

Prague, Czech Republic

#4997 Aug 29, 2013
lides wrote:
Brian, I have already conceded that you are dumber than a rock. Just how dumb do you want people to believe you are? I have regularly asked this question, and you fail to respond. I am curious as to just how dumb you would like to be perceived as being.
<quoted text>
No, however they can hire said photographer to provide their services.
<quoted text>
What kind of idiot runs a business that turns away clientele?
<quoted text>
Why should they? If they like the work of the photographer in question, there is no reason to go elsewhere.
I ask again, Brian, should I be able to deny you service because you are a mentally deficient twit?
<quoted text>
Actually, it is about discrimination, plain and simple.
<quoted text>
No, it isn't. Providing the services in question in no way negates the rights or freedoms of the proprietors involved. If they don't like it, they are free to shut their doors.
<quoted text>
So work to change the law. You will fail. Do you know why? Because we have always moved towards equality and non discrimination. You are unlikely to pass a discrimination law, and it would be unlikely to stand in the courts as being constitutional.
<quoted text>
Brian, you are an idiot, you are behind the times, and you are wrong. Equality is here to stay. Grow up, grow a brain, and deal with it.
Parse Bunny! Up to your usual foppish nonsense, eh? Oh,well!

Brian doesn't seem to have the linguistic ability to stop others from metaphorically humping him. Might as well try to convince him that such is his purpose.
AntiGlobal Easterner

Hyderabad, India

#4998 Aug 29, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't like it, stay in India.
As expected, you've resorted to your ultimate weapon of snobbery.
So you think the issue is American? It has reached our shores and thats how I'm interested. With your kind of madness, which defies all laws of nature, I would'nt even want to breathe the wind that blows from your side, leave alone landing there.
Okay I'll stay in India, but what do you have to say to your fellow Americans, who as a majority do not approve of your views? They too can stay in India?
AntiGlobal Easterner

Hyderabad, India

#4999 Aug 29, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You know, treating others the same. Which is to say, if one runs a business offering the same service regardless of the race, creed, sexuality, etc of one's clients or one's personal view of their beliefs or politics. It isn't a difficult concept.<quoted text>

USA, which is the ultimate free economy, cannot allow who you want to do business with? Don't take umbrage under racial, religious or gender discrimination. Your race, creed, gender is not your making, but your sexual orientation is. They are not comparable.

<quoted text>
We could, it would be futile, as is your suggestion of discrimination through business.<quoted text>
They also are not human, and as such are not included in equality under the law.

You just harp upon the 'law', thinking that the tide is in your favour, don't you? You don't have much to say otherwise?

<quoted text>
Of course, this argument is futile. At issue is civil marriage, which does not contain a requirement of procreation. Ergo, your reference to procreative ability is utterly irrelevant. I often find those with no rational basis for their argument return to this non-sequitur.
What has 'civil marriage' got to do with the likes of you? SSMs rebel against all norms of civility.

<quoted text>
Actually, my parents are a great deal more intelligent than you. You may feel that you are talking down to me, but that says more about you than it does about me. No good parent would advocate for their progeny to hold others as lesser people deserving of lesser things. A truly great parent would raise their child to treat others with the respect and dignity that they would themselves expect.
Agreed. But why they did not pass on their intelligence to you? Were you adopted?
AntiGlobal Easterner

Hyderabad, India

#5000 Aug 29, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You know, treating others the same. Which is to say, if one runs a business offering the same service regardless of the race, creed, sexuality, etc of one's clients or one's personal view of their beliefs or politics. It isn't a difficult concept.
<quoted text>
We could, it would be futile, as is your suggestion of discrimination through business.
<quoted text>
They also are not human, and as such are not included in equality under the law.
<quoted text>
Of course, this argument is futile. At issue is civil marriage, which does not contain a requirement of procreation. Ergo, your reference to procreative ability is utterly irrelevant. I often find those with no rational basis for their argument return to this non-sequitur.
<quoted text>
Actually, my parents are a great deal more intelligent than you. You may feel that you are talking down to me, but that says more about you than it does about me. No good parent would advocate for their progeny to hold others as lesser people deserving of lesser things. A truly great parent would raise their child to treat others with the respect and dignity that they would themselves expect.
USA, which is the ultimate free economy, cannot allow who you want to do business with? You canít take umbrage under racial, religious or gender discrimination. Your race, creed, gender is not your making, but your sexual orientation is. They are not comparable.
You just harp upon the 'law', thinking that the tide is in your favour, don't you? You don't have much to say otherwise?
What has 'civil marriage' got to do with the likes of you? SSMs rebel against all norms of civility.
Your parents more intelligent? Agreed. But why they did not pass on their intelligence to you? Were you adopted?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5001 Aug 29, 2013
AntiGlobal Easterner wrote:
As expected, you've resorted to your ultimate weapon of snobbery.
So you think the issue is American? It has reached our shores and thats how I'm interested. With your kind of madness, which defies all laws of nature, I would'nt even want to breathe the wind that blows from your side, leave alone landing there.
Okay I'll stay in India, but what do you have to say to your fellow Americans, who as a majority do not approve of your views? They too can stay in India?
Fortunately, I am not ignorant of our laws or jurisprudence.

You see, the will of the majority is not applicable in the case of fundamental rights. This is primarily to ensure that there can be no tyranny of the majority, where people can basically discriminate by majority consensus.
"One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...
AntiGlobal Easterner wrote:
Agreed. But why they did not pass on their intelligence to you? Were you adopted?
They did. I am attempting to bring you up to speed, but thus far, you appear to be a hopeless case.
AntiGlobal Easterner wrote:
USA, which is the ultimate free economy, cannot allow who you want to do business with?
One cannot discriminate on the basis of any number of conditions, in many jurisdictions, this includes sexual orientation. A business is an enterprise created to generate revenue. So, if one is not an idiot, they don't discriminate on any basis, and take business from all customers.
AntiGlobal Easterner wrote:
You canít take umbrage under racial, religious or gender discrimination. Your race, creed, gender is not your making, but your sexual orientation is. They are not comparable.
You can, you just cannot deny service solely on that basis.
AntiGlobal Easterner wrote:
You just harp upon the 'law', thinking that the tide is in your favour, don't you? You don't have much to say otherwise?
Actually, the law is in my favor. See the US Supreme Court case above.
AntiGlobal Easterner wrote:
What has 'civil marriage' got to do with the likes of you? SSMs rebel against all norms of civility.
They seek nothing more than equal protection of the law. You don't appear to be able to indicate a compelling governmental interest served by denying them such protection that would render such a restriction constitutional.
AntiGlobal Easterner wrote:
Your parents more intelligent? Agreed. But why they did not pass on their intelligence to you? Were you adopted?
What's that matter? Too dim witted to come up with a new taunt?
AntiGlobalist Easterner

Chennai, India

#5003 Aug 29, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
"One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
Nicely quoted. This concept is recognised by most countries, and in all such nations, incuding USA, these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.
You can't have a right to be wrong! Got it? You can't insist upon ratification of something which will eventually destroy the social fabric.
Never mind what your shrink or somebody else told you, yours is not congenital or uncorrectable. There are ways, and Yoga could be one of them. Love.
Jeena

Chennai, India

#5004 Aug 30, 2013
The P*nis is solely a reproductive organ (No, you don't need it to pee. You see women & eunuchs too pee?) and so is the v*gina. The two fit like hand in glove and for a purpose. Such is the glorious ways of nature. Any other use is abuse. You don't have a right to self-abuse.
Now this problem has arisen because, we have too many holes in our body and a guy is confused as to which hole to use. Thats all about gay psychology.

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.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 hr Coffee Party 240,324
News Essential Politics: Looking for a win by the 10... 17 hr Mitt s Santorum S... 1
News News 11 Mins Ago California moves _ slowly _ to... 23 hr MountainHouse 8
Democrats likely in danger of losing a majority... Mon MountainHouse 3
News Democrats could tighten grip on California poli... Mon CodeTalker 4
News Letter writers angry about Brown's approach to ... Mon Dr Guru 5
News California lawmakers eye statewide immigration ... Mon Fucisil 14
More from around the web