or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Arizona governor vetoes gay discrimination bill Apple rallied against
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Arizona governor vetoes gay discrimination bill Apple rallied against - Page 4

post #121 of 322

This has nothing to do with hate, or religion, and everything to do with freedom..

 

EVERY business should be free to do business with whoever THEY CHOOSE to do business with...   The government has no right to tell a private business who they HAVE to do business with..

Dr
Pepper
Crew
Reply
Dr
Pepper
Crew
Reply
post #122 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I find it funny that the examples used for anti-gay businesses are wedding cake bakers and wedding photographers.

That's probably the only time they'd be aware that the customer was gay, unless they went to Moe's bar and ordered a Flaming Moe. lol.gif
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #123 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I find it funny that the examples used for anti-gay businesses are wedding cake bakers and wedding photographers.

Presumably because those are some of the few situations where there is any relevance to the business person.  If you go to the hardware store to buy nails, there's not much of a reason to explain that it's to build a house with your gay partner.

post #124 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by locker 8755 View Post

Really tired of all the gay issues ....

Then cancel your subscription.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #125 of 322
So how were they proposing to enforce this?

A questionnaire filled out at the counter?

A chart identifying what to look for?

What happens if you're straight and wear stylish clothes?

A couple of guys hanging out together?

Taking your brother out to lunch.

How do they judge, who gets to decide?
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #126 of 322
All the anti-gay crap is no different than the discrimination people faced over their gender and race. People are bigots and disgusting, and time will show them as no different than the racists that were called out in previous times.

Society advances, but many people don't. They do, fortunately, eventually die.
post #127 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I find it funny that the examples used for anti-gay businesses are wedding cake bakers and wedding photographers.

Yeah, I addressed that yesterday saying that the local Christian dry cleaners, grocers, and restaurant owners apparently don't have any issue taking gay couples' money because it doesn't directly threaten those Tea Party views of the one man one woman sanctity of marriage deal. They just look the other way and take the cash. But when it comes to a wedding, there is no looking away. They have to put two little same sex figures on top of the cake or when they have to shoot a photo of the marriage kiss it is in your face and they don't like it.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #128 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

PS: It's funny that in TV shows and movies that if an actor plays a doctor, a pilot, a terrorist, serial killer, whatever we never once consider if they are really those things but as soon as they play a gay character we assume they are gay. I am guilty of doing this. It's funny, if a gay actor plays a straight one, like Neil Patrick Harris on How I Met Your Mother,, we aren't likely thinking, "He must really be straight if he's playing a straight guy."

Like Job from Banshee?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #129 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

While I agree with you on the discrimination issues, the Fair Housing Act is about rent and lending. A seller can refuse an offer with no reason given.

 

I'm old so I looked it up in case I remembered wrong. :)  I hate quoting Wikipedia but I figure they probably don't screw up what might have been taught in civics class if they still taught civics:

 

"The 1968 act expanded on previous acts and prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin, and since 1974, gender; since 1988, the act protects people with disabilities and families with children.

 

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 prohibited the following forms of discrimination:

  • Refusal to sell or rent a dwelling to any person because of his/her race, color, religion or national origin. People with disabilities and families with children were added to the list of protected classes by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.
  • Discrimination against a person in the terms, conditions or privilege of the sale or rental of a dwelling.
  • Advertising the sale or rental of a dwelling indicating preference of discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin (amended by Congress as part of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 to include sex[8] and, as of 1988, people with disabilities and families with children.)
  • Coercing, threatening, intimidating, or interfering with a person's enjoyment or exercise of housing rights based on discriminatory reasons or retaliating against a person or organization that aids or encourages the exercise or enjoyment of fair housing rights."

 

Gays aren't covered so it should be fixed eventually.  I would have assumed that folks weren't dumb enough to pursue that kind of discrimination but I guess not.  I'm all for state rights and such but these are areas where the federal government should step in and given the stupidity in drafting such a law it probably will.

 

Fortunately whether or not the federal government has the constitutional right to ban discrimination in commerce is a matter of settled law.  Yes, they do.

post #130 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by LMGS View Post

This has nothing to do with hate, or religion, and everything to do with freedom..

EVERY business should be free to do business with whoever THEY CHOOSE to do business with...   The government has no right to tell a private business who they HAVE to do business with..
Yeah, that got rejected in the 60s but thanks for your reactionary views.

I assume you also include race and gender in your world view of permissible discrimination?
post #131 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by LMGS View Post
 

This has nothing to do with hate, or religion, and everything to do with freedom..

 

EVERY business should be free to do business with whoever THEY CHOOSE to do business with...   The government has no right to tell a private business who they HAVE to do business with..

Depends on the type of business. If you have a restaurant, you cannot discriminate against a well dressed gay or minority from dining at your establishment but let's say an advertising agency or an architect where you have to be referred by an associate to even be considered, you can pick and choose your clients using any criteria you decide.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #132 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

Of course not.  The wedding photographer is either up front about the conflict and the gay couple moves on, or if they insist, he tells the couple: Look, this is a really special event and I don't want to risk screwing it up due to my emotional conflict. You really should find another photographer for your special moment. Lets not put our opposing views into the mix. You really need a different photographer, sorry.  Simple as that. The only time a problem would arise is if someone, or their lawyer, wants to make a political sensation out of it.

 

Of course not.  The doctor is either up front about the conflict and the gay couple moves on, or if they insist, he tells the couple: Look, this is a really important surgery and I don't want to risk screwing it up due to my emotional conflict. You really should find another surgeon for your important operation. Lets not put our opposing views into the mix. You really need a different surgeon, sorry.  Simple as that. The only time a problem would arise is if someone, or their lawyer, wants to make a political sensation out of it..

 

Or maybe when they are the only doctor or photographer around or all the other doctors and photographers feel the same way and you have to drive over to the next state to get treated or pictures.  Think this is far fetched?  There are places where abortions might as well not be legal since you can't find a doctor to perform one.

post #133 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post
 

Refusal to sell or rent a dwelling to any person because of his/her race, color, religion or national origin. People with disabilities and families with children were added to the list of protected classes by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.

Understood, but if they don't disclose why they refused the offer, there is no case.

 

They just respectfully decline. That is why when ever I put a property up for sale I always say considering offers above x dollars.

 

There are all kinds of people I don't want to sell to and it has nothing to do with race of sexual preference. I don't like like real estate speculators and I don't accept their offers.


Edited by mstone - 2/26/14 at 8:15pm

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #134 of 322
Fun thread already.
post #135 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher View Post


Yeah, that got rejected in the 60s but thanks for your reactionary views.

I assume you also include race and gender in your world view of permissible discrimination?

Freedom got rejected in the 60's??   I must have missed that..   Believing in freedom is a reactionary view??  Wow.   

 

Like I said, I believe the government has no right tell any business owner who he HAS to do business with...   And yes, that includes race or gender..   Of course a business who does discriminate may not be in business too long, but that should be his choice to make..

 

It seems most of the posters on here have already sold their soul to the government, and looks to it, to make sure they aren't "offended" by life..

​Grow up, deal with life, and take personal responsibility for your actions...  

 

Now go ahead and show all that liberal tolerance, by attacking and labeling me, just because I don't agree with you...

Dr
Pepper
Crew
Reply
Dr
Pepper
Crew
Reply
post #136 of 322
Should a black photographer have to photograph a Klan rally?

The language of the bill seemed overly broad based on news reports, but this is the essential problem.

Forcing a baker to make a cake for a gay wedding is different than saying refusing service to someone because they are gay, I.e. A birthday cake or something not celebrating their gayness.
post #137 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post
 

 

Of course not.  The doctor is either up front about the conflict and the gay couple moves on, or if they insist, he tells the couple: Look, this is a really important surgery and I don't want to risk screwing it up due to my emotional conflict. You really should find another surgeon for your important operation. Lets not put our opposing views into the mix. You really need a different surgeon, sorry.  Simple as that. The only time a problem would arise is if someone, or their lawyer, wants to make a political sensation out of it..

 

Or maybe when they are the only doctor or photographer around or all the other doctors and photographers feel the same way and you have to drive over to the next state to get treated or pictures.  Think this is far fetched?  There are places where abortions might as well not be legal since you can't find a doctor to perform one.

   Can"t find anyone to murder your baby???   I don't have any problem with that..

Dr
Pepper
Crew
Reply
Dr
Pepper
Crew
Reply
post #138 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post
 
Or maybe when they are the only doctor or photographer around or all the other doctors and photographers feel the same way and you have to drive over to the next state to get treated or pictures. 

Ok so you make good points but photographers do not take a Hippocratic Oath,

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #139 of 322

I guess you're not getting the concept of equality.  Nobody is forcing anyone to provide a service they can't provide or don't know how to provide.  They're not forcing the ENT doctor to perform orthopedic surgery. They're not forcing vegetarian restaurants to serve meat.  However, if the vegetarian restaurant is providing vegetarian food, they have to provide it EQUALLY to everyone, not just whom they feel like.  They can't refuse to serve you a vegetarian dinner depending if you believe or don't believe in vegetarian diet.  It is none of their business what you believe otherwise, as long as you are there for the same exact and equal request for service, they have to provide you with the same exact and equal meal.  That's equality.  And yes, the wedding photographer can't decide he/she will categorically refuse service to some people and not others.  Frankly, I wouldn't want a hostile photographer to come and take pictures of my wedding anyways, but again, in a free and democratic society, we can't choose who will and who won't be eligible for equal services provided. 

post #140 of 322

Rogifan,

 

You are an idiot. Comparing gay rights to smoking cigarettes is a little short sighted don't you think?

post #141 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by namdarmd View Post

, but again, in a free and democratic society, we can't choose who will and who won't be eligible for equal services provided. 

Your last comment is contradictory. A free society would mean freedom for both parties. Freedom to turn people away and freedom not to buy.
post #142 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


Ok well then I think vegetarian restaurants should be forced to serve meat because not doing so discriminates against consumers who prefer meat. And eating mets is perfectly legal in the United States. And I think CVS should have to reverse its policy of not selling cigarettes in its stores because that is discriminating against smokers, many of whom I'm sure shopped at CVS for other items as well. Last time I checked, smoking cigarettes is perfectly legal in the United States.

Rogifan,

 

You are an idiot. Comparing gay rights to smoking cigarettes is a little short sighted don't you think?

post #143 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


1) Sure, there are hateful on the left, center and right and in every party but that's irrelevant.

2) This is a civil rights issue. Nothing more, nothing less. I care about homosexuals and would much prefer to marriage to simply go away altogether but if one group of consenting adults is allowed to get it I think all consenting adults should be allowed to have it.

3) As for not making one hateful if they don't like gay marriage is not hateful if one were to say, "I don't hate black people but I don't think they should be able to share the same water fountains and bathrooms as whites," would you not consider that hateful speech? I don't put the same weight behind each of these civil rights movements but I do believe they are all discrimination based on hate.

 

I'm a conservative libertarian... I'd like to see the government not get involved in forcing any private citizen from engaging in commerce with any other private citizen.

I'm all for gay marriage... I'm not for government defining words, so I don't support government sanctioned gay marriage.

That being said... your reasoned response is probably something I'd disagree with some points on, but I'd much rather debate this with someone as direct and measured as you... than those that call me hateful because I don't support government sanctioned gay marriage (because someone like you would reasonably assume someone like me doesn't support government sanctioning of *ANY* marriage).

The government should enforce contracts... and enforce the 14th amendment.  The government shouldn't be in the business of writing dictionaries.

More people need to respond like you when they disagree with someone's point.  Because it's hard to disagree with your argument... even if I disagree with your general point.

post #144 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoffrobinson View Post

Should a black photographer have to photograph a Klan rally?

The language of the bill seemed overly broad based on news reports, but this is the essential problem.

Forcing a baker to make a cake for a gay wedding is different than saying refusing service to someone because they are gay, I.e. A birthday cake or something not celebrating their gayness.

 

 

See this is a demonstration of a complete misunderstanding of the issues. There is no law in Arizonia prohibiting a person from discriminating against a person because he or she is gay. If a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay person, he or she does not have to do so. That is the current state of affairs. The law, however, actively promoted that people can discriminate against somebody because he or she was gay provided there was a religious reason. There was absolutely no reason for the law other than to appease some so called religious folks, at the expense of gay people, who wanted a specific law stating they can do what no law prevents them from doing. 

post #145 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoffrobinson View Post


Your last comment is contradictory. A free society would mean freedom for both parties. Freedom to turn people away and freedom not to buy.

The 'right' to turn people away for equal service is basically segregation. We've passed that.  No, you cannot turn people away.  That is not democracy.

 

The right to choose whose services you want to use, that is democracy.  If I know a certain business does not treat its employees well, or contributes to KKK, it is my choice not to go to that business.  But if I were African-American and showed up to a clothing store owned by a member of KKK, the store owner cannot turn me away.  I hope you are smart enough to understand the difference.  But don't take my word on it. Ask any friends of yours who are lawyers and they will explain to you perhaps better than I can. 

post #146 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoffrobinson View Post


Your last comment is contradictory. A free society would mean freedom for both parties. Freedom to turn people away and freedom not to buy.

Exactly.  That statement was politically correct gibberish.

post #147 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

If you do not like gays then I would suggest not marrying one. What other people do is none of your business unless they are harming your safety, financial well being or your civil rights.

Like the rights of the business owners that feel they have no choice but to offer services in situations which they feel goes against their belief system or be sued? The only other option that they have is to not be in business. I just don't really think that's fair either, and that has nothing to do with "If you don't like gays then don't marry one." 

Just because people don't agree with their belief system doesn't make it any less protected under our constitution. It's scary when public pressure alone has the power to negate something that is constitutionally protected. Not just for religious people...everybody should be scared of that.

post #148 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by namdarmd View Post
 

The 'right' to turn people away for equal service is basically segregation. We've passed that.  No, you cannot turn people away.  That is not democracy.

 

The right to choose whose services you want to use, that is democracy.  If I know a certain business does not treat its employees well, or contributes to KKK, it is my choice not to go to that business.  But if I were African-American and showed up to a clothing store owned by a member of KKK, the store owner cannot turn me away.  I hope you are smart enough to understand the difference.  But don't take my word on it. Ask any friends of yours who are lawyers and they will explain to you perhaps better than I can. 

Please go look up the word democracy.  I don't think it means what you think it does.

post #149 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobringer View Post
 

 

I'm a conservative libertarian... I'd like to see the government not get involved in forcing any private citizen from engaging in commerce with any other private citizen.

I'm all for gay marriage... I'm not for government defining words, so I don't support government sanctioned gay marriage.

That being said... your reasoned response is probably something I'd disagree with some points on, but I'd much rather debate this with someone as direct and measured as you... than those that call me hateful because I don't support government sanctioned gay marriage (because someone like you would reasonably assume someone like me doesn't support government sanctioning of *ANY* marriage).

The government should enforce contracts... and enforce the 14th amendment.  The government shouldn't be in the business of writing dictionaries.

More people need to respond like you when they disagree with someone's point.  Because it's hard to disagree with your argument... even if I disagree with your general point.

 

I am against libertarianism because extreme forms of anything generally don't work. Your view on what a conservative means also seems a stretch. Those who are conservative tend to move slowly and not want to upset the apple cart. A conservative libertarian seems a bit of an oxymoron. 

 

More importantly, however, to the extent I understand your view, it doesn't seem to be libertarian. Libertarians generally want governments to get involved in people's affairs as little as possible. So, to the extent governments define marriage, it would have to do so in the least restrictive way possible. Defining marriage as between a man and woman is an unneeded restriction. Maybe, however, that is your point. 

 

Moreover, do you really believe that the government should enforce all contracts? So, if a ten year old boy agrees to work for free for ten years, that would be OK? Speak of the dark ages. 

post #150 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post
 

 

 

See this is a demonstration of a complete misunderstanding of the issues. There is no law in Arizonia prohibiting a person from discriminating against a person because he or she is gay. If a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay person, he or she does not have to do so. That is the current state of affairs. The law, however, actively promoted that people can discriminate against somebody because he or she was gay provided there was a religious reason. There was absolutely no reason for the law other than to appease some so called religious folks, at the expense of gay people, who wanted a specific law stating they can do what no law prevents them from doing. 

Which state had the wedding photographer case?  I assumed it was AZ, but apparently not?

post #151 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

Of course not.  The wedding photographer is either up front about the conflict and the gay couple moves on, or if they insist, he tells the couple: Look, this is a really special event and I don't want to risk screwing it up due to my emotional conflict. You really should find another photographer for your special moment. Lets not put our opposing views into the mix. You really need a different photographer, sorry.  Simple as that. The only time a problem would arise is if someone, or their lawyer, wants to make a political sensation out of it.

 

That would require maturity, which is asking too much from the people who try to write laws like this one.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #152 of 322

I'm reading all these idealistic extremist posts but the fact of the matter is that there is a lot of gray area in this these scenarios.

 

I keep trying to make the distinction between a public walk in business and an exclusive clientele business. You can't just say ALL businesses.

 

Let's just take weddings out of the equation for a moment.

 

If you have an open door in a public place of business you cannot refuse service or discriminate against any well dressed civil customer . 

 

If on the other hand if you offer professional service by appointment only, you can select your clients by whatever criteria you decide without so much of an explanation. If you do not want to do business with certain types of people then you need to be in a private service type of business and not  a public walk in business.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #153 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post
 

 

I am against libertarianism because extreme forms of anything generally don't work. Your view on what a conservative means also seems a stretch. Those who are conservative tend to move slowly and not want to upset the apple cart. A conservative libertarian seems a bit of an oxymoron. 

 

More importantly, however, to the extent I understand your view, it doesn't seem to be libertarian. Libertarians generally want governments to get involved in people's affairs as little as possible. So, to the extent governments define marriage, it would have to do so in the least restrictive way possible. Defining marriage as between a man and woman is an unneeded restriction. Maybe, however, that is your point. 

 

Moreover, do you really believe that the government should enforce all contracts? So, if a ten year old boy agrees to work for free for ten years, that would be OK? Speak of the dark ages. 

 

The most basic libertarian position would get the government out of the marriage business altogether.  And not require businesses to recognize marriages.  A marriage is just a  contract between 2 people to commingle assets for some duration and give each other certain mutual rights.  Don't really need the government to define that contract.  

post #154 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Welcome to the 21st century, AZ and TX!

Dream on ...
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #155 of 322

The wedding cake and photographer examples don't even apply to Arizona. Arizona doesn't have gay marriage and won't anytime soon, making the examples moot. Supporters of the bill haven't thought independently enough for themselves and thus have no other examples to use, so they just use non-applicable ones they've been spoon-fed that sound good to them.

 

Clearly, religious people feigning victimhood over oppression haven't yet figured out that religion is already a protected class while homosexuals have absolutely no civil protections of any kind in AZ whatsoever.

 

Gays could be denied services before this veto, they will continue to be denied services after this veto.

 

Religious zealots also have no clue what oppression actually is if they think gays are the bullies after religion has had centuries of carte-blache entitlement to belittle, demean, dehumanize, arrest, abuse, murder, blame them for hurricanes, 9/11, earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, and the Newtown shootings.

 

The fact that gays and a growing majority of society no longer puts up with bullshit religious entitlement to oppress them has the zealots in a frenzy of fake offense as they lose their previously unchallenged control.

 

 


Edited by nowayout11 - 2/26/14 at 10:13pm
post #156 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

At least two scientific studies have demonstrated that men who have extremely intolerant views of homosexuality (hint: a few are here) tend to have larger erections (as measured by penile plethysmography) than other heterosexual men when viewing films of gay sex acts who are not overtly homophobic. This explains a lot. It makes sense that men who are not exactly sure or comfortable with being a heterosexual would lash out at gay people due to their own insecurity. When shown gay porn, 80% of homophobes had an erection compared to 34% of non-homophobic males professing to be heterosexual. 

Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?
Henry E. Adams, Lester W. Wright, Jr., and Bethany A. Lohr University of Georgia.
http://my.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf

Apparently homophobia also takes around 2 to 5 years off your life in another study.
http://newsok.com/study-homophobia-takes-years-off-of-your-life/article/3935208

The slippery slope arguments that mention bestiality, incest, polygamy etc.. are the same tired old arguments used in Loving V. Virginia against miscegenation. Amazing how bigots just adapt with the times and their victims may change but their hate remains in tact. No one is pushing an agenda or asking for special rights. This is about equality and dignity that has been denied to certain Americans and until gay marriage is legal in all 50 states it will remain an important topic. Two consenting adults that wish to marry should have that right in 2014. 

That seems to fall inline with my anecdotal observations of homophobic individuals who are very quick to point out (or at least believe) that someone is gay. In my youth I always just assumed that I had horrible "gaydar" but it was later I came to the realization that I simply never take into consideration the sexual orientation of my sex. Sure, if I see someone who is acting in an exaggerated, stereotypical fashion it would cross my mind but that's the same for all stereotypes which is probably a result of too much TV growing up.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #157 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmarei View Post


Same applies for people who marry 4 wives
or who have sex with animals
or who smoke drugs
yet all 4 are illegal
how come no one is fighting for those issues?
I'm a straight God-fearing man and I believe two consenting adults Who are not harming anybody should be out to live their life in peace and if they want to marry that is their choice . I have been bullied by people Who fought I was different just because I couldn't read I was born dyslexic Not my choice just like a gay person not their choice
post #158 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by nowayout11 View Post
 

They also have no clue what oppression actually is if they think gays are the bullies after religion has had centuries of carte-blache entitlement to...

When I can get my emergency life saving heart surgery done at a LGBT hospital I'll put them on equal standing with my Catholic hospital.  Christians and Jews may be living in the religious middles ages but they have wonderful health care facilities. 

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #159 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by comley View Post

I'm a straight God-fearing man and I believe two consenting adults Who are not harming anybody should be out to live their life in peace and if they want to marry that is their choice . I have been bullied by people Who fought I was different just because I couldn't read I was born dyslexic Not my choice just like a gay person not their choice

No one is born literate. You make that choice and I for one am getting sick of the education agenda in this country¡ 1biggrin.gif

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #160 of 322
I'm English and severely dyslexic i i'm a fully qualified electrician and qualified Trainer . I've always been employed and I'm working for the prison service I hope and support many people .... Is how you brain is wired up
Edited by comley - 2/26/14 at 10:18pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Arizona governor vetoes gay discrimination bill Apple rallied against