The Homosexuality Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Duke
- 9,138 comments
- 447,874 views
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 8,430
- Auckland
- Lazer0pz
Conservative Host Sandy Rios Thinks Amtrak Engineer's Sexuality Is 'A Factor' In Crash
"I'm not implying that the accident happened because he was g- oh wait, I am!"
"I'm not implying that the accident happened because he was g- oh wait, I am!"
- 23
- United States
- AAO_Maxxis
Why is there a thread about this...?
- 8,430
- Auckland
- Lazer0pz
We're planning to sterilise all the gays and keep them from breeding.
- 23
- United States
- AAO_Maxxis
HAHA ok good luck
- 87,582
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Why would there not be a thread about this?
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
You should try our local chain.
He used Starbucks because their CEO openly supported gay marriage at a shareholder meeting and faced boycotts from opposing organizations.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Not necessarily. Keeping a completely open mind in any investigation, especially those involving a loss of life, is essential to getting at the truth. I don't know anything about the guy but if for example he was gay, maybe he just came out to his parents and they shunned him, he was depressed, went to the doctor, he was on some meds or didn't take his meds...blah blah blah. Or maybe he was being bullied and wanted to exact some revenge. At this point literally every possibility should be on the table and any keen investigator is going to look at all the possible data and explore every avenue to get at the truth. Don't get me wrong though, being gay has nothing to do with the cause of the accident, but it might be an avenue for investigation to see where it leads.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
I see what you mean... but in my mind I reword it to say that "any investigation that possibly involves human error should examine all aspects of that human's relationships, circumstances and stresses"
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
If I was running for office that's they way I would have worded it, yes.I see what you mean... but in my mind I reword it to say that "any investigation that possibly involves human error should examine all aspects of that human's relationships, circumstances and stresses"
DRJULESSTEELE
(Banned)
- 49
- MARBELLA/IBIZA/NURBURGING/DALLAS
Not my problem or business. Even the religious peeps cant say anything against as the man himself said love thy neighbor.
- 29,372
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
I'm in two minds about this ruling...
http://www.theguardian.com/society/...mpany-guilty-discrimination-gay-marriage-cake
While I think it is ridiculous to object to making a cake that says 'Support Gay Marriage', I don't necessarily agree with the fact that it is against the law for the cake maker to refuse to make such a cake.
I find it quite odd that the people who wanted the cake made would feel so strongly about it as to go to court over it - I don't think I'd want a cake made by someone who was effectively being forced to make it for me, esp. knowing that they were both bigots and idiot business people, but what do I know?
http://www.theguardian.com/society/...mpany-guilty-discrimination-gay-marriage-cake
While I think it is ridiculous to object to making a cake that says 'Support Gay Marriage', I don't necessarily agree with the fact that it is against the law for the cake maker to refuse to make such a cake.
I find it quite odd that the people who wanted the cake made would feel so strongly about it as to go to court over it - I don't think I'd want a cake made by someone who was effectively being forced to make it for me, esp. knowing that they were both bigots and idiot business people, but what do I know?
- 1,433
- Northern Ireland
Yeah, I'm unsure about it as well. As a consequence it seems to logically follow now that a gay baker couldn't refuse to bake a cake with an anti-gay message, or suchlike. Unless you start deciding legally which messages are Right and Wrong, which doesn't sound like a great road to go down.
I'm kinda surprised they ended up ruling against in the end - probably helped that the guy was openly backed by the Equality Commission (public body), although how much it helped I don't know. But Ashers have been getting a lot of support locally I'm told so I guess we haven't heard the last of this case yet. It probably whould be kicking up a stink at our Assembly too, if they weren't so busy taking a sledgehammer to it....
I'm kinda surprised they ended up ruling against in the end - probably helped that the guy was openly backed by the Equality Commission (public body), although how much it helped I don't know. But Ashers have been getting a lot of support locally I'm told so I guess we haven't heard the last of this case yet. It probably whould be kicking up a stink at our Assembly too, if they weren't so busy taking a sledgehammer to it....
- 2,694
- BurnoutLogicville, USA
- INF_Mike458
Not exactly sure how to respond to that issue, I'm on the fence for this.
However...
This is very, very outdated but still makes for a good laugh for how stupid people can be: http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/pol...-10-arguments-used-to-push-homosexuality.html
However...
This is very, very outdated but still makes for a good laugh for how stupid people can be: http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/pol...-10-arguments-used-to-push-homosexuality.html
- 87,582
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
The United Kingdom: Fighting bigotry by making it illegal and thus more entrenched and bitter since nineteen umpty eleventeen.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
The US is having the same issue with bakeries and photographers. Ultimately the businesses that face legal action are faced with being forced to do a job they don't want to or going out of business.
I'm not quite sure how that is much different than a form of serfdom.
KSaiyu
(Banned)
- 2,822
Ahh so this is the thread. My post from the other one:
The judge found that they discriminated based on the plaintiff's sexuality, which apparently they must have known about since no straight person would ever order a gay pride cake:
"The judge said she was satisfied that the McArthur family had “genuine and deeply held religious beliefs” but said that they must have been aware that Mr Lee was gay and also of the ongoing same-sex marriage debate.
She said: “They [Ashers] are in a business supplying services to all. The law requires them to do just that.”"
Also have to add that my comment on the Guardian's version of the story was removed by a moderator on their site. I simply pointed out that because of such a law, what is to stop a homosexual effectively holding any store owner to ransom with the threat of a discrimination lawsuit. How that falls foul of the Guardian's "community rules" I would like explained to me.
The judge found that they discriminated based on the plaintiff's sexuality, which apparently they must have known about since no straight person would ever order a gay pride cake:
"The judge said she was satisfied that the McArthur family had “genuine and deeply held religious beliefs” but said that they must have been aware that Mr Lee was gay and also of the ongoing same-sex marriage debate.
She said: “They [Ashers] are in a business supplying services to all. The law requires them to do just that.”"
Also have to add that my comment on the Guardian's version of the story was removed by a moderator on their site. I simply pointed out that because of such a law, what is to stop a homosexual effectively holding any store owner to ransom with the threat of a discrimination lawsuit. How that falls foul of the Guardian's "community rules" I would like explained to me.
- 29,372
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
I wouldn't hold your breath if I were you.
I had a conversation about this at work this afternoon with a gay colleague. Suffice it to say that she was in favour of the ruling, but did seem to accept at least some of what I was saying. My other colleague seemed to be more in agreement with the view that the ruling (about the cake) was correct, on the basis that 'What if everyone discriminated against gays?' and 'What if the same discrimination were allowed for housing, basic services etc.?' It's quite hard to argue against those points, especially when I am totally against discrimination personally - but the question remains about whether legislation is helping eradicate discrimination, or actually making it worse.
It's seemingly a much more common topic of debate in the US than it is here - there seems to be a perception in the UK and in Europe that private businesses (shops, bars, hotels etc.) are infact public places - a distinction that isn't so readily made in the US... perhaps I am wrong or being unfair, but that's the way it feels at times.
I also made a few comments on the Guardian website about this issue and one response was 'there needs to be a distinction between the private and public realms. This baker is providing a public service and therefore can't discriminate'...
- 87,582
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Private entities must be allowed to discriminate. Public bodies must not.
If someone behaves in a manner that you find unacceptable you can cease your interaction with them. If they're a business owner, you can take your business elsewhere. You cannot take your business elsewhere with public bodies as they are not only monopolies but monopolies funded by taxation - taxation that is taken from you without discrimination...
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
In the case of photographers, many work out of their homes and have a studio set up in their basement or garage. Try calling that a public place under any system.
Many bakers would work out of their homes, but many states have regulations that won't allow it. I do know a few people who will professionally bake cakes on the side, for money, out of their homes. They keep their "business" no more public than their Facebook page.
The day cake and pie is a necessity to survive I will accept that a bakery is a public service, and I will demand that they install a custard faucet in my home.
If this were to happen in Kentucky (and I am sure it will if the Supreme Court rules against the state) any defendant does have statute defining a public service in our tax code.
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=42719
If it were me I would be sure to call the media and turn the courtroom into a circus as I staunchly refused to ask any questions or answer any questions that don't force a description that explains how my bakery could be deemed a public service as described in KRS 136.120.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked
