Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > who has more rights?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 viper1j
Joined: 11/30/2005
Msg: 26
who has more rights? Page 2 of 10    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)

I just don't have any sympathy for self righteous bigots. If people want to open a business that caters to the public, they should be prepared to cater to the public, all of the public. That means they don't exclude people for their color, their religion, race, age, or sexual orientation.


There's an old saying: When you open a can of worms, you always need a larger can to get them all back in.

So, where do you want to draw the line? Would you rent a room to a man and his favorite sheep? How about a girl and her Great Dane? What about an adult of either sex with an opposite sex child not related to them? And if the answer is no, on what are you basing your decision on, if not your "personal beliefs"?

When you open a door, there's just no telling who might walk through..


Fortunately we are a Constitutional Republic and not a Biblical Theocracy. If they don't like the fact the founders made no express prohibitions or limitations against consenting adult homosexuality perhaps they should hang a shingle in Nigeria.


Ya know, acceptance and tolerance are NOT the same words, nor do they mean the same things. If you don't believe me, I'll lend you my dictionary. The vast majority of people, are more than willing to tolerate the homosexual lifestyle and agenda, but that just doesn't seem to be good enough for some homosexuals. They want everybody to ACCEPT the homosexual lifestyle and agenda, and that's just never gonna happen.

Homosexuals like to attempt to tie their plight to blacks in the civil rights movement. Blacks never asked for, nor wanted acceptance. We wanted tolerance and fair treatment. It's why most blacks vote with their wallets with the rare exception of a monopoly, (the ONLY hotel in a small town etc..)

Blacks, to the very best of my understanding NEVER tried to push the "black lifestyle" down anyone's throat. Blacks, (again to the best of my knowledge,) never tried to pass a law requiring everyone to listen to hip hop.

Homosexuals after getting marriage reversed, apparently are too stupid to know win they've won..
 totalazzhole
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 27
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/22/2011 9:39:29 AM
^^ the old 'slippery slope" argument?

I think the line could be drawn at human co-occupants..most hotels, inns, B&B's, etc., already ban animals, pets, etc, any way

I mean what if you let a white person stay with a black person?

next it will be their pet monkey or goat (actual argument no doubt heard 40-50 yrs. ago in US)..or let a black marry a white? the end of civilization of course?

I'm sure some are still angry about those anti-lynching laws.
 modivin
Joined: 8/21/2011
Msg: 28
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/22/2011 9:55:05 AM
I find it interesting seeing how many people are up in arms over this.....saying the people have the right to adhere to their religious beliefs and not allow them the right to housing.

A thought comes to mind for all you religious folks out there (and even non) who are familiar with The Christmas Story of the birth of Jesus.
No room at the inn for the expecting family ring a bell perhaps?

True, everyone has their religious beliefs and goes off what is right or wrong based off their beliefs. However, take away the judgement, hate, and preaching your beliefs to others to look at the deeper meaning of what it is you believe.

Is it not to treat our brothers and sisters equally? With respect, love, and kindness? There is no room for judgement with that mindset. Isn't that what it really is all about? Love each other?
In this story, the inn keepers running a business are not showing a good example of being loving towards others. As they are religious, where do they draw the line of what is required to stay at their B&B?
Do they force those staying to say grace before dinner? Do they make people sign a waiver that they can only have intercourse if the intent is to produce offspring? And if so, they must have it only in the missionary position?
Did they advertise they are a religious B&B and only people who follow their religious beliefs can stay there? Probably not because that would make them an exclusive/private location rather then open to the public.

You have to remember that the consumers to be are what? Human beings. Its wrong to treat people in an unethical manner or as second class citizens.
I don't see how this is any different then a black woman saying "NO, I will NOT sit at the back of the bus!"

And before some of you religious fanatics blast me for preaching or being gay lovers....
let me remind you of the following....
I love people. Gay, straight, short, tall, skinny, fat, black, white, pink, purple.....whatever. Regardless of race, color, creed. I may not agree with your opinion 100% of the time but I do not hate....

I do happen to strongly dislike my neighbors dogs for barking all the time...but I don't hate them


 viper1j
Joined: 11/30/2005
Msg: 29
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/22/2011 9:59:43 AM
I think the line could be drawn at human co-occupants..most hotels, inns, B&B's, etc., already ban animals, pets, etc, any way


Motel 6 and Holiday Inn Express both allow up to two pets. I learned that one winter in Pa when my furnace died. But I see where you're trying to drive this particular vehicle..

And again, the most sensible response to the black/white couple thing is the wallet. As a business owner, I speak from experience, revenue is everything.

I would end up on welfare, if as a vegan computer tech, I refused to work on the systems of farmers in Pennsylvania.

Just sayin'..

A thought comes to mind for all you religious folks out there (and even non) who are familiar with The Christmas Story of the birth of Jesus. No room at the inn for the expecting family ring a bell perhaps?


Actually, THIS was the very first thing that popped into my mind, when i saw the op. Guess what? The innkeepers fvcked up!

Some people make their own hell, but alas, it's theirs to make. So, why do you have a problem with it?

Since you won't be the one to live in it..
 natural energy
Joined: 9/23/2006
Msg: 30
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/22/2011 10:49:33 AM
a bed and breakfast?...isnt that..like your own home?......seems to me you should be able to choose who you invite into your own home

I have run a Bed & Breakfast before.

One aspect most of you are eliminating here is the safety of a person in their own home. All B&B owners will filter the guests they will welcome into their home, since the guests do stay in their own home. Filtering for "safety" reasons is one thing, but filtering for the reasons of discriminating is another. A B&B owner simply has to respond that they do not have availability at that time, for anyone that they don't want to welcome into their own home. Often it may depend on the conversation that takes place over the phone. Of corse they may be discriminating when they filter. This will be difficult to prove unless a person takes time to try to prove it.

So, my guess is that these B&B owners were up front with why they declined the gay couple as guests, based on their religion.

Now, I recently joined Catholic Match as a paying single there, and am thoroughly disgusted with the views of the extremists on that site. And these extremists run the site, so I won't be there after my paying period is used up. So, I am aware how non-Christian, bigoted, and discriminating these extremists are. They are not interpreting the teachings of God correctly at all. There are extremists in all religions. So, my guess is that the B&B owners that the OP refers to is one of these extremist religious types.


It stops being your private residence when you register it as a bed and breakfast; many B&Bs are actually considered hotels or inns.

In Canada if you have 3 or less rooms in your B&B, then it is a B&B. Once you have more than 3 rooms, then it becomes an Inn. There is a distinct difference between B&Bs and Inns. So, no, a B&B is still your residence.

It is synonymous with taking students in to board with you (which I have also done in the past), versus renting out an apartment. There are different laws that govern both. When someone boards with you and shares your kitchen, then you have more rights as the owner of the home since they are "sharing" your facilities with you. B&B's are similar to this.
 natural energy
Joined: 9/23/2006
Msg: 31
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/22/2011 10:57:29 AM

If there's money in it though, maybe I should sue the KKK for not letting me join.

I love it! This is a great attitude!
I hope that the KKK don't exist any longer. If they do, then they must be underground. You wouldn't want to join that!
 NonamousDog
Joined: 4/20/2011
Msg: 32
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/22/2011 11:23:18 AM
So, I take it that there is no right to Freedom of Association, or Freedom of Contract in Canada? That ALL businesses are like busses, and have to do business with anyone who walks in the door?

Do you feel morally superior for forcing people to do business with folks they don't care to? Do you lose your rights when you open a business?
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 33
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/22/2011 12:07:02 PM
First, it's not the US constitution which applies here. Read the frickin post.

Second, your understanding of your own constitution is about as good as your understanding of this thread. Discrimination based on all sorts of things in a commercial enterprise can't be justified no matter how fecked up your beliefs are. If your government decided to make discrimination based on orientation the same as race, it would be perfectly constitutional.
 bucsgirl
Joined: 5/13/2006
Msg: 34
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/22/2011 12:08:04 PM
Not to take sides at all, just to point out that even though it IS a business, owners do have rights to refuse service and/or ask a customer to leave their premises. What the owners did wrong was to give a reason, and I AGREE that it was not appropriate, but not knowing the laws there, I would say the owners were within their "rights".

I've worked in hospitality years ago, and the worst thing you can do when having to ask a customer to leave is to tell them the reason why. It's just an invitation for an argument, or worse.

I don't see the situation as a question of religious beliefs at all, but a question of rights to be served and a right to refuse service. The owners made buffoons out of themselves for saying why, bad move!!
 natural energy
Joined: 9/23/2006
Msg: 35
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/22/2011 12:55:50 PM

I don't see the situation as a question of religious beliefs at all, but a question of rights to be served and a right to refuse service. The owners made buffoons out of themselves for saying why, bad move!!

Oh, lovely. It's alright to discriminate as long as you don't get caught? Say I don't like tall people, and everyone over 6 feet tall irritates the hell out of me. If I open up a restaurant, I can tell all tall people to take a hike, without of course saying why, just say I reserve the right to refuse them service. So, cool.

These people weren't stupid because they said why they were refusing to rent a room to these people, they ARE stupid because they are ignorant bigots.

Obviously you did not read my post as well. I have run a B&B, as I posted earlier.

Since these B&B owners were such extremists, they voiced why they would not accept the gay couple as customers. Most B&B owners, as I said, would say that they had no availability and not have to give a reason why they were really not accepting the potential customers. As I explained in my post, a reasonable reason for doing this is if you did not feel safe having them in your home. Others may, of course have other biases for not accepting guests, such as against gays.

Thus, for this extremist religious B&B owner, they were not wise showing their beliefs!

And yes, there are some religions who do not accept gays in their religion. So, the extremists who follow that seem to want to publicize this, as these B&B owners seemed to!
 bucsgirl
Joined: 5/13/2006
Msg: 36
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/22/2011 1:58:57 PM
"Oh, lovely. It's alright to discriminate as long as you don't get caught?"

The topic is about who has rights, that is entirely a matter of what the law is. As I stated, I don't know what the law is there specifically, but, generally speaking, a business owner has the right to refuse a customer service.

I don't know what experience or education you have on legal matters, but legal issues are judged solely on matters of what the law (statues) are and cited case law. The topic isn't ethics or religion, or even discrimination, for that matter.

Laws regarding discrimination are extremely hard to both enforce and prove in court, FYI. Ethis are also subject to personal opinion, not law. While something may be "legal", it can definitely be considered to be unethical, but that does not affect the determination of who has rights and what they are.

IMO, what the owners did was discriminatory and I most definitely disagree with how they handled it, but that was NOT the topic.
 viper1j
Joined: 11/30/2005
Msg: 37
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/22/2011 2:01:26 PM

Say I don't like tall people, and everyone over 6 feet tall irritates the hell out of me. If I open up a restaurant, I can tell all tall people to take a hike, without of course saying why, just say I reserve the right to refuse them service. So, cool.


TOTALLY COOL!

Know what I'll do? I'll open a place next door to you with a great big sign saying TALL PEOPLE WELCOME!

I'll get rich while you're on welfare.

Is the basic concept starting to sink in now?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 38
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/22/2011 2:26:17 PM
Yes, when you open a business that caters to the public, you lose your right to exercise personal biases on that level.


That's your opinion, and I don't know whether it's true in Canada. In the U.S., states can make laws requiring those things, at least as long as they don't infringe too far on the constitutional right to choose your associates. But if there's any constitutional authority for a federal law requiring you to do business with everyone, just because your business is open to the public, I don't know what it is.


the founders made no express prohibitions or limitations against consenting adult homosexuality


What? The Constitution doesn't expressly prohibit or limit incest or child pornography or heroin, either. That doesn't mean states can't make those things crimes. Sodomy was a crime in every state long before the Constitution was written, and the Supreme Court has never even suggested there's any constitutional right to engage in homosexual acts.

The basis for the Court's holding that a Texas sodomy statute was unconstitutional, in a 2003 decision, was that it served no legitimate government interest. And so, said the Court, the statute violated the 14th Amendment by depriving persons of liberty without due process of law.


Is the basic concept starting to sink in now?


I doubt it, but you have it exactly right. Anyone who discriminated in his business would attract a competitor who would be more than happy to take the customers he didn't want.
 daynadaze
Joined: 2/11/2008
Msg: 39
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/22/2011 2:52:47 PM
When I would young they did this same kind of prejudice to black people, it was seen as normal to treat them like second class citizens and not allow them around white people. Like white people could not sleep in a bed where a black person had slept. Seems so stupid and unbelievable now, except to bigots, but religion was used as the excuse. It's just another way for bigots/haters to wield superiority while trying to not look like the haters they are.

I think there's a fine line between having a say in what you believe and harming other people and what should be the rights of all human beings. There are cases of pharmacists not selling condoms or morning after pills because of their religious bigotry, they should find a new business, you can't push your religious views onto others and run a business. You will also notice that those who cry about their religious beliefs, only follow them when they can use it against someone, they don't actually live it themselves, they cry foul and claim being fallible. I see them as I would any liar who harms others with their hate.

It use to be blacks, before that it was Italians or Irish or Chinese...some people are haters, they often use religion to claim a right to treat others badly and then at some point it's seen as horrible. If you wouldn't refuse to rent a room to someone of color or another religion than yours. then why would you think you had a right to not rent a room to a gay couple? Hate is hate, flowery BS does not cover it up or make it something else. After all, one can use the Bible to not allow a couple of a different color around them and yet most would now see that as ridiculous. Hate against gays is just as ridiculous.
 nipoleon
Joined: 12/27/2005
Msg: 40
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/22/2011 3:13:15 PM
The Communists used to believe politics was everything.
The Free Market Libertarians believe economics is everything.

If it can be justified economically, it can be excused.
The profit motive is the new " Golden Rule ".
Not, " Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you ".
Now it's, " Exploit others as they would exploit you if they could ".

I'm rich and you're poor !
And..... that makes you right ?

This is the fraud of the Free Marketers.
It's not an economic theory, it's an apology for bigotry, pettiness, greed, and hatred.

Hate people of a different color, hate people of a different religion, hate people of a different lifestyle. Hate the people who live across town, hate the people who live across the street, hate the people next door.
Where does the hatred stop ?

Dog eat dog doesn't work!
The dogs who live together and cooperate always win over the dogs who eat each other.
That's what the Free Market Libertarians can't see. They think they're preaching some natural law of economics. But what they are really preaching is the natural law of the jungle.

Do we want to live in a jungle where we all hate and resent each other ?
Or, do we want a good society where everybody lives together in peace ?

Oh.... and don't even get started about " enlightened self interest ". That's just another convenient self hypnotic mantra the paranoid, resentful, hate filled and greedy comfort themselves with so they can sleep at night.
Somehow selfishness is really charity in disguise....... yea right !
" But we're doing you all a favor ", they'll say.
" Don't you see how we have everyone's best interests at heart ? ", they say, " It's all really for the best ".
" The rich are only rich because they deserve to be rich, they're the creators of wealth. " goes the dogma. " The poor deserve to be poor because they only mooch off the natural creative wealth producing energy of the superior rich ".

Everytime a man considers the welfare of his neighbor over his own, the purity of the Free Market is violated. Every act of charity blasphemes the profit motive.

Modern Free Market theory isn't anything like what Adam Smith tried to elucidate in " The Wealth of Nations ".
Today's Free Market theory doesn't raise people up, it lowers them to the least denomination. It preaches neighbor vs neighbor and brother vs brother. Modern Free Market Libertarianism is the pornography of economics.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 41
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/22/2011 4:33:03 PM
Amen Double Cabin and the rest of the reasonable ones. There is a movement within the Tea Reich of the US to repeal the 14th Ammendment, or at least the Due Process Clause. Vigorously fighting against voting rights, equality, and now job creation, the Tea Reich is leading us boldly into the 16th-19th centuries.

When operating a public business, government, rent or sell, or have a 5o1 C 3, there are laws on the books until the rapture...didn't happen again today, or the Theocracy. Another reason to get out the vote every time despite the Tea Reich efforts to the contrary.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 42
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/22/2011 5:20:15 PM
here is a movement within the Tea Reich of the US to repeal the 14th Ammendment, or at least the Due Process Clause.


Never heard of that Tea Reich--do you have an address for them? Being unreasonable, I never had much time for that due process nonsense, either.

Oh, incidentally--the Due Process Clause was never supposed to be an all-purpose way to extend the reach of the federal government at the expense of the states' independence. The Supreme Court has used it since about 1900 to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states--most recently the 2d Amendment. Originally, and in some cases until pretty recently, the BOR applied only to the federal government. That process pretty much killed off the 10th Amendment, although a couple Court decisions in the 1990's helped revive it.

But the 14th Amendment does NOT apply to discrimination by private persons--the state has to have taken some action. The Court has never held that it or anything else in the Constitution limits a private person 's right to discriminate against homosexuals. And it's never even suggested that homosexuality is a fundamental constitutional right.
 totalazzhole
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 43
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/23/2011 10:30:38 AM

For those who think this could not be a religious issue, the Bible mentions homosexuality more than once in fairly stern terms.


well if their religion is THAT important to them, and breathing the same air as a gay person might make them ill, or kill them, simple -don't be in the B&B business, offering rooms to the public.

the funny thing is 2 gay guys could likely check in as brothers (lie) and then fook each other all night & none would be the wiser..

I wonder if they check marriage licenses & photo IDs, for a mixed couple to ensure no 'sin' occurs under their roof?

the bible also encourages taking over neighboring countries & taking the people from there as slaves..cool, right?>

also advises selling your daughter, discusses proper pricing.

oh and if gay guys want to get at the angel in your house, send your virgin daughter out to them & tell the mob to fook her instead (Lot)
 totalazzhole
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 44
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/23/2011 12:42:39 PM

What? The Constitution doesn't expressly prohibit or limit incest or child pornography or heroin, either. That doesn't mean states can't make those things crimes. Sodomy was a crime in every state long before the Constitution was written, and the Supreme Court has never even suggested there's any constitutional right to engage in homosexual acts.


so you would equate incest & child porn & heroin use/sales to two consenting adults of the same gender having sex?

would a 15-year old 'caught' with one marijuana joint also be on the same level as a 35 year old caught selling a kilo of heroin or cocaine to a DEA agent?

and "sodomy" laws also applied equally to hetero couples, did they not? criminal activity for consenting, adult men & women to engage in anal sex, or oral sex/??

why? isn't criminal law supposed to apply generally to something that causes 'harm' ?

as if prisons aren't over-crowded already you would like to once again send people to prison for engaging in consensual sex between two adults of the same gender?

that did occur up to the 1960's in both USA & Canada I believe.

the logic escaped me..criminal to have gay sex, so put the guy in prison with hundreds other guys.. NO GAY SEX occurs, there, I'm sure? LOL
 Bladesmith81801
Joined: 10/30/2010
Msg: 45
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/23/2011 2:58:05 PM
You righty tighty folks sure are hung up on teh gheys.

Yet the bible didn't think homosexuality was bad enough to mention it on the Ten Commandments (Which, I believe it was said that if you followed them you and God would get on just fine), nor did Jesus have much to say bout it. Seems Jesus was more concerned about Moneylenders, lepers and the less than well off than gays.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 46
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/23/2011 3:07:30 PM
If the B&B owners want to be consistent at least, they should also be able to discriminate against the following groups. The mixed fibers crowd alone would bankrupt them. But it's not about consistency. It's about insecurity about their own sexuality or merely cafeteria Christianity hypocrisy. And don't forget about those people who have graven images, false idols, have ever commited adultry, and work on Sunday or Saturday, both Sabbaths by different Christian sects.

Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)

Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)

Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)

Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)

Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9) Have you ever done that?

If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10). I wonder if Dr. Laura would like that one to be enforced?

If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)

If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14)

If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16). I guess you should kill the animal since they were willing participants. Are they crazy?

If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)

Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)

If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9)

People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)

Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)

Possible grounds for execution.

The following carry the punishment of being "cut off from his people". Some people seem to feel that this is the same as the death penalty.
A male who is not circumcised. Genesis 17:14
Eating leavened bread during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Exodus 12:15
Manufacturing anointing oil. Exodus 30:33
Engaging in ritual animal sacrifices other than at the temple. Leviticus 17:1-9
Sexual activity with a woman who is menstruating: Leviticus 20:18
Consuming blood: This would presumably include eating rare meat and black pudding. Also see above. Leviticus 17:10.
Eating peace offerings while ritually unclean: Leviticus 7:20
Waiting too long before consuming sacrifices: Leviticus 19:5-8
Going to the temple in an unclean state: Numbers 19:13
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 47
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/24/2011 12:24:05 AM
so you would equate incest & child porn & heroin use/sales to two consenting adults of the same gender having sex?


You are raising a different issue, and I'll leave it to you. I was responding to a poster who had noted that the founders of the U.S. (presumably in the Constitution) didn't expressly prohibit homosexuality. He was using that fact, apparently, to argue that it couldn't be prohibited.

But if it can't, that is certainly not the reason. To make that point, I cited a few examples of things the Constitution also doesn't expressly prohibit. And yet they are crimes. Obviously, just because the Constitution doesn't expressly prohibit a thing, that doesn't mean states can't make it a crime.


and "sodomy" laws also applied equally to hetero couples, did they not?


In some states they did. The Court got into a long discussion of that in Lawrence v. Texas. I didn't see how it was relevant to anything there, and I don't see how it is here, either.


why? isn't criminal law supposed to apply generally to something that causes 'harm' ?


Generally, yes. But all criminal laws are eventually grounded in moral beliefs, and the majority in a state may consider an act morally harmful that most people elsewhere don't. As long as the law that majority makes doesn't violate some federal law or treaty, or something in the Constitution, it's no one else's business. There are complicated exceptions I won't get into here, but usually, a criminal statute passes constitutional muster if it's rationally related to some legitimate government purpose.


as if prisons aren't over-crowded already you would like to once again send people to prison for engaging in consensual sex between two adults of the same gender?


I don't care what they engage in. The Constitution neither guarantees a right to homosexuality nor prohibits it. What I'm concerned with is protecting the right of a majority in a state to regulate public morality by law. Before Lawrence in 2003, the Supreme Court had never questioned that right in all this country's history.

In Lawrence, the Court misread the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment in a very bizarre, unprecedented way. I think it did this purposely, in order to strike down a sodomy statute five justices personally disagreed with.

In Lawrence and other contrived, unconvincing decisions on social issues, the Court has made a habit of substituting the personal preferences of five judges for the Constitution. These lawless decisions are a serious threat to the individual liberties of all Americans. No one is justified in subverting the rule of law, and the freedoms which depend on it, for the sake of social engineering.
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 48
view profile
History
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/24/2011 6:18:33 AM

These lawless decisions are a serious threat to the individual liberties of all Americans


A thousand LOL's. Yes. Definitely. Alllowing people to willfully and consentually sodomize each other is for sure threatening all of our civil liberties. Run for the hills with Bibles and original constitutional drafts.
 totalazzhole
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 49
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/24/2011 7:54:03 AM
It still seems really odd to me that what 2 consenting adults do IN PRIVATE would 'bother' so many people

is it maybe REALLY because they think: " maybe those people are enjoying something I 'll never know" ?

these actions obviously cannot result in unwanted/unexpected pregnancy as hetero sex can.

why the most important "moral" to some it seems is to ban people from participating in a consensual act.

do people think this will "FORCE" them to 'turn straight'? just decide, "oh yes, gay sex is against the law so now I'll be hetero" ?

or, as is more likely , force it to be be more secretive & 'underground' -just like alcohol prohibition did, and current drug prohibition does. It' s unlikely there would be a huge increase in pot use if it were made legal tomorrow ; people who want to use it, use it, regardless. People who don't, for health reasons, etc. wouldn't even if legal. Millions do use it now, so the law doesn't seem to have a MAJOR effect -

other than wasting a lot of police, prosecution & court time that maybe could be better used fighting "Real Crime" - e.g. murder, rape, armed robbery, etc.

I know some old bible-bangers would like to see an anti-gay nazi storm-trooper-like "Sex Police" or "Sex Enforcement Agency" that could raid houses at will trying to catch people engaged in "naughty sex" , then prosecute them & imprison them.

probably should follow catholic church ideology & make ANY sex act other than quick, brief intercourse in the missionary position (only until the man blows his wad) between a married hetero-couple in child-bearing years, once per month at the height of the woman's fertility, illegal.

A former Cdn. PM (then Justice Minister), Pierre Trudeau, somewhat famously in 1967 when repealing the federal law against 'sodomy' said:

" The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation"

I concur.
 viper1j
Joined: 11/30/2005
Msg: 50
who has more rights?
Posted: 10/24/2011 8:26:29 AM
It still seems really odd to me that what 2 consenting adults do IN PRIVATE would 'bother' so many people
If only that were true. We're having this very discussion because that ISN'T true.

Obviously, you haven't had your children exposed to one of those "pride" parades, full of drag queens, dog collars, and assless chaps.

Hetero couples just live their lives and go on with their days. I have yet to see a single "straight pride" parade.

There are two B&Bs, one says "Send me all your homosexuals!" the other says "go over there.."

Some homosexuals would rather get a lawyer than a room..
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > who has more rights?