Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
I have admitted that technically it is illegal if the courts say so, so try reading before posting nonsense like this . I then asked about the reality of whether this was legit or just spite , but evidently you let the courts determine for you what is right or wrong .
And as you have studiously avoided , just like the religious fundies do , answering questions you don't like it is obvious you don't have an answer and can do nothing but repeat that the "law says so ".
The issue is the site didn't offer a product that the gays wanted , and the law made them do so to satisfy the unwarranted and needless demands of a few gays who couldn't be bothered to use the dating sites that did offer what they wanted . That's the reality, whether you have the courage to discuss it outside the strictly legal bounds or not .
|
I actually have answered your point before. The point you are trying to make is that there are militant gays who are looking for cases to try.
I think you are right. And they should. Why?
For the same reason the Freedom For Religion Foundation pursues cases that are in violation of the 1st Amendment. For the same reason that the NRA pursues cases that are against the 2nd Amendment. If those cases are not pursued, then the slippery slope argument comes into play. If one overlooks a minor transgression, how soon before a medium one is overlooked, and then a major one.
By delineating to the public what the issues are and by setting precedents through the courts, it becomes clear to companies and institutions, as well as law makers, what they can and can not do.
Annoyance factors are not relevant; what is relevant is that the standards be consistently applied, and when they are not, that a reminder be given as frequently and as forceful as required.