Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then I guess your knowledge doesn't include the Civil Rights Act - which has only been around now for over half a century.
And, no, private businesses have no such right. There are myriad laws at the federal, not to mention state and local, level which enact all sorts of restrictions on reasons for terminating employment.
This is hardly new.
This is untrue, in most states there are no reasons needed to terminate employment - the employer does not even need to provide a reason.
Such as in the most populous state in the country , CA.
If the florist wants to personally believe that any non-biblically based marriage is immoral, that is her right. If she wants to conduct her personal life that way, that is her right. When she enters into commerce with the general public and wants to illegally discriminate based on her beliefs, that is when there is a problem. She has no right to do so.
No one should be denied adoption based on their sexual orientation.
Commerce is subject to contract and can only be conducted under voluntary agreements...thus forcing people into contract is not just unconstitutional but also invalidates the contract. A contract is not legitimate if one of the parties has been coerced or was under any duress to enter into the contract.
Commerce is subject to contract and can only be conducted under voluntary agreements...thus forcing people into contract is not just unconstitutional but also invalidates the contract. A contract is not legitimate if one of the parties has been coerced or was under any duress to enter into the contract.
When you hang on "Open" sign on your front door, you have already offered.
This is untrue, in most states there are no reasons needed to terminate employment - the employer does not even need to provide a reason.
Such as in the most populous state in the country , CA.
But you still can't fire people for being gay, or old, or a particular color you don't like. People do sue on those grounds, and sometimes win, even here in California.
Really? So if a florist believes that any non-biblically based marriage is immoral, that is their protected right and they should not be forced to be involved in providing labor for an activity that individual deems immoral?
Adoption was forbidden to gay people for the protection of children, should that be a valid reason to deny gays to adopt?
I don't think gays should be allowed to adopt children. The point of adoption was the best interests of the child, not the gratification of ego-maniacal people with some political agenda to fulfill. I feel that saddling orphans with gay parents, or solo parents, is a disadvantage and a hardship, and a disservice to the child. It is the shirking of moral obligation to act in the best interests of those who can't act for themselves.
If you want a child, you can always have one the normal way, and if you can't have one the normal way, or don't WANT to, then maybe that's Nature's way of preventing defective genes from reproducing. Suck it up - your life won't be meaningless just because you don't reproduce. Its not necessary for human happiness. And its not a "civil right" to be a parent or to be awarded custody of another person. People act entitled to these things, and they are not entitled to anything.
Incidentally, some negative things have happened for the human species as a result of the circumvention of the natural controls on our population - such as a massive overpopulation crisis. Sure, we have a lot of positive things that have improved the lives of some humans, but they are also accompanied by negative ones that might actually threaten the existence of all humans.
So, innovation and intervention in the realm of wholly natural functions can often be a prescription for trouble.
Gay adoption, gay "marriage", and gays using technology to reproduce what can only be described as defective genetic material, are all prescriptions for problems.
I don't think gays should be allowed to adopt children. The point of adoption was the best interests of the child, not the gratification of ego-maniacal people with some political agenda to fulfill. I feel that saddling orphans with gay parents, or solo parents, is a disadvantage and a hardship, and a disservice to the child. It is the shirking of moral obligation to act in the best interests of those who can't act for themselves.
I certainly agree that adoption should always be primarily about the needs of the child. I am curious why you feel prospective adoptive parents who are gay or single must be ego-maniacal with a political agenda to fill. Perhaps they simply want to be parents? Not unlike straight or married prospective adoptive parents?
The unfortunate reality is that many children available for adoption are never adopted. If a prospective adoptive parent can provide a child with a stable loving home, why should they be barred?
I don't think gays should be allowed to adopt children. The point of adoption was the best interests of the child, not the gratification of ego-maniacal people with some political agenda to fulfill. I feel that saddling orphans with gay parents, or solo parents, is a disadvantage and a hardship, and a disservice to the child. It is the shirking of moral obligation to act in the best interests of those who can't act for themselves.
If you want a child, you can always have one the normal way, and if you can't have one the normal way, or don't WANT to, then maybe that's Nature's way of preventing defective genes from reproducing. Suck it up - your life won't be meaningless just because you don't reproduce. Its not necessary for human happiness. And its not a "civil right" to be a parent or to be awarded custody of another person. People act entitled to these things, and they are not entitled to anything.
Incidentally, some negative things have happened for the human species as a result of the circumvention of the natural controls on our population - such as a massive overpopulation crisis. Sure, we have a lot of positive things that have improved the lives of some humans, but they are also accompanied by negative ones that might actually threaten the existence of all humans.
So, innovation and intervention in the realm of wholly natural functions can often be a prescription for trouble.
Gay adoption, gay "marriage", and gays using technology to reproduce what can only be described as defective genetic material, are all prescriptions for problems.
So children living in foster or group homes is in the best interest of a child over being adopted into a loving home?
This is untrue, in most states there are no reasons needed to terminate employment - the employer does not even need to provide a reason.
Such as in the most populous state in the country , CA.
Yes, that is the general rule for at-will employment anywhere in the country. But, and this is a big but (haha), Federal, state and local governments have enacted exceptions to that general rule for prohibiting termination prescribed reasons. The exceptions have swallowed the rule, as they say. That's what the other poster was saying.
In my opinion, state should stay out of defining what's a marriage. That needs to be left to religious organizations.
State should make laws laying down legal boundaries of what constitutes a civil union, what are parties' rights and responsibilities, what kinds of unions are allowed and so on, but not call it a marriage. If two people want to enter into a legally recognized union, they should go and obtain a license - just don't call it a marriage license. This way both parties' interests and rights are legally protected in case of divorce or death.
Then if you're gay and, say, Catholic, whether or not your union is a "marriage" should be an issue between you and the Catholic church.
And if you are non-denominational and want to call it a "marriage" all power to you, just don't expect everyone else to consider your legal union a marriage under their belief system.
That is the way this should work. Ass opposed to the laws being written right and left defining what's a marriage. Keep the government out of this.
(None of this has anything to do with business' refusal to provide services).
Yeah, I see you have issues with reading comprehension.
No I don't, I was making a point. The point is you are trying to push sex with children to go along with same sex in order to build a sense of fear and disgust towards same sex marriage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
