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.
Nope, I mean discrimination should not mean equal access to everything. The definition is too broad. What is unfair or unequal? If a car dealer gives me a special discount, he must give everyone else that same discount? That's being equal, right?
You are not getting it....We all discriminate. That is how we choose almost everything in this life...Our mates, friends clothing, etc.... When we hire someone best suited to a job, or pick our favorite restaurant we are discriminating.....There is nothing wrong with discriminating, in fact it's a virtue.
The problem begins when we discriminate based on race, religion or lack of religion, gender or sexual orientation alone as an employer or a business person who deals with the public .... Disliking some group or belief in and of itself is a free, private point of view, is an inalienable right, but when a prejudice crosses over into actions, (No wedding cake for gays) it denies the rights of others to participate in a free society.
You are not getting it....We all discriminate. That is how we choose almost everything in this life...Our mates, friends clothing, etc.... When we hire someone best suited to a job, or pick our favorite restaurant we are discriminating.....There is nothing wrong with discriminating, in fact it's a virtue.
The problem begins when we discriminate based on race, religion or lack of religion, gender or sexual orientation alone as an employer or a business person who deals with the public .... Disliking some group or belief in and of itself is a free, private point of view, is an inalienable right, but when a prejudice crosses over into actions, (No wedding cake for gays) it denies the rights of others to participate in a free society.
Well stated but it has been explained before, perhaps not as concise.
Except that now the SCOTUS has overstepped its authority to redefine what marriage is, going against the will of the majority.
SCOTUS based its ruling on the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.
How did the over step authority? SCOTUS is to interpret the LAW and decide if it is in conflict with the Constitution. In this case state law(s) were in conflict with the 14th amendment.
To put it bluntly, it's like if I'm a pushover who doesn't say no if someone mistreats me.
Suppose because I don't push for what I want, a kid decides it's acceptable to whack me with wet clothes.
While it is true that I being a person, can either stand up for my rights, or not stand up for them. But that doesn't give another person license to hurt or abuse me. And there are other ways to abuse than whacking me.
Denying jobs to someone to keep them poor means they cannot live their life as desired. Because poverty can essentially create pain for another person, this also qualifies as sociopathic-level harm.
Except that now the SCOTUS has overstepped its authority to redefine what marriage is, going against the will of the majority. That's called tyranny.
Marriage is NOT only a religious contract...A religious marriage is optional, but not a necessity. What about this simple concept are you not understanding?
Incidentally the majority in America have been in favor of same sex marriage for some time now.... You have lost and it's time to stop whining about it.
Marriage is NOT only a religious contract...A religious marriage is optional, but not a necessity. What about this simple concept are you not understanding?
Incidentally the majority in America have been in favor of same sex marriage for some time now.... You have lost and it's time to stop whining about it.
I don't mind the whining so much.
In fact, combined with the impotent bellowing and foot-stomping percussion, it makes for sweet music to my ears.
As it has been pointed out several times. Either he cannot accept it or thinks that only people who agree with him count. In addition rights are never decided by public votes that would be tyranny by the majority. If the Supreme Court has not authority to decide on this case why was it even heard? I don't remember the 4 who voted against it claiming before hand that they did not have the constitutional right to hear it. If the vote had gone the other way would the anti SSM people claim victory and said the SC had ruled and it was final?
If the courts and the governments do not have the right to define what is a marriage within their legal jusisdictions who does? If it is the church which one?
And in almost every instance it's been voted on by the people they have not voted for it.
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.
