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.
Jester...tell that to Wal-Mart who for decades has tried to enter the NYC market. And stop saying subjection! It is subjugation! It is precisely what Chik-fil-a is doing by supporting organizations and lobbyists to maintain heterosexuals as the only ones legally able to marry.
Stop making up rules and allegations about what can and cannot happen....forest hills had it right...and the supreme court will take it up and make the decision. And they will have to support marriage for same gender couples otherwise they would be supporting discrimination based on sexual orientation..it's clear cut...and it's coming.
The United States is also a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ie UN covenant on civil rights) which explicitly in writing recognizes the right to marriage.
The supreme court has made judgements on marriage on a number of occations.
You are correct, I retract my statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SobroGuy
Jester...tell that to Wal-Mart who for decades has tried to enter the NYC market.
The Wal-Mart issue is a zoning issue that applies to all big-box stores, not just Wal-Mart. The media has just focused on Wal-Mart because they're the most recognizable name in big-box stores. The large stores that are here (Home-Depot, Target, etc.) have had to get around zoning restrictions by squeezing into much smaller spaces than they are accustomed to occupying or putting most of their floor-space in the basement. Wal-Mart is welcome to come if they do that as well, they just don't want to. There's no discrimination on political or religious grounds happening there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forest_Hills_Daddy
The United States is also a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ie UN covenant on civil rights) which explicitly in writing recognizes the right to marriage.
The ICCPR has essentially zero relevance in the United States. In this country the Constitution is the highest law anyway, no matter what a UN treaty says.
"Thus while the ICCPR is ostensibly binding upon the United States as a matter of international law, it does not form part of the domestic law of the nation... Indeed, the United States has not accepted a single international obligation required under the Covenant. It has not changed its domestic law to conform with the strictures of the Covenant."
I'm not gay nor do I support this boycott. I think Chick-Fil-A is being censored by these politicians trying to stop franchises being established in their cities. I'm just wondering why are these people who are standing by Chick-Fil-A expecting gay people (and straights) to go and spend money at their store. I won't go there because I don't eat fast food. If people won't to go there and clog up their arteries with such crappy and unhealthy food, be my guest.
Whether or not the ICCPR is superceded by the constitution is beside the point, notwithstanding the fact that the US government signed it and therefore supports it (otherwise, why sign it?). The question is whether there is such a thing as a right to marriage. The ICCPR states that there is and this was signed by the US on behalf of the American people. The constitution is, at best, silent on the matter even though subsequent rulings by the supreme court have affirmed that marriage is a right.
Whether or not the ICCPR is superceded by the constitution is beside the point, notwithstanding the fact that the US government signed it and therefore supports it (otherwise, why sign it?). The question is whether there is such a thing as a right to marriage. The ICCPR states that there is and this was signed by the US on behalf of the American people. The constitution is, at best, silent on the matter even though subsequent rulings by the supreme court have affirmed that marriage is a right.
The supreme court does not issue laws. The the constitution doesn't mention marriage, it's up to the state to legislate that as they see fit, not the supreme court- they just interpret the law.
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.
