OT - Nets sign Jason Collins.

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
A nice gesture.

jason-collins-matthew-shepard.jpg
 
Last edited:
Denny Crane said:
The republican governor of AZ vetoed the bill.

A number of republicans that passed it went to her office and begged her to veto it, that their votes were a big mistake.
Click to expand...

Three Republicans changed their positions after the vote. Articles said nothing about begging.
 
In response to the three questions:

A business owned by an obervant Jew would not be open on Shabbat. This is a matter of personal faith and not discrimination. Businesses may choose to close on a given day for religious or personal reasons. Few businesses are open Dec. 25, for example. It's only an issue if, say, a business says they will deliver to straights but not gays, or to whites but not blacks, etc. The closed Jewish business is equally closed to all potential customers (as would be a Muslim owned business on Friday or Christian owned business on Sunday) so there is no discrmination.

Would a Muslim cab driver be required to allow a seeing eye dog? Absolutely. By law service dogs must be allowed anyplace their human is allowed, including places like food stores or restaurants where normally dogs are not allowed. These dogs are very well trained and don't relieve themselves in improper places. To refuse to allow a person with a service dog into a taxi or anywhere else absolutely is discriminatory, not against dogs (dogs legally have no civil rights) but against people with disability, a protected class under federal and many state laws.

Could a gay business refuse to print flyers for Westboro Baptist? A bit gray. If the business refused to print flyers for Christians generally or for Baptists specifically that would be considered an act of illegal discrimination. But if a business (gay owned, straight owned, or whatever) declined to print political materials for a political event (like a picket or demonstration) they opposed, it probably would be legal in most states. Some states prohibit employment discrimination based on political affiliation, but I don't know of any (I may be wrong) requiring a business to supply service for politics they disagree with. Public services are different; the Post Office may not refuse to mail the material, for example, and police must provide protection. (Under Arizona's defeated bill, there would be no such requirement for service to gays.) I just reaq about a woman who declined to make a wedding cake with a hunting theme, due to her animal rights beliefs. So far as I know there is no legal issue.

Funny, whenever I conflate "Christian" with "antigay bigot" someone always tells me that not all Christians are antigay bigots, but in this thread we hear gays are trying to shut down "Christian" businesses. The majority of businesses in America are owned or managed by Christians. Gays are not trying to shut them down.

As to it being so evil and unfair to "make" a bakery make a cake - which after all is what they are in business to do - a poster summarized law on who could be admitted to restaurants (or excluded) and this is generally correct for American business. A bakery could also be legally shut down if they refused to provide the cake for an interracial marriage. Or a marriage between senior citizens, or people with disabilities. Because there is NO LEGAL RIGHT TO DISCRMINATE (except against gays, legal in 39 states) based on race, religion, age, disability, sex. You may think the students who sat in on lunch counters were wrong and the restaurants with white only signs were right, but history passed you by half a century ago.

As to why a same sex couple would go to a bakery, florist et al that hated gays, well, in cities there are lots of options, but in small communities there may be only one bakery in town that does wedding cakes. I doubt, frankly, that these couples went out of their way to seek businesses that would insult them while they planned their special day.

As to Jason Collins - I'm so glad he's not a Laker!

P.S. A sportswriter in today's SF Chronicle pointed out that if Michael Sam was drafted, and his team played in the upcoming Phoenix Super Bowl, the law that was recently vetoed would have permitted the hotel owner to refuse to rent a room to him. Like Black players in earlier years. I doubt that would happen, it would be phenominally stupid for the business, but legally, yes, it could have happened. And as to the legislators who said they did not know what the bill really said, it was not some 2000 page tome, it was a short bill and the debate in the legislature made it very clear. They just got cold feet after all the protest.
 
crandc said:
In response to the three questions:

A business owned by an obervant Jew would not be open on Shabbat. This is a matter of personal faith and not discrimination. Businesses may choose to close on a given day for religious or personal reasons. Few businesses are open Dec. 25, for example. It's only an issue if, say, a business says they will deliver to straights but not gays, or to whites but not blacks, etc. The closed Jewish business is equally closed to all potential customers (as would be a Muslim owned business on Friday or Christian owned business on Sunday) so there is no discrmination.

Would a Muslim cab driver be required to allow a seeing eye dog? Absolutely. By law service dogs must be allowed anyplace their human is allowed, including places like food stores or restaurants where normally dogs are not allowed. These dogs are very well trained and don't relieve themselves in improper places. To refuse to allow a person with a service dog into a taxi or anywhere else absolutely is discriminatory, not against dogs (dogs legally have no civil rights) but against people with disability, a protected class under federal and many state laws.

Could a gay business refuse to print flyers for Westboro Baptist? A bit gray. If the business refused to print flyers for Christians generally or for Baptists specifically that would be considered an act of illegal discrimination. But if a business (gay owned, straight owned, or whatever) declined to print political materials for a political event (like a picket or demonstration) they opposed, it probably would be legal in most states. Some states prohibit employment discrimination based on political affiliation, but I don't know of any (I may be wrong) requiring a business to supply service for politics they disagree with. Public services are different; the Post Office may not refuse to mail the material, for example, and police must provide protection. (Under Arizona's defeated bill, there would be no such requirement for service to gays.) I just reaq about a woman who declined to make a wedding cake with a hunting theme, due to her animal rights beliefs. So far as I know there is no legal issue.

Funny, whenever I conflate "Christian" with "antigay bigot" someone always tells me that not all Christians are antigay bigots, but in this thread we hear gays are trying to shut down "Christian" businesses. The majority of businesses in America are owned or managed by Christians. Gays are not trying to shut them down.

As to it being so evil and unfair to "make" a bakery make a cake - which after all is what they are in business to do - a poster summarized law on who could be admitted to restaurants (or excluded) and this is generally correct for American business. A bakery could also be legally shut down if they refused to provide the cake for an interracial marriage. Or a marriage between senior citizens, or people with disabilities. Because there is NO LEGAL RIGHT TO DISCRMINATE (except against gays, legal in 39 states) based on race, religion, age, disability, sex. You may think the students who sat in on lunch counters were wrong and the restaurants with white only signs were right, but history passed you by half a century ago.

As to why a same sex couple would go to a bakery, florist et al that hated gays, well, in cities there are lots of options, but in small communities there may be only one bakery in town that does wedding cakes. I doubt, frankly, that these couples went out of their way to seek businesses that would insult them while they planned their special day.

As to Jason Collins - I'm so glad he's not a Laker!

P.S. A sportswriter in today's SF Chronicle pointed out that if Michael Sam was drafted, and his team played in the upcoming Phoenix Super Bowl, the law that was recently vetoed would have permitted the hotel owner to refuse to rent a room to him. Like Black players in earlier years. I doubt that would happen, it would be phenominally stupid for the business, but legally, yes, it could have happened. And as to the legislators who said they did not know what the bill really said, it was not some 2000 page tome, it was a short bill and the debate in the legislature made it very clear. They just got cold feet after all the protest.
Click to expand...

Nice to see you creating straw men to try to make your argument.

As for the case to which I referred in Colorado, there are plenty of choices to have a cake decorated in Denver, CO. It's a metro area of over three million people. Masterpiece CakeShop was chosen for a reason.
 
Just to stir the pot--why is it I do not hear much about how this is biological, and not a choice, when in this case we have identical twins and one is gay and one is not?
 
Reep said:
Just to stir the pot--why is it I do not hear much about how this is biological, and not a choice, when in this case we have identical twins and one is gay and one is not?
Click to expand...

To me, nature or nurture doesn't matter. We should be free to love who we wish, as long as they are consenting and of legal age.
 
maxiep said:
To me, nature or nurture doesn't matter. We should be free to love who we wish, as long as they are consenting and of legal age.
Click to expand...

I agree. That's why banning marriages between brother and sister, or allowing multiple wives or husbands, is discriminatory as well. What does it matter, really?
 
Reep said:
Just to stir the pot--why is it I do not hear much about how this is biological, and not a choice, when in this case we have identical twins and one is gay and one is not?
Click to expand...
Who the fuck knows and who knows if his brother isn't a closet case? If he chose to be gay or just is gay he is alright with me. If some homophobe baker doesn't wanna take money from gays I am sure someone will step in and fill the void in the market. I really am starting to get irritated by how much time our society is wasting on this issue. When I head into Las Vegas I see a homeless vet every time. Just one of the many things we could address if we just gave gays the equality they deserve and moved past it.
 
PapaG said:
I agree. That's why banning marriages between brother and sister, or allowing multiple wives or husbands, is discriminatory as well. What does it matter, really?
Click to expand...
If a guy wants to have 5 wives more power to him. If a guy wants to marry his sister she better be super frigging hot. There are plenty of women who aren't your sister so I don't get it but whatever.
 
PapaG said:
I agree. That's why banning marriages between brother and sister, or allowing multiple wives or husbands, is discriminatory as well. What does it matter, really?
Click to expand...

You sound jelly you've never had 2 chicks at the same time. If only you had a million dollars...
 
rasheedfan2005 said:
You sound jelly you've never had 2 chicks at the same time. If only you had a million dollars...
Click to expand...

You obviously have never been a hippie. All it costs is a joint, and usually you're not the one providing it.
 
PapaG said:
I agree. That's why banning marriages between brother and sister, or allowing multiple wives or husbands, is discriminatory as well. What does it matter, really?
Click to expand...

Well, the real big argument that could be made against incestual relationships is the possibility for genetic defects, but if a brother and sister want to do it, that's their call. Plenty of "normal" parents that fuck up their kids legally.
 
I can't wait until this political agenda goes away like bell-bottoms did. 6% of the population should not affect 100% of the population to this degree.
 
The Equal Opportunity Commission has a regulation that a reasonable percentage of this board's employees and volunteers has to represent all sexual orientations. Who is it? And why does he call himself Sly?
 
Natebishop3 said:
Well, the real big argument that could be made against incestual relationships is the possibility for genetic defects, but if a brother and sister want to do it, that's their call. Plenty of "normal" parents that fuck up their kids legally.
Click to expand...

Is this discussion really happening? Since when did two -wrongs make something right?
 
HonestFan, on this board you have to adapt humor instead of straight arrowness. Just to loosen up, why don't you practice by writing long posts advocating doing it with cows. These are the skills you need to develop here.
 
jlprk said:
HonestFan, on this board you have to adapt humor instead of straight arrowness. Just to loosen up, why don't you practice by writing long posts advocating doing it with cows. These are the skills you need to develop here.
Click to expand...

Okay, here I go.

MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

How did I do? LOL
 
That was better than I expected. Okay now baaa like a sheep.
 
jlprk said:
That was better than I expected. Okay now baaa like a sheep.
Click to expand...

Oaky - Just remember that this is my first time.......

BAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Lol.

Well, I guess we can work on that.....lol
 
Great! Anyway, posting here is a trip, so be ready for these guys.
 
Identical twins share DNA but are not totally identical. What makes people straight is undetermined, not just genetic component but heterosexuality may also be correlated to uterine environment which can vary slightly in multiple births. Hell, I sure don't know why anyone is hetero. Why would someone choose such a lifestyle, correlated with divorce, sexual assault, unwanted pregnancy and all the other evils of heterosexual relationships?

I notice maxiep conveniently ignored previous post, just said "straw man", whatever that means. Actually I think the three questions posed were straw people as they have nothing to do with discriminatory policies.

Are there any straw women?
 
crandc said:
Hell, I sure don't know why anyone is hetero. Why would someone choose such a lifestyle, correlated with divorce, sexual assault, unwanted pregnancy and all the other evils of heterosexual relationships?
Click to expand...

Because homosexual marriages never end in divorce? And there have never been examples of homosexual assault????
 
Reep said:
Because homosexual marriages never end in divorce? And there have never been examples of homosexual assault????
Click to expand...

Exactly, which is why nobody would choose to be homosexual. The ROI is just not good. Choosing to be anything in regards to sexuality is basically a losing bet. Especially if you're a lady.
 
It might surprise some of you that I actually have some gay friends and recently hired a gay man who reports to me at work--because he was the best person to do the job. I personally think marriage (hetero and homo) should not be part of government. What bothers me is when heterophobes show such a lack of tolerance of others viewpoints by militantly attacking their businesses and personal lives because they have some kind of need to be accepted. I have no such expectation of being accepted by everyone--it just isn't realistic.

And if you don't know what a heterophobe is, then I have never heard a better example:
Hell, I sure don't know why anyone is hetero. Why would someone choose such a lifestyle, correlated with divorce, sexual assault, unwanted pregnancy and all the other evils of heterosexual relationships?
Click to expand...

I do not believe all gay people think like this though. So, contrary to the customary misuse of the phrase "homophobe" I believe only a minority GLBT people are actually scared of heterosexuality.
 
Reep said:
Because homosexual marriages never end in divorce? And there have never been examples of homosexual assault????
Click to expand...

Dude. Sarcasm. Play on idiots saying we "choose" to be gay or focusing on "why are some people gay?" You could just as easily ask "why are some people straight".

Sigh. Sometimes you really do have to explain everything in words of one syllable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

truebluefan
Nets sign Jason Collins again
Replies
0
Views
442
truebluefan
truebluefan
truebluefan
Jason Collins staying with Nets
Replies
0
Views
390
truebluefan
truebluefan
Rick2583
OT: Pointing fingers
6 7 8
Replies
214
Views
18K
Hammerojustice
Hammerojustice
SlyPokerDog
OT Putin ‘to undergo cancer operation and hand power to hardline ex-spy chief’, says ‘Kremlin insider’
Replies
16
Views
733
Phatguysrule
Phatguysrule
SlyPokerDog
Politics Bill O'Reilly says Putin is killer, Trump defends, says so are we, now Russia demanding apology
Replies
13
Views
2K
rasheedfan2005
rasheedfan2005

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top