| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
remedium
United States939 Posts
On July 27 2012 10:23 jpak wrote: The better protest would've been for the people of Boston to boycott the franchise once it opens there. http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-29/business/31107610_1_student-feedback-student-center-lesbian Crazy college kids, jumpin' the gun with their protests. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 27 2012 12:46 reincremate wrote: He's clearly just using the whole intolerance for bigotry thing as a pretense for banning delicious food and furthering the fascist leftist agenda. Sometimes it's hard to tell if it's a caricature because some people (somehow) actually think like that ^^. Had to read 3 times to be sure. | ||
|
dotHead
United States233 Posts
| ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On July 27 2012 13:30 dotHead wrote: Everyone is mad at this company because they gave money to a company that is against gay marriage, and the owner said he was against gay marriage? Since the Federal government is against gay marriage, by paying taxes are't you too giving money to an organization that is against gay marriage? A Government where "most" of the leaders have said they were against it? Trouble is, you don't actually have the legal power or authority to refuse to pay taxes, you don't really have a choice in the matter. All you can do is vote for someone else. | ||
|
Lockitupv2
United States496 Posts
Ban withdrew, it wouldnt hold in court anyway. If the reverse happened you all would be crying so be happy. | ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
On July 27 2012 13:31 Whitewing wrote: Trouble is, you don't actually have the legal power or authority to refuse to pay taxes, you don't really have a choice in the matter. All you can do is vote for someone else. The point of being outraged isn't about logic. It's about being morally superior and indulging in socially approved hate. | ||
|
Smat
United States301 Posts
On July 27 2012 14:02 dvorakftw wrote: The point of being outraged isn't about logic. It's about being morally superior and indulging in socially approved hate. lol I bet the first civil rights activists felt morally superior as fuck, and they would be justified in that feeling. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 27 2012 13:30 dotHead wrote: Everyone is mad at this company because they gave money to a company that is against gay marriage, and the owner said he was against gay marriage? Since the Federal government is against gay marriage, by paying taxes are't you too giving money to an organization that is against gay marriage? A Government where "most" of the leaders have said they were against it? The federal government is technically "against" same sex marriages. That is true. The owner of Chick-fil-a and the groups that the chain supports are anti-gay. That goes much deeper and is, to my eye, it's much more immoral than the non-recognition of same-sex marriage. Not to mention, LGBT rights are a progression thing. The pressure from various human rights lobbies is increasing, and the notion of equality is getting stronger everyday. Old intolerant bastards will die off sooner or later, and then all this good shit will pass. Those fine folk will receive the freedoms, the respect and the recognition that they deserve. | ||
|
Flyingdutchman
Netherlands858 Posts
| ||
|
Arunu
Netherlands111 Posts
This returning discussion is hard not to get worked up about. Marriage predates christianity by a large margin, it is NOT a religious construct. Being against gay marriage is not a political view, it is a religious view. Separation of church and state says religous views should not affect the matters of state. Asof now in America this is not the case (same holds true for many, many countries still ), gay people are being " oppressed" on religous notions. They should always be allowed to marry before the state, the church can deny them based on their views but not the state. plain and simple. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8120 Posts
On July 27 2012 13:43 Lockitupv2 wrote: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1061148850&srvc=rss Ban withdrew, it wouldnt hold in court anyway. If the reverse happened you all would be crying so be happy. Just out of curiosity, what exactly would the "reverse" be? | ||
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On July 27 2012 19:49 Excludos wrote: Just out of curiosity, what exactly would the "reverse" be? A city in an area that is anti-gay marriage banning a pro-gay marriage business. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8120 Posts
On July 27 2012 19:53 Myles wrote: A city in an area that is anti-gay marriage banning a pro-gay marriage business. That makes sense. I was thinking a business banning an anti gay mayor.. It's early over here  I would probably make a lot more noise about that, considering my personal views. But its actually the exact same thing. If a pro-gay company where to open a business in the middle of Kansas, it would have the same outcry from the local populace. | ||
|
airtown
United States410 Posts
It doesn't make sense for Boston to try to prevent Chick-fil-A from opening a store in its city in the same way it wouldn't make sense for West Virginia to stop a person who favors a carbon tax from opening a business in the state. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
Jeff Bezos, the billionaire founder of Amazon.com, and his wife, MacKenzie, have agreed to donate $2.5 million to help pass a same-sex marriage referendum in Washington State, instantly becoming among the largest financial backers of gay marriage rights in the country. With the gift, the couple have doubled the money available to the proponents of Referendum 74, which would legalize same-sex marriage in the state by affirming a law that passed the Legislature this year. Courts or lawmakers have declared gay marriage legal in six other states, but backers of such measures have never succeeded at the ballot box. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/amazons-founder-pledges-2-5-million-in-support-of-same-sex-marriage/ | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
On July 27 2012 19:09 Arunu wrote: This returning discussion is hard not to get worked up about. Marriage predates christianity by a large margin, it is NOT a religious construct. While I'm definitely on your side in this argument, my devil's advocate (and unfortunate childhood in a Christian school) requires me to point out a couple of things: 1. For a religious person, nothing predates religion, since God created the world we live in and everything unfolds according to his will. 2. Even though historically I'm sure you are correct, marriage has always traditionally been between a man and a woman, so it's not like Christianity changed any of that. It's changing now, and that scares fundamentalists. Of course, I'd say that if God invented marriage, that means he also invented gays, and he'd want them to have all the same rights that we have, but hey. | ||
|
AlgeriaT
Sweden2197 Posts
Here are some topics covered in the show (there are many more juicy bits on the list): Roleplaying games are evil Abortion is evil Creationism is cool Even though I'd like to, I'd probably hold off on banning something like this from my city as mayor, given the ethical intricacies of the matter and the risk of stepping on religious freedom. I would however require Chick-Fil-A to register openly as a branch of a religious denomination, else would they please get the fuck out of my city. Pushing religion on people, especially kids, is bad enough as it is. Doing it covertly is downright disgusting. There should be a law regarding transparency of religious denominations and their practices, especially their communication with children. Something like the warning sign on cigarettes, for example "THIS COMPANY SUPPORTS FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN VALUES" printed in red on the street signs, doors and fucking children's meals of a restaurant chain like Chick-Fil-A. | ||
|
NEEDZMOAR
Sweden1277 Posts
On July 26 2012 23:58 Felnarion wrote: Well, the idea is that anti-black marriage wouldn't be the same thing. If marriage is between a man and a woman, which is debatable, but the contentious point: then it shouldn't matter if they're black, or asian, white, whatever. Anti-black marriage would be appalling because it would be considering blacks as not "man and woman." Gay and lesbian marriage, however, is different. Most people against gay marriage who I speak to (from Georgia) would be perfectly okay with another type of union between them, provided it isn't called marriage. So in this case, it's simply trying to get exclusivity over the term. Not that lesbian and gays aren't "men and women" just that they don't fit the traditional model of "marriage" specifically. Whether this is wrong or not is to personal opinion. I just don't like the comparisons between blacks and gays in this way. Their fights are different. no they are not? I dont understand your point at all, both are dscriminated minorities, how is one different from another? now why homosexuals would even want to get married into a religion that preaches about their actions will make them burn in hell is a different question :F | ||
|
NEEDZMOAR
Sweden1277 Posts
On July 26 2012 06:05 KwarK wrote: If someone openly politicises their company by taking a corporate stance on issues like this then they invite a broader social referendum on their operation. Whether or not it is the prerogative of the mayor to make that decision is another question but I have no problem with a company going "this is what we stand for" and a city going "we don't want what you stand for". If they stood just for good chicken then they wouldn't be having this problem. this is so true! | ||
|
Arunu
Netherlands111 Posts
On July 27 2012 20:43 Cel.erity wrote: While I'm definitely on your side in this argument, my devil's advocate (and unfortunate childhood in a Christian school) requires me to point out a couple of things: 1. For a religious person, nothing predates religion, since God created the world we live in and everything unfolds according to his will. 2. Even though historically I'm sure you are correct, marriage has always traditionally been between a man and a woman, so it's not like Christianity changed any of that. It's changing now, and that scares fundamentalists. Of course, I'd say that if God invented marriage, that means he also invented gays, and he'd want them to have all the same rights that we have, but hey. Hrm, i'll give you that on the traditional part. And more so, i like your argument after that hehe. Must admit that i sometimes have a hard time staying reasonable on this one. I just can't for the life of me understand what is wrong with same sex marriage. We all seek happiness in our lives, why should i deny anyone this on an ancient notion. I understand that the ancient notion was man-woman in the bible. Times change, we don't follow the bibles "tradition" to stone people either anymore. Nor to sacrifice their first born sons. (exxagarated yes for emphasis) Again, as it is in the Netherlands at the moment, priests have the right to refuse to marry same sex couples. These couples can then search for a priest that doesn't mind marrying them in church. The state does not have the right to refuse them, as it should be. | ||
| ||
|
|
|
EPT
