Started By
Message
re: Mississippi Senate Passes a Bill that Makes Us Look Even Worse
Posted on 3/3/14 at 12:02 pm to heartbreakTiger
Posted on 3/3/14 at 12:02 pm to heartbreakTiger
quote:
churches can have marriages, the gov can call them civil unions and still offer all the benefits of what were once called marriages.
This would make sense.
2
Posted on 3/3/14 at 12:04 pm to UMTigerRebel
it would but gays wont accept that, even though they have stated they just want all the benefits that married couples receive like tax breaks, and the hospital visitation stuff
Posted on 3/3/14 at 12:04 pm to Anthony_Pel_Davis
lol mississippi
and it should be 100% illegal to turn away business because of someone's sexuality. i understand not wanting to "over-legislate," but this is a society, and we do need laws.
and it should be 100% illegal to turn away business because of someone's sexuality. i understand not wanting to "over-legislate," but this is a society, and we do need laws.
Posted on 3/3/14 at 12:06 pm to The White Lobster
quote:
and it should be 100% illegal to turn away business because of someone's sexuality
Why? Unless the Govt. holds shares in said business, they should have little control.
Posted on 3/3/14 at 12:06 pm to heartbreakTiger
quote:
it would but gays wont accept that
Let's be honest, hard religious conservatives won't accept it either because it recognizes a union between a couple who isn't a man/woman married "by God". They got rid of common law marriages here in Kentucky at the same time they signed in a gay marriage ban.
Lots of fail to go around.
Posted on 3/3/14 at 12:08 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
They got rid of common law marriages here in Kentucky at the same time they signed in a gay marriage ban
Covering all the bases there.
Posted on 3/3/14 at 12:10 pm to pankReb
should a public business be able to turn someone away because they are black? there's a big snowball effect here
it's one thing if it's a private organization, but for public business, it shouldn't be legal
if you want to have a rule banning gay pda in your restaurant, whatever
it's one thing if it's a private organization, but for public business, it shouldn't be legal
if you want to have a rule banning gay pda in your restaurant, whatever
Posted on 3/3/14 at 12:10 pm to heartbreakTiger
quote:
it would but gays wont accept that, even though they have stated they just want all the benefits that married couples receive like tax breaks, and the hospital visitation stuff
Can you point me to a time where this compromise was offered to gays and they weren't happy with it?
Posted on 3/3/14 at 12:13 pm to heartbreakTiger
quote:
I fricking hate fat people and poor people but their cash is just as good as everyone else
Nope.
Posted on 3/3/14 at 12:14 pm to The White Lobster
quote:
should a public business be able to turn someone away because they are black? there's a big snowball effect here
well...we aren't talking about public businesses. We're talking about private businesses.
Posted on 3/3/14 at 12:17 pm to The White Lobster
quote:
if you want to have a rule banning gay pda in your restaurant, whatever
All PDA should be banned in restaurants. Gay or straight.
Posted on 3/3/14 at 12:18 pm to The White Lobster
quote:
it's one thing if it's a private organization, but for public business, it shouldn't be legal
If they're not accepting government money then I don't see what the issue is honestly.
FWIW, I'd agree with you if we were in a time and age where I didn't think society would police itself where "discrimination" is involved. As I said earlier, the public pressuring someone like Augusta National to accept female members is probably a good example of how we can.
I think you'll find good majority of businesses will find that discriminating against someone based on sex, race, etc is bad business. And costly to do so.
Posted on 3/3/14 at 12:18 pm to CatFan81
quote:
All PDA should be banned in restaurants. Gay or straight.
This.
Posted on 3/3/14 at 12:18 pm to pankReb
A private business that receives no government funding or subsidies absolutely should be able to serve whoever they want.
Government sponsored discrimination in the public sector is what is wrong. Allowing all people, no matter their race, sexuality, gender, etc who own a private business to discriminate should be fine.
At least in this case, you would know for certain who is bigoted, and avoid their business if you disagree with their views. If everyone is forced to serve everyone, you could very well be financially supporting a bigoted person that hates you without knowing it.
Government sponsored discrimination in the public sector is what is wrong. Allowing all people, no matter their race, sexuality, gender, etc who own a private business to discriminate should be fine.
At least in this case, you would know for certain who is bigoted, and avoid their business if you disagree with their views. If everyone is forced to serve everyone, you could very well be financially supporting a bigoted person that hates you without knowing it.
Posted on 3/3/14 at 12:18 pm to pankReb
like banks, clubs, etc.?
or restaurants, apartment complexes, etc.?
or restaurants, apartment complexes, etc.?
Posted on 3/3/14 at 12:19 pm to CatFan81
quote:
All PDA should be banned in restaurants. Gay or straight.
Along with single couples sitting on the same side of the booth.
Posted on 3/3/14 at 12:20 pm to BluegrassBelle
i have no problem with the president of chickfila using his personal money to support 'family' causes or whatever
but if chickfila refused service to someone because they are gay, that is very stupid and should be illegal imo
but if chickfila refused service to someone because they are gay, that is very stupid and should be illegal imo
Posted on 3/3/14 at 12:22 pm to UMTigerRebel
I really don't care on this issue one way or the other but please someone tell me what right the government has telling someone/anyone who they can or can't serve at their own business?
Posted on 3/3/14 at 12:22 pm to The White Lobster
quote:
chickfila refused service to someone because they are gay, that is very stupid and should be illegal imo
They're a private company. If they don't want men getting glitter on their chicken then that is up to them
Posted on 3/3/14 at 12:23 pm to The White Lobster
quote:
have no problem with the president of chickfila using his personal money to support 'family' causes or whatever
but if chickfila refused service to someone because they are gay, that is very stupid and should be illegal imo
I disagree.
If they're not accepting government money then they should allow whomever they want. On the flipside of that they should also be willing to accept the backlash they'll get, especially financial, if they were to do so.
But let's be honest here. How exactly are they going to determine that someone is gay to deny them services? Even my gaydar gets deceived now and again.
This post was edited on 3/3/14 at 12:24 pm
Page 4 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News