I believe the English "faggot" comes from a similar basis.

Jan

You are correct and with the crucial proviso: as long as the government is involved.

The point of commonality (that I think many people have) is to get the gov out of personal decisions. The explicit rules for non-prejudice behavior need to apply to the government, military, judicial, voting, legislative, etc arenas and not the personal ones.

Thank you for being bold enough to support freedom even when it may cause you personal inconvenience.

Jan

Yes! This is the crux of the situation. Since - as khalling says - "no one starts from fundamentals" what we are seeing is an elaboration of personal-case exceptions to various laws.

Of course most gay folks are rational. Of course they have, since they are non-normative, been treated in an unfair manner by society. They do not like it any more than I would or have. (Have I ever told you about not getting my expert ribbon in the USAF?)

As I see it, people should be able to interact with whomever they want, but they should have to abide by the repercussions of their decisions. For example: A baker should not have to let someone who is gay buy stuff at his bakery. But if a major bakery chain is thinking of buying his business, they should be able to find out that this has been the bakery's policy. If the CEO of the big chain is gay, then she should be diss the baker because of his prejudice.

All of this is pretty obvious, and with Yelp and similar apps it certainly be done. (We introduced a S African gentleman to one of our employees - who happened to be big and black - to see if he would shake hands with him - before we would even discuss letting him invest in our company.)

As khalling has so clearly delineated, we have caught ourselves in a morass of special situations instead of clarifying basic rights and freedoms.

Jan

It's (unfortunately) true that a gay couple can force a business to serve them, but the same thing can be said of ANY so-called protected class.

Try refusing service to a black person, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman amd you'll get the same result.

I'm gay and as long as government is involved in marriage then I fully support gay marriage rights. I DON'T believe that any religious organization should be required to recognize it or participate in it.

When it comes to private businesses, they should be free to discriminate against anyone for any reason. The free market will ultimately determine that business' survival.

This small population of gay folks would not even be seen if not for the works of the Liberal Progressives, Cloward and Piven, and Saul Alinsky use of never letting a crisis, perceived or otherwise, go to waste. Several including mamaemma has it correct, USED being the key action. Used by whom well there are many player in that category. Pick one.

Whenever a tiny minority manages to control the majority it is because the majority is so screwed up and its premises are so askew that they can be influenced by an anteater. That's pretty much how Hitler came to power.

It would appear to be a global government movement. The Guardian just reported that it looks like a "yes" is forthcoming from Ireland - making it the first country "to legalise gay marriage via vote."

This is not meant as an indirect refutation of the this possibility...the movement toward globalization is real so this is just an expansion of mamaemma's thought.
.

The problem here is the court not understanding the Constitution. Not a lawyer, and not sure what each court should be using as a basis for judgement (e.g. do lower courts also evaluate constitutionality?) but the law is clearly unconstitutional, and when challenged in that light, it will be overturned.
Hopefully all the people feeling as these people do will support them in this fight, just like the people supporting gay rights.
The definition of marriage is a wholly separate item. I would argue that this belongs 100% as a religious item, and has no place in government at all.
I don't like the outcome of the gay people forcing a business to do anything, but it is a little better than burning gay people at the stake or throwing them in jail (prev. UK). You realize the Italian colloquialism for gay is "finoccio", which is fennel. Why? Because they used to burn gay people, and covered the smell of flesh burning with fennel. Thus, when you smell fennel...it is a gay person being burned.

The point that needs to be made is that diversity in opinion is allowed. The left, just loves to address persecution with persecution, and the right counters with fundamentalist arguments, rather than freedom arguments.

If you re-read what mamaemma stated you will see that she is not laying blame on gay folks. She stated that they are being used. Not mentioning government leaves it up to the reader to decide by whom...one can assume government is implied.

A "WTF" appears to be out of proportion to mamaemma's suggestion.

A gay couple can force a small business to serve them, and thus takes away the right to choose from the owners of that business.

How are these people taking rights away from others?

Tech, I can't tell you how much I hate the feminist movement.

Activists as a general rule, are ALWAYS agitating for special treatment.

They never ask simply for equal treatment, they always want redress for past wrongs. No matter how far in the past the wrongs were...aka slavery reparations.

The single exception to this demand for special treatment up front as a large political movement was women's suffrage.
They realized that getting suffrage would enable them to get anything else they wanted through political means afterward.
So they didn't demand the special treatment during the suffrage fight.
They got themselves declared a minority afterward, despite the fact they are the gender majority, to get special treatment.

What, are they ashamed to be known for their stance? The point is that the government is involved in marriage today and thus the equal treatment by government expectation is quite reasonable. While I agree government *should not* be involved, in fact it is. Thus equality under the law demands that gay couples can also marry. It is really quite open and shut.

Thank you

I didn't blame gay folks; I said the government is using them as an excuse ti shred rights.

Gay activists? You mean like claiming equal rights under law? Everyone that understands liberty should demand that and for everyone.

WTF are you talking about? Government uses any excuse to attack rights. Don't blame gay folks for it.

Hit the nail on the head, right there.

I would like to introduce the possibility that this tiny fraction of the population is being used to shred property rights, etc

You are somewhat restating. Here 's the difference. All muslims, even extremists share a similar code of morality. It affects how they operate in the world baded on Ethics. Gay extremistsare operating from the political realm. Being gay is not a philosophy. I think there 's a huge difference there. I guess we could talk culture and influence and make comparisons but thugs are thugs regardless of their stripes.

wait. A is A. and you cannot conflate sexual orientation with religious affiliation. Religious affiliation is a moral construct. A philosophy. Being gay is not.