If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   News: SCOTUS rules in favor of the little guy. Fark: In a drug case. UltraFark: With Scalia writing the majority opinion. WTFark: And Thomas joining him   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 358
    More: Interesting, U.S. Supreme Court, Florida Supreme Court, UltraFark, detection dog, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, majority opinion, Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Stephen Breyer  
•       •       •

16304 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Mar 2013 at 1:01 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



358 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-27 04:30:31 PM

CruiserTwelve: craig328: We discriminate all the time.  You the place on the job application that asks "have you ever been convicted of a felony"?  That's discrimination and that's entire legal.

Two responses to that. First there's a rational cause for wanting to know if a potential employee is a convicted felon, and second, the constitution applies to the government, not private employers. Since marriage is a government institution, the SCOTUS is currently deciding if discrimination against gay people by denying them the right to marry is consistent with the constitution.

You're arguing a different point. Private companies cannot discriminate against protected classes. That's not what this debate is about.


You mean like Augusta National Golf Club and the Boy and Girl Scouts of America?
 
2013-03-27 04:52:07 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: That felon might steal property, destroy property, or cause injury or death to someone if hired, since the felon has already done it before. I'd hardly call that "discrimination".

Two gay people marrying each other has caused... absolutely nothing negative in the entire course of recorded history.

So tell me, why should they be denied the same rights as everyone else? Answer: you can't. But you don't want them to have those rights because you're a bigoted asshole. You don't HAVE to say any of those words, because your stance and views says them for you. And it's extremely amusing and sad how you insist on trying the "Hurpa derpa doo you such a child because you talk mean to me" method of worming your way out of the debate. Weasel and ooze all you want, the fact oft he matter is you demand the discrimination and oppression of people because they don't meet your ass-backwards farktarded views. If you weren't you wouldn't be supporting denying them basic rights and freedoms that the country was founded upon.

So who's the real child here? At least I'm adult enough to not scream and throw hissy fits because two homos are doing something that has ZERO affect on me and demand they be treated as second-class sub-humans.

 .
If you took even a few minutes time (and possessed the capacity to not act like a raging prick...oh well) and went back and read what I've written, I've injected absolutely zero personal opinion into this.  You're so childish that you simply cannot respond to someone who doesn't agree with you on a basis that doesn't immediately devolve to personal attacks.  Nice personality you have going there, BTW.

I'll say this a third time (just for you pumpkin): everyone has the same rights.  Yes, I know you're far too emotional and intellectually shallow to even consider that objectively for even a moment but, despite your histrionics, it's true.  Gay men can't marry men.  Guess what: neither can straight men.  Gay women can't marry women.  Guess what again: neither can straight women.  There are lots of restrictions on who you can marry and those restrictions apply to everyone, gay or straight.

People love their dogs.  Can't marry them.  People love kids.  Can't marry them either.  People love cheeseburgers.  Nope, can't marry them either.

Your massive failing is equating "but they love them so they should be allowed" with "marriage".  I love my father and my son and my nephews.  Can't marry any of them and it has nothing to do with with whether I'm gay or straight.  I know your tiny little overworked mind won't grasp this but those prohibitions apply to everyone regardless of which hole they prefer to fark.  Gay people in California can have as much consensual sex as they want with whomever they like (minus children and other prohibited classes of people who can't legally give consent).  There's no law against that.  They can live together under the same roof, share bills, fight, argue, make up, go on vacation and even raise kids (if they have them).  There's no law against that there either.  They can even head down to the courthouse and enter into a domestic partnership which, in California, which according to 297.5. (a) of the California Family Code section has:

"the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses. "

...or, in other words, marriage.  What they cannot do is call it marriage because California voters decided to formally and legally define "marriage" as "between a man and a woman".

Yes, you're probably ignorant as a farking post about any and all of that and your ignorance somehow, presumably via the use of "Magic for Idiots", makes me a bigoted asshole for telling you about what the facts of the issue are.  I apologize that being exposed to mature, rational, fact-based and objective thought simply gives you the vapors.  I expect little else on Fark boards anymore but it's still distressing to witness the woefully immature, ignorant and witless foundering in the shallow puddle of fact, logic and dispassionate discourse.

Remember to wait 30 minutes after your cookie before venturing in again.
 
2013-03-27 06:18:43 PM

craig328: Keizer_Ghidorah: That felon might steal property, destroy property, or cause injury or death to someone if hired, since the felon has already done it before. I'd hardly call that "discrimination".

Two gay people marrying each other has caused... absolutely nothing negative in the entire course of recorded history.

So tell me, why should they be denied the same rights as everyone else? Answer: you can't. But you don't want them to have those rights because you're a bigoted asshole. You don't HAVE to say any of those words, because your stance and views says them for you. And it's extremely amusing and sad how you insist on trying the "Hurpa derpa doo you such a child because you talk mean to me" method of worming your way out of the debate. Weasel and ooze all you want, the fact oft he matter is you demand the discrimination and oppression of people because they don't meet your ass-backwards farktarded views. If you weren't you wouldn't be supporting denying them basic rights and freedoms that the country was founded upon.

So who's the real child here? At least I'm adult enough to not scream and throw hissy fits because two homos are doing something that has ZERO affect on me and demand they be treated as second-class sub-humans.
 .
If you took even a few minutes time (and possessed the capacity to not act like a raging prick...oh well) and went back and read what I've written, I've injected absolutely zero personal opinion into this.  You're so childish that you simply cannot respond to someone who doesn't agree with you on a basis that doesn't immediately devolve to personal attacks.  Nice personality you have going there, BTW.

I'll say this a third time (just for you pumpkin): everyone has the same rights.  Yes, I know you're far too emotional and intellectually shallow to even consider that objectively for even a moment but, despite your histrionics, it's true.  Gay men can't marry men.  Guess what: neither can straight men.  Gay women can't marry women.  Gue ...


everyone has the same rights

As long as they marry who you say they should. Just like when interracial marriage was deemed evil and disgusting and against God. And when "Separate but equal" was deemed God's will and the way things shoudl be because people didn't want to be anywhere near those uppity Negros.

I don't have to read the rest of your bullshiat, because that's exactly what it is. America was founded on "All men are created equal". The religious and the bigots can biatch and cry and whine until they're blue in the face, they don't get to deny people from marrying THE CONSENTING ADULTS THAT THEY LOVE using their backwards views and personal opinions. And people like you who support their side are just as bad as they are.
 
2013-03-27 07:45:42 PM

craig328: You mean like Augusta National Golf Club and the Boy and Girl Scouts of America?


What are you talking about? What do those organizations have to do with this issue?
 
2013-03-27 09:11:09 PM

CruiserTwelve: craig328: You mean like Augusta National Golf Club and the Boy and Girl Scouts of America?

What are you talking about? What do those organizations have to do with this issue?


Nothing, which is why he brought them up. When a retarded troll is failing at an argument, clouding the issue and thrashing at unrelated things are acceptable tactics.
 
2013-03-28 12:43:17 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: What's that smell?

"Bullshiat, herp dee derp".

Sorry I don't agree with you or anyone else who says that it's right to deny people the basic rights and freedoms everyone else gets because Christians and retards hate them for loving people of the same gender. Comparing it to bestiality was also quite the dipshiat move.



My reply.

You misinterpreted it.

/What else?
 
2013-03-28 02:36:59 AM

Amos Quito: Keizer_Ghidorah: What's that smell?

"Bullshiat, herp dee derp".

Sorry I don't agree with you or anyone else who says that it's right to deny people the basic rights and freedoms everyone else gets because Christians and retards hate them for loving people of the same gender. Comparing it to bestiality was also quite the dipshiat move.

My reply.

You misinterpreted it.

/What else?


Sorry, craig328 had pissed me off. You good kid.
 
2013-03-30 12:27:45 AM

kindms: Kittypie070: elvindeath: Newsflash, folks ... both Scalia and Thomas are generally very critical of the government attempting to expand it's powers, especially when it comes to property rights and infringing on individual freedoms.  The alignment of the Justices is not surprising at all.  All the same hacks expressing shock at "conservative" justices supporting the rights of the individual ought to be in total outrage at the "liberal" administration's position that they can drone strike an American citizen A PROVEN TRAITOR AND TERRORIST without warrant, search or trial.

Fixed, for the pro-terrorist Islam-licker.

Oh really ? LOUD NOISES!!


Look, motherfarker, I listened to eight farking years of hysterical screaming about Islam-ism of any kind whatsoever being the mark of an incorrigibly dyed in the wool bone-deep terrorist.

It's so convenient that you're arguing for the precious precious rights of someone who turned his coat against his country and went all Durka Durka Jihad Mohammed.

You are NOT permitted to change your mind EVER once your holy right wing media masters have made it up for you.
 
Displayed 8 of 358 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report