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.

(CNN) NewsFlash Percentage of things coming out of Texas that are steers drops sharply   (cnn.com) divider line 478
    More: NewsFlash, Texas, opponents of same-sex marriage, federal courts  
•       •       •

22966 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Feb 2014 at 3:38 PM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-26 05:32:07 PM

jst3p: Trik: the decision is counter intuitive
the nation was founded on freedom or religious belief
the photographer was forced to violate his

No he wasn't. He could have shut down his business. No one is forced to run a business and open their doors to the public. Once you do, you have to follow the rules.


The funny part is that if the photographer really did render services rather than shut down his business, his religious beliefs must not be all that important to him.

"I am not going to take your picture because it violates my faith"
"You have to if you want to stay in business"
"OK, I guess money is a good enough reason to take actions that violate my deeply held religious beliefs."
 
2014-02-26 05:33:31 PM

Trik: the nation was founded on freedom or religious belief


You do have the freedom of religious belief. You do NOT have the right to write that belief into law.

Read the First Amendment. THE WHOLE THING
 
2014-02-26 05:34:27 PM

great_tigers: So Farkers in Dallas. Is there anything to do here besides dudes?


Yeah, tons. Everything from strip clubs to opera, tex-mex to thai, honky-tonk to jazz. Depends on what you're looking for and how much you want to spend.
 
2014-02-26 05:34:32 PM

Trik: lilplatinum: Trik: I thought I'd bookmarked it but apparently didn't
I forget which state it is but several gay couples sued to force a photographer and a caterer who didn't want to service them because of religious beliefs into having to take them as clients

They sued them because the New Meixco constitution forbids discrimination of sexual orientation, the same reason a minority would sue you if you refused to serve them based on skin color.

the decision is counter intuitive
the nation was founded on freedom or religious belief
the photographer was forced to violate his

They should have just been better than the photographer and moved on to someone who would have appreciated their business
but they had to show him
and force him to spend time in their company


www.amsterdamtrader.com
 
2014-02-26 05:34:44 PM
Luckily Texas don't give a rats ass about federal rulings.
 
2014-02-26 05:36:03 PM

Walliser: Texian: Part of Garcia's ruling: "Equal treatment of all individuals under the law is not merely an aspiration it is a constitutional mandate."

Out-Farking-Standing, Judge! Sound off like you got a pair!

...so how do you feel about progressive income tax? Is tax law not law?


Progressive tax as a factor of personal expenditures and ability to pay is keeping taxes equal under the law.
 
2014-02-26 05:36:27 PM

Trik: jst3p: Trik: eraser8: Trik: goody, another state where gays can bully people who don't want anything to do with them into catering, photographing, etc, etc their weddings and provide and service other aspects of their lives

Are you a troll or are you just stupid?

I thought I'd bookmarked it but apparently didn't
I forget which state it is but several gay couples sued to force a photographer and a caterer who didn't want to service them because of religious beliefs into having to take them as clients

you'd think that having been bullied for decades they'd be more sensitive to others beliefs
but that's not the case
forcing others to do your bidding outweighs all apparently
soon gays will think it's their birthright to have non-gays have sex with them
actors will have to take gay roles
and if you speak out against it you'll be charged with a hate crime

Hey eraser, I am going with stupid.

asinine is forcing your presence onto photographer who doesn't want to be around you

while not actually a sexual assault it violates a persons freedom of choice on a pretty personal level


Bolded is true, but not the point. If you're running a business, you can't deny them based on a minority status that has antidiscrimination laws on the books. You know what you do if you're a business and you want to discriminate?
You make another booking for that day, and call to inform them you can't give them your services that day due to a double booking, and "would you like a refund of your deposit? I can recommend several other businesses that would love to do business with you, etc."

Or you grin and bear it while giving them the desired product, and act like a goddamn professional.
 
2014-02-26 05:39:10 PM

eraser8: CountryClubRepublican: Procreation is the primary purpose of marriage

False.  The primary purpose of marriage has been the protection of property.


That is why I prefer a line marriage
 
2014-02-26 05:39:44 PM
I find it kind of hilarious that this is happening in some of the most conservative states first.

The amount of butthurt must be astronomical.
 
2014-02-26 05:40:55 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: great_tigers: So Farkers in Dallas. Is there anything to do here besides dudes?

Yeah, tons. Everything from strip clubs to opera, tex-mex to thai, honky-tonk to jazz. Depends on what you're looking for and how much you want to spend.


Gay strip clubs?
We know about those opera guys.
Tex-Mex, glad Dallas is open to the interracial thing.
We know about those Thai "ladies".
Honking someone's tonk to jazz? I think your phone autocorrected jizz.

/ I'm juvenile... sorry
 
2014-02-26 05:43:00 PM

Trik: the nation was founded on freedom or religious belief


And when the Mormons argued that very thing in front of the Supreme Court, the Supremes politely explained that "belief" and "action" are two different things, and Thomas Jefferson's off-the-cuff explanation about freedom involving arms and noses has some bearing on the topic.

Short version: if your beliefs require you to do something that is otherwise illegal, or to not do something that is otherwise legal, your beliefs take a backseat to the laws we ALL live under.

Natives don't get to use peyote, despite that being an older religious tradition in America than the Bible. The Quakers got out of the draft, but they couldn't "get out of" 100% of the war effort.

You have the right to believe gays are spawned from Satan's cock, but the second that belief spills over into denying services to a gay person, you've violated the law. Serve everyone, form a private club, or go out of business.

// or deny them service for any reason other than "you're gay/white/disabled"
// there are like 5 suspect classes and like 5 million non-suspect classes
 
2014-02-26 05:43:05 PM

CleanAndPure: UrukHaiGuyz: great_tigers: So Farkers in Dallas. Is there anything to do here besides dudes?

Yeah, tons. Everything from strip clubs to opera, tex-mex to thai, honky-tonk to jazz. Depends on what you're looking for and how much you want to spend.

Gay strip clubs?
We know about those opera guys.
Tex-Mex, glad Dallas is open to the interracial thing.
We know about those Thai "ladies".
Honking someone's tonk to jazz? I think your phone autocorrected jizz.

/ I'm juvenile... sorry


Unfortunately you're also pretty boring.
 
2014-02-26 05:43:24 PM

eraser8: Maul555: That is the most important thing, because you know that the feds wont ever stop pushing for more regulation over Texas

You mean regulations like keeping a fertilizer plant from killing a town?  Those kinds of regulations?

Are those the kinds of regulations you're talking about?  You want to see what lack of regulations looks like? Looks like this:

[abcnews.go.com image 478x269]

[img.gawkerassets.com image 850x478]

[www.bradblog.com image 252x343]

[www.dallasnews.com image 620x408]

But, if I'm mistaken and you're talking about something completely different, what are the regulations you're referring to?

And, explain, specifically, why the regulations are bad.

/full disclosure requires me to admit that I worked in the agency that oversees the Code of Federal Regulations and I understand how regulations actually work


fark off jackass... I am mostly talking about the EPA bullshiat...
 
2014-02-26 05:43:25 PM

CleanAndPure: Tex-Mex, glad Dallas is open to the interracial thing.


We are definitely open to the interracial food.
 
2014-02-26 05:44:32 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Lt. Cheese Weasel: I live in Texas and this gets about a  -1 on my give-a-shiat meter.  I think gays should have the same equal rights as the rest of us to be miserable if that is what they want. Your bedroom is your business.

/but please, do keep the stereotypes up, Drew loves the clicks.

Stereotypes? You guys elected Louis Gohmert and Ted Cruz. Fark off.


img.fark.net

Here ya go.  Even an idiot can use them.
 
2014-02-26 05:44:46 PM

QueenMamaBee: browntimmy: QueenMamaBee:
LGBTQ  Some of them like that label....although none of my gay friends can explain to me what's the difference between G and Q.

It was discussed in a thread a while back and the only explanation I heard was that queer meant people who are gay but don't want to be labeled as gay because they feel they don't fit peoples' perceptions about gay people. So basically, queer is hipster gay.

That would explain one friend's irritation with them.


I rather hope it doesn't, as it's completely wrong.  It's really not that hard to Google if you don't know what a word means.
 
2014-02-26 05:44:50 PM

HaywoodJablonski: I honestly thought we'd be 49th out of 50


I'm legitimately surprised Oregon wasn't, and furthermore, beat Texas regardless.

/Oregon still didn't beat Oklahoma, but no surprise there.
//Seriously, y'all have no idea how backward Oregon is.
 
2014-02-26 05:45:28 PM

LeroyBourne: Well that's surprising.  I wonder if TX will turn into a blue state in my lifetime.


If you flipped TX blue, a Dem candidate could theoretically get to 270 with as little as this:

img.fark.net


Obviously, this is a hypothetical map; I was simply took the 2012 map, added TX, then subtracted as many states as I could while staying above 270.  In reality, any election where TX goes blue will almost surely bring OH, FL, VA, and NV along with it.
 
2014-02-26 05:45:54 PM

Maul555: ark off jackass... I am mostly talking about the EPA bullshiat...


You mean the EPA regulations that could've prevented all of that? THAT bullsh*t?
 
2014-02-26 05:46:43 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Man.

Live in Texas.  Derpers in my office are going to go all herp and derp when they find out about this.


We want video!
 
2014-02-26 05:47:06 PM

eraser8: Maul555: As a San Antonian who doesn't really care if gays marry, and is still gonna vote for Greg Abbot, I am getting a kick...

Why?


My guess is because Abbot his the lesast crazy among the white males running on the GOP primary ballot for governor.  The other white male is SECEDE Kilgore.  The remaining two candidates are women, but they could be seen as secret liberals.
 
2014-02-26 05:47:08 PM

Trik: eraser8: Trik: goody, another state where gays can bully people who don't want anything to do with them into catering, photographing, etc, etc their weddings and provide and service other aspects of their lives

Are you a troll or are you just stupid?

I thought I'd bookmarked it but apparently didn't
I forget which state it is but several gay couples sued to force a photographer and a caterer who didn't want to service them because of religious beliefs into having to take them as clients

you'd think that having been bullied for decades they'd be more sensitive to others beliefs
but that's not the case
forcing others to do your bidding outweighs all apparently
soon gays will think it's their birthright to have non-gays have sex with them
actors will have to take gay roles
and if you speak out against it you'll be charged with a hate crime


This is fantastic stuff.  Over the top, but just credible enough that people aren't sure.  I wonder how many people have a typed out response, and have the mouse hovering over the 'Add comment' button.

My hats off to you, good sir.  Unless I guessed wrong and you are in fact an idiot.
 
2014-02-26 05:47:23 PM
Looks like the tard fled the thread.
 
2014-02-26 05:47:37 PM

QueenMamaBee: LGBTQ  Some of them like that label....although none of my gay friends can explain to me what's the difference between G and Q.


Questioning?  It's the same as undecided.
 
2014-02-26 05:48:22 PM

rkiller1: Let's assume in a few years, all 50 states sanction gay marriage.  I wonder where the next manufactured outrage du jour will emerge?  Back to the abortion debate? The Black-on-Black violence in Africa?


Who can say?  All we know for sure is that your butthurt will be epic and amusing. :)
 
2014-02-26 05:48:28 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: cameroncrazy1984: Lt. Cheese Weasel: I live in Texas and this gets about a  -1 on my give-a-shiat meter.  I think gays should have the same equal rights as the rest of us to be miserable if that is what they want. Your bedroom is your business.

/but please, do keep the stereotypes up, Drew loves the clicks.

Stereotypes? You guys elected Louis Gohmert and Ted Cruz. Fark off.

[img.fark.net image 247x204]

Here ya go.  Even an idiot can use them.


You realize that a roller isn't a brush in any sense of the word, right?
 
2014-02-26 05:48:58 PM

CountryClubRepublican: Procreation is the primary purpose of marriage, but it is not a testable requirement. Since it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, there is no purpose for them marrying. All the other reasons for marrying like inheritance, etc., can be handled legally outside of marriage.


There are 1138 reasons why you are wrong. Marriage provides a huge list of benefits that have nothing to do with children, and there is absolutely no reason except for ignorance and bigotry to deny those to any couple. My wife and I don't have children. We may never have children. We didn't get married for children, we got married for each other.

Couples who are infertile get married all the time, and preventing infertile couples from marrying is clearly unconstitutional. The lawyer arguing in favor of Prop 8 admitted that fact during the Supreme Court case, thus nullifying the idea that marriage and having children are inexorably linked.

And just as infertile couples can "procreate" via adoption, in-vitro, or a surrogate, gay couples can do the same thing. We don't object to straight couples using those means to start a family, so why would gay couples be any different? Because the biological parents of a child are far less important than the parents who raise the child. I know plenty of people who would have been better off with zero contact from their biological parents and instead raised by a loving gay couple. And I'm talking about people raised in conservative, Christian homes.

Your ideas are as valid as the anti-miscegenation rhetoric that surrounded Loving v. Virginia. You have all the credibility of a 9/11 truther or someone who believes the moon landings were a hoax. There is more credible evidence that supports the existence of ghosts than there is that supports your ideas.

I hope you and people like you live a long, long life and watch how society doesn't crumble with gay marriage. I hope, in fact, that you see the benefits of gay marriage, how we the people are better off for having it, and that you someday wake up and realize how wrong you were. When that day comes, I will be happy to welcome you into the proud association of people who were once wrong about gay marriage and now realize that it's a good thing.
 
2014-02-26 05:50:28 PM

LeroyBourne: Well that's surprising.  I wonder if TX will turn into a blue state in my lifetime.


It could possibly do that next election the way things are going.  It helps that both major parties are conservative these days.
 
2014-02-26 05:50:28 PM

Praise Cheesus: eraser8: Maul555: As a San Antonian who doesn't really care if gays marry, and is still gonna vote for Greg Abbot, I am getting a kick...

Why?

My guess is because Abbot his the lesast crazy among the white males running on the GOP primary ballot for governor.  The other white male is SECEDE Kilgore.  The remaining two candidates are women, but they could be seen as secret liberals.


BAH GAWD KING, IT'S CHEESUS!  ;D
 
2014-02-26 05:51:22 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: LeroyBourne: Well that's surprising.  I wonder if TX will turn into a blue state in my lifetime.

If you flipped TX blue, a Dem candidate could theoretically get to 270 with as little as this:

[img.fark.net image 778x480]


Obviously, this is a hypothetical map; I was simply took the 2012 map, added TX, then subtracted as many states as I could while staying above 270.  In reality, any election where TX goes blue will almost surely bring OH, FL, VA, and NV along with it.


You know what that map eerily reminds me of?

This one.

www.washingtonpost.com

Yeah, good luck in 2016, GOP.
 
2014-02-26 05:51:23 PM

Maud Dib: Looks like the tard fled the thread.


Hey now! I'm pretty sure tards would take offense to you lumping him with them.
 
2014-02-26 05:52:42 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: LeroyBourne: Well that's surprising.  I wonder if TX will turn into a blue state in my lifetime.

If you flipped TX blue, a Dem candidate could theoretically get to 270 with as little as this:

[img.fark.net image 778x480]


Obviously, this is a hypothetical map; I was simply took the 2012 map, added TX, then subtracted as many states as I could while staying above 270.  In reality, any election where TX goes blue will almost surely bring OH, FL, VA, and NV along with it.


You forgot "Colorado".
 
2014-02-26 05:54:54 PM

PolyHatSnake: So, uh, congrats, I guess. I would identify myself as a hetero Christian, but I remain baffled as to why the government needs to be involved in marriage legality in the first place. Let consenting adults do whatever they want with whoever they want.


There are about a thousand reasons why we need marriage as a legal relationship recognized and protected by the government.
 
2014-02-26 05:54:57 PM

CountryClubRepublican: In terms of marriage, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals because it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, which is the main purpose of marriage.


0/10 on the troll, 9.7 on the logical gymnastics.  It would have been a 10, but it's hard to get a high score out of the Soviet judge.
 
2014-02-26 05:55:00 PM

Maul555: eraser8: Maul555: That is the most important thing, because you know that the feds wont ever stop pushing for more regulation over Texas

You mean regulations like keeping a fertilizer plant from killing a town?  Those kinds of regulations?

Are those the kinds of regulations you're talking about?  You want to see what lack of regulations looks like? Looks like this:

[abcnews.go.com image 478x269]

[img.gawkerassets.com image 850x478]

[www.bradblog.com image 252x343]

[www.dallasnews.com image 620x408]

But, if I'm mistaken and you're talking about something completely different, what are the regulations you're referring to?

And, explain, specifically, why the regulations are bad.

/full disclosure requires me to admit that I worked in the agency that oversees the Code of Federal Regulations and I understand how regulations actually work

fark off jackass... I am mostly talking about the EPA bullshiat...


Hey, jackass:  regulations of chemicals (as in fertilizers) comes under the joint jurisdiction of the EPA and OSHA.

So, explain -- IF YOU CAN -- why regulations that, if followed, would have kept a Texas town from being blown off the map are, somehow, bullshiat.

Explain why regulations are less preferable than this:

global.fncstatic.com

media.oregonlive.com

www.solidarity-us.org

media.lehighvalleylive.com

baylorlariat.com
 
2014-02-26 05:55:01 PM
Right now, approximately 20% of the population of the country lives in states where same sex marriage is recognized. Add Texas in and it's almost 30%. Moving right along now...
 
2014-02-26 05:55:33 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Lt. Cheese Weasel: cameroncrazy1984: Lt. Cheese Weasel: I live in Texas and this gets about a  -1 on my give-a-shiat meter.  I think gays should have the same equal rights as the rest of us to be miserable if that is what they want. Your bedroom is your business.

/but please, do keep the stereotypes up, Drew loves the clicks.

Stereotypes? You guys elected Louis Gohmert and Ted Cruz. Fark off.

[img.fark.net image 247x204]

Here ya go.  Even an idiot can use them.

You realize that a roller isn't a brush in any sense of the word, right?


Seriously, Cameron? You're totally trollin' now.
 
2014-02-26 05:58:12 PM

CountryClubRepublican: riverwalk barfly: CountryClubRepublican: NkThrasher: Quelle surprise.  The 14th amendment exists.

In terms of marriage, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals because it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, which is the main purpose of marriage.

Tell that to my gay friend that fathered a child with a  woman (on purpose) and proceeded to raise his daughter with his gay partner over the last eighteen  years.

/Expanding your views is important.

I think that's great your friend started a family.  Procreation, however, is the genetic material of both parties to the marriage, so this would not be procreation inside a marriage.

Some of the other posters misunderstand the meaning of procreation.  Every heterosexual married couple has the potential for procreation.  Yes, this ability is lost in some people due to age or pathology.  However, there is no reliable test for fertility, and it would be too invasive to make it a requirement for marriage.  There are also Constitutional protections for reproductive privacy, so we could not force people to procreate or proscribe contraception.

Procreation is the primary purpose of marriage, but it is not a testable requirement.  Since it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, there is no purpose for them marrying.  All the other reasons for marrying like inheritance, etc., can be handled legally outside of marriage.

And, since it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, or have the potential for procreation, they are not equal to heterosexuals in marriage.


So, you would be fully supportive of laws banning post menopausal women, or women who have had hysterectomy's, from getting married, even though there is no legal equivalent to the protections offered by marriage?
 
2014-02-26 05:59:08 PM

soporific: CountryClubRepublican: Procreation is the primary purpose of marriage, but it is not a testable requirement. Since it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, there is no purpose for them marrying. All the other reasons for marrying like inheritance, etc., can be handled legally outside of marriage.

There are 1138 reasons why you are wrong. Marriage provides a huge list of benefits that have nothing to do with children, and there is absolutely no reason except for ignorance and bigotry to deny those to any couple. My wife and I don't have children. We may never have children. We didn't get married for children, we got married for each other.

Couples who are infertile get married all the time, and preventing infertile couples from marrying is clearly unconstitutional. The lawyer arguing in favor of Prop 8 admitted that fact during the Supreme Court case, thus nullifying the idea that marriage and having children are inexorably linked.

And just as infertile couples can "procreate" via adoption, in-vitro, or a surrogate, gay couples can do the same thing. We don't object to straight couples using those means to start a family, so why would gay couples be any different? Because the biological parents of a child are far less important than the parents who raise the child. I know plenty of people who would have been better off with zero contact from their biological parents and instead raised by a loving gay couple. And I'm talking about people raised in conservative, Christian homes.

Your ideas are as valid as the anti-miscegenation rhetoric that surrounded Loving v. Virginia. You have all the credibility of a 9/11 truther or someone who believes the moon landings were a hoax. There is more credible evidence that supports the existence of ghosts than there is that supports your ideas.

I hope you and people like you live a long, long life and watch how society doesn't crumble with gay marriage. I hope, in fact, that you see the benefits of gay marriage, how we the ...


img.pandawhale.com
 
2014-02-26 05:59:54 PM

abb3w: So, that's seven dominoes in mid-topple for Virginia, Oklahoma, Ohio, Utah, Kentucky, Nevada, and Texas, plus the 17 where it's outright legal already? Plus the case in Michigan that will probably behave similarly; almost to the halfway mark.


You missed Oregon.
 
2014-02-26 06:01:48 PM

Magorn: //insist I inquire what your "preferred gender pronoun is and I will  make it a point never to need to know because I will never speak to you


www.reactiongifs.us
 
2014-02-26 06:02:01 PM
CountryClubRepublican:  All the other reasons for marrying like inheritance, etc., can be handled legally outside of marriage.


Wrong.

To name but one counter-example: visitation rights in hospitals.   There are approximately a thousand other such reasons.

If you are actually interested in debating the issue rationally, please try to be slightly less misinformed before posting next time.  Much can be learned from a simple Google search.
 
2014-02-26 06:02:23 PM
soporific: Says lots of smart things
not to mention the couples who get married, and then find out they're infertile. What were they supposed to do then? Anull? Have their marriage invalidated?
I mean yeesh.

Personally, I understand why we use the word marriage, but personally I'd rather seperation of church and state that WORD, and just make them all Unions.


And Yay on the judge for use of "equal treatment under the law".
 It's what I said from the very start of all this Prop 8 Bullshiat, and why it never should have passed. And I was in high school at the time. :\
 
2014-02-26 06:03:12 PM

make me some tea: Right now, approximately 20% of the population of the country lives in states where same sex marriage is recognized. Add Texas in and it's almost 30%. Moving right along now...


According to Wiki, 120,856,483 or 38.2% of Americans live in states that embrace marriage equality.  If Texas and the other states that have pro-equality rulings that are not yet in effect were added, more than 50% of Americans would live in pro-equality states.
 
2014-02-26 06:03:46 PM

ariseatex: drumhellar: ariseatex: My partner and I keep trying, but it's just not working!

/if at first you don't succeed...

A FB acquaintance honestly thought that California's update of laws regarding fertility treatment coverage to get rid of certain language that was gender specific or might discriminate against gay people (Which is designed to cover only those that can't conceive naturally) would mean that women having lesbian sex could be construed as honest attempts to conceive naturally.

Hey, this is America, land of innovation.  If two women can work out a way to get one of them pregnant from lesbian sex, more power to them.


www.smbc-comics.com

Be careful what you wish for.
 
2014-02-26 06:04:09 PM

jst3p: jst3p: Trik: the decision is counter intuitive
the nation was founded on freedom or religious belief
the photographer was forced to violate his

No he wasn't. He could have shut down his business. No one is forced to run a business and open their doors to the public. Once you do, you have to follow the rules.

The funny part is that if the photographer really did render services rather than shut down his business, his religious beliefs must not be all that important to him.

"I am not going to take your picture because it violates my faith"
"You have to if you want to stay in business"
"OK, I guess money is a good enough reason to take actions that violate my deeply held religious beliefs."


The Bible promises that you will not be able to do business without taking the mark.

Not saying that this is it, but it is a prophetic certainty that Christians will be forced to set aside their faith.

/wrap your heads around that, atheists
 
2014-02-26 06:05:36 PM

cchris_39: jst3p: jst3p: Trik: the decision is counter intuitive
the nation was founded on freedom or religious belief
the photographer was forced to violate his

No he wasn't. He could have shut down his business. No one is forced to run a business and open their doors to the public. Once you do, you have to follow the rules.

The funny part is that if the photographer really did render services rather than shut down his business, his religious beliefs must not be all that important to him.

"I am not going to take your picture because it violates my faith"
"You have to if you want to stay in business"
"OK, I guess money is a good enough reason to take actions that violate my deeply held religious beliefs."

The Bible promises that you will not be able to do business without taking the mark.

Not saying that this is it, but it is a prophetic certainty that Christians will be forced to set aside their faith.

/wrap your heads around that, atheists


Clarification please?
 
2014-02-26 06:05:59 PM

ciberido: CountryClubRepublican:  All the other reasons for marrying like inheritance, etc., can be handled legally outside of marriage.


Wrong.

To name but one counter-example: visitation rights in hospitals.   There are approximately a thousand other such reasons.


To name a few more: spousal immunity and marital privilege in both criminal and civil cases, the right for veterans and spouses to be buried together in a veteran's cemetery, spousal pension benefits for government employees, immigration rights for spouses, the ability to file taxes jointly, etc.
No contract exists that can provide those rights.
 
2014-02-26 06:06:49 PM

eraser8: Maul555: eraser8: Maul555: That is the most important thing, because you know that the feds wont ever stop pushing for more regulation over Texas

You mean regulations like keeping a fertilizer plant from killing a town?  Those kinds of regulations?

Are those the kinds of regulations you're talking about?  You want to see what lack of regulations looks like? Looks like this:

[abcnews.go.com image 478x269]

[img.gawkerassets.com image 850x478]

[www.bradblog.com image 252x343]

[www.dallasnews.com image 620x408]

But, if I'm mistaken and you're talking about something completely different, what are the regulations you're referring to?

And, explain, specifically, why the regulations are bad.

/full disclosure requires me to admit that I worked in the agency that oversees the Code of Federal Regulations and I understand how regulations actually work

fark off jackass... I am mostly talking about the EPA bullshiat...

Hey, jackass:  regulations of chemicals (as in fertilizers) comes under the joint jurisdiction of the EPA and OSHA.

So, explain -- IF YOU CAN -- why regulations that, if followed, would have kept a Texas town from being blown off the map are, somehow, bullshiat.

Explain why regulations are less preferable than this:

[global.fncstatic.com image 640x360]

[media.oregonlive.com image 850x582]

[www.solidarity-us.org image 654x368]

[media.lehighvalleylive.com image 850x610]

[baylorlariat.com image 850x536]


Maul, you've been pwned.
 
2014-02-26 06:08:02 PM

CountryClubRepublican: riverwalk barfly: CountryClubRepublican: NkThrasher: Quelle surprise.  The 14th amendment exists.

In terms of marriage, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals because it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, which is the main purpose of marriage.

Tell that to my gay friend that fathered a child with a  woman (on purpose) and proceeded to raise his daughter with his gay partner over the last eighteen  years.

/Expanding your views is important.

I think that's great your friend started a family.  Procreation, however, is the genetic material of both parties to the marriage, so this would not be procreation inside a marriage.

Some of the other posters misunderstand the meaning of procreation.  Every heterosexual married couple has the potential for procreation.  Yes, this ability is lost in some people due to age or pathology.  However, there is no reliable test for fertility, and it would be too invasive to make it a requirement for marriage.  There are also Constitutional protections for reproductive privacy, so we could not force people to procreate or proscribe contraception.

Procreation is the primary purpose of marriage, but it is not a testable requirement.  Since it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, there is no purpose for them marrying.  All the other reasons for marrying like inheritance, etc., can be handled legally outside of marriage.

And, since it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, or have the potential for procreation, they are not equal to heterosexuals in marriage.


Ah, this would have been true. Except the laws are written revolving around marriage. Getting married is not a strictly religious thing anymore, it is now a civil thing too. You're free to go make up some other religious ceremony that means the same thing but is specifically only for man+woman.

Funny thing is, that pesky separation of church & state would have prevented the whole mess in FAVOR of religion. If anyone on the religion side had ever bothered to say 'whoa now, these are supposed to be separate boxes!'  Too late now. So sad. They get to go on complaining about how that rule is persecution instead of a two-way deal. Maybe if the religious side stopped trying to shove its dick in the legislative side at every opportunity, then the law wouldn't have chopped it off and kept it.
 
Displayed 50 of 478 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report