login
Boycotting NC (Page 3)
-
No new posts
|
 2016-04-13 3:08 PM in reply to: 0 |
 1502   Katy, Texas |  Subject: RE: Boycotting NCBut again, it is not about having a belief. You can have any belief you want. It is about acting upon it in a way that interferes with someone else rights. A person HAS the right to hold racist beliefs A person DOES NOT have the right to not serve people of a certain race A person HAS the right to believe in Christianity A person DOES NOT have a right to only hire Christians A person HAS the right to not believe that two men should not get married A person DOES NOT have the right to keep them from getting legally married Two men HAVE the right to get married They DO NOT have the right to force a church to accept it I don't understand how this is so complicated Edited by 3mar 2016-04-13 3:11 PM |
| 2016-04-13 3:29 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Pro 9391    Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by 3mar But again, it is not about having a belief. You can have any belief you want. It is about acting upon it in a way that interferes with someone else rights. A person HAS the right to hold racist beliefs A person DOES NOT have the right to not serve people of a certain race A person HAS the right to believe in Christianity A person DOES NOT have a right to only hire Christians A person HAS the right to not believe that two men should not get married A person DOES NOT have the right to keep them from getting legally married Two men HAVE the right to get married They DO NOT have the right to force a church to accept it I don't understand how this is so complicated It's complicated because we have 50% of the country who feel one way and 50% who feel another way on a couple of those. Also, from a legal standpoint you can refuse service for people who are not in a protected class. No shirt, no shoes, no service kind of stuff. With marriage overall, I think it's complicated because the church and the state have been very intertwined when it comes to marriage. Churches think they own it, and even some gay rights groups are fighting for churches to recognize it which as you say is wrong. Personally, I'm ok with the protected class if it's worded right. I also think the government state/federal should get out of the marriage business and just have civil unions for any non related couples who want to for a legal partnership. If an individual wants to have a church commitment ceremony or marriage then by all means. |
| 2016-04-13 3:41 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by 3mar But again, it is not about having a belief. You can have any belief you want. It is about acting upon it in a way that interferes with someone else rights. A person HAS the right to hold racist beliefs A person DOES NOT have the right to not serve people of a certain race A person HAS the right to believe in Christianity A person DOES NOT have a right to only hire Christians A person HAS the right to not believe that two men should not get married A person DOES NOT have the right to keep them from getting legally married Two men HAVE the right to get married They DO NOT have the right to force a church to accept it I don't understand how this is so complicated [/QUOTE I actually think we're pretty much on the same page here. Theres a lot of homophobes using religion as a means to deny gay people access to goods and services. There is no doubt in my mind this is happening. They're hiding behind the Constitution and probably know little else about the document itself. These same people probably still chafe when it comes to letting minorities in their place of business. Still, there's a percentage of these people that actually live their life based on their faith and it's difficult for me to see punishing them when the 1A says they won't be persecuted for their religious views; even if that interpretation can be considered a stretch by many. I just see inconsistencies and flaws in both sides of this issue. Probably 10 percent of the religious ones are making the rest of religion look bad. Probably ten percent of the gay community making the LGBT community look bad. Most people would just say 'eff this idiot' and move to next vendor on the list and most vendors probably just provide the service for which they are in business. That leaves the other 80 percent of us to argue about it on the interwebz... Edited by mdg2003 2016-04-13 3:42 PM |
| 2016-04-13 3:51 PM in reply to: tuwood |
| 1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by tuwood I also think the government state/federal should get out of the marriage business and just have civil unions for any non related couples who want to for a legal partnership. If an individual wants to have a church commitment ceremony or marriage then by all means. Could it be that easy? I'd vote for that. It'd probably make both sides happy. The problem I see is the legal side of things; a gay couple not allowed to be together while one is dying in the hospital, tax benefits, life insurance, health insurance, etc. As far as I'm concerned the term "marriage" is up for each person's interpretation anyway. Are you or I truly married in the eyes of the Islamic faith? No. And that's fine. |
| 2016-04-13 3:59 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
| 1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by Left Brain It is not about holding the beliefs...it is about acting on those beliefs in a way that interferes with others' civil liberties. Christians are allowed to believe homosexuality is a sin if they wish...but they can't discriminate against homosexuals in a way that would infringe on their civil rights. So the reference to boycotting mosques....well, if a Muslim owns a business and refuses to serve homosexuals, then we will boycott those establishments...not the mosques. Nobody is boycotting a church or a belief, they are boycotting using that belief to infringe on the civil liberties of others. That distinction NEEDS to be understood. It is clear that it is not. Originally posted by mdg2003 I think one thing that gets lost in this whole argument is the inconsistencies in who gets boycotted. Without fail, when it comes to dealing with the religious white, BOYCOTT and demand they cede to the wishes of the movement. Other groups? Not so much as a peep. Flash back to 2008 when Prop 8 on the ballot in Cali. That deal got blown out of the water. I didn't hear a word about boycotting California or pulling businesses out. I bet Bruce didn't drop his california concert dates because of the vote. Not a single celeb said 'FTS, I'm moving out of this homophobic state.' Not a single call to boycott black businesses or demand they recind tax exempt status from their churches. Why not? Islamic communities make no bones about their anti gay stand. Where's the drive to change their religious views? Why aren't we boycotting them and picketing mosques? We need to get this mess sorted out, but if we are going to punish those that disagree with us…. let's do it across the board and include everyone. Don't take any shiite off anyone. Boycott everyone and fight each and every case with the same fervor that seems to be reserved just for the religious white. Do it up consistently or accept that the movement will be mired in muck for decades to come. IMO this sentiment will become well known before long. To dismiss it as invalid would be a mistake. That's fine and I'm not saying I disagree.....but increasingly I find myself (in my work) standing between those two sides as the rhetoric and tensions increase. From my interaction with both sides I can easily say that you should not expect that this will just go away......there is a fight of one kind or another coming. Watch and see. 90% of the time on these issues, the two sides aren't even truly arguing against the other, it is just misdirection and misunderstanding. Here is an example of some needless "outrage". There was an incident a couple years ago where a prayer wasn't allowed to be said over the intercom at a public high school football game, yet at the same school Islamic students were allowed a room for prayer. To the outraged, this was a war on Christianity, giving special rights to the Islamic students over the Christians, when in reality, it was the SAME rules being applied to both: A room was available to the Islamic students because it was allowing them a place to practice their religion, without sponsorship or 'establishment' by a public entity. The prayer was not allowed because, it would take a step (or so it was interpreted) toward establishment. Put it simply: An Islamic student group is allowed to have a room to pray or study in. A Christian group is allowed to have a room to pray or study in. An Islamic prayer is not allowed to be broadcast prior to a game. A Christian prayer is not allowed to be broadcast prior to a game. See...same rules. Yet you have a side SCREAMING that it's a war on Christianity by only pointing out the first line of the first rule, and the second line of the second rule. This happens time and time again when people say there is a war on Christianity. It's not a war, you simply get the same rights as anyone else. Deal with it. (this wasn't directed at anyone in particular, it was a generic "you") |
| 2016-04-13 4:22 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by tuwood I also think the government state/federal should get out of the marriage business and just have civil unions for any non related couples who want to for a legal partnership. If an individual wants to have a church commitment ceremony or marriage then by all means. Could it be that easy? I'd vote for that. It'd probably make both sides happy. The problem I see is the legal side of things; a gay couple not allowed to be together while one is dying in the hospital, tax benefits, life insurance, health insurance, etc. As far as I'm concerned the term "marriage" is up for each person's interpretation anyway. Are you or I truly married in the eyes of the Islamic faith? No. And that's fine. I've thought about it quite a bit and I'm sure there's some basic flaws but at a high level I think something like this could work. Obviously you'd have to change all the laws to recognize the same rights as marriage with visitation, death benefits, divorce (can we still call it that), etc. I threw in the "non relative" provision due to a very wealthy elderly gentlemen out in CA, I believe, who "married" his son so that when he dies his son gets his entire fortune tax free. That's obviously a loop hole. (and kind of weird) lol |
| 2016-04-13 4:24 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by Left Brain 90% of the time on these issues, the two sides aren't even truly arguing against the other, it is just misdirection and misunderstanding. Here is an example of some needless "outrage". There was an incident a couple years ago where a prayer wasn't allowed to be said over the intercom at a public high school football game, yet at the same school Islamic students were allowed a room for prayer. To the outraged, this was a war on Christianity, giving special rights to the Islamic students over the Christians, when in reality, it was the SAME rules being applied to both: A room was available to the Islamic students because it was allowing them a place to practice their religion, without sponsorship or 'establishment' by a public entity. The prayer was not allowed because, it would take a step (or so it was interpreted) toward establishment. Put it simply: An Islamic student group is allowed to have a room to pray or study in. A Christian group is allowed to have a room to pray or study in. An Islamic prayer is not allowed to be broadcast prior to a game. A Christian prayer is not allowed to be broadcast prior to a game. See...same rules. Yet you have a side SCREAMING that it's a war on Christianity by only pointing out the first line of the first rule, and the second line of the second rule. This happens time and time again when people say there is a war on Christianity. It's not a war, you simply get the same rights as anyone else. Deal with it. (this wasn't directed at anyone in particular, it was a generic "you") Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by Left Brain It is not about holding the beliefs...it is about acting on those beliefs in a way that interferes with others' civil liberties. Christians are allowed to believe homosexuality is a sin if they wish...but they can't discriminate against homosexuals in a way that would infringe on their civil rights. So the reference to boycotting mosques....well, if a Muslim owns a business and refuses to serve homosexuals, then we will boycott those establishments...not the mosques. Nobody is boycotting a church or a belief, they are boycotting using that belief to infringe on the civil liberties of others. That distinction NEEDS to be understood. It is clear that it is not. Originally posted by mdg2003 I think one thing that gets lost in this whole argument is the inconsistencies in who gets boycotted. Without fail, when it comes to dealing with the religious white, BOYCOTT and demand they cede to the wishes of the movement. Other groups? Not so much as a peep. Flash back to 2008 when Prop 8 on the ballot in Cali. That deal got blown out of the water. I didn't hear a word about boycotting California or pulling businesses out. I bet Bruce didn't drop his california concert dates because of the vote. Not a single celeb said 'FTS, I'm moving out of this homophobic state.' Not a single call to boycott black businesses or demand they recind tax exempt status from their churches. Why not? Islamic communities make no bones about their anti gay stand. Where's the drive to change their religious views? Why aren't we boycotting them and picketing mosques? We need to get this mess sorted out, but if we are going to punish those that disagree with us…. let's do it across the board and include everyone. Don't take any shiite off anyone. Boycott everyone and fight each and every case with the same fervor that seems to be reserved just for the religious white. Do it up consistently or accept that the movement will be mired in muck for decades to come. IMO this sentiment will become well known before long. To dismiss it as invalid would be a mistake. That's fine and I'm not saying I disagree.....but increasingly I find myself (in my work) standing between those two sides as the rhetoric and tensions increase. From my interaction with both sides I can easily say that you should not expect that this will just go away......there is a fight of one kind or another coming. Watch and see. What about the poor atheist kid? Doesn't he get a room? I'm outraged |
| 2016-04-13 4:44 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by Left Brain 90% of the time on these issues, the two sides aren't even truly arguing against the other, it is just misdirection and misunderstanding. Here is an example of some needless "outrage". There was an incident a couple years ago where a prayer wasn't allowed to be said over the intercom at a public high school football game, yet at the same school Islamic students were allowed a room for prayer. To the outraged, this was a war on Christianity, giving special rights to the Islamic students over the Christians, when in reality, it was the SAME rules being applied to both: A room was available to the Islamic students because it was allowing them a place to practice their religion, without sponsorship or 'establishment' by a public entity. The prayer was not allowed because, it would take a step (or so it was interpreted) toward establishment. Put it simply: An Islamic student group is allowed to have a room to pray or study in. A Christian group is allowed to have a room to pray or study in. An Islamic prayer is not allowed to be broadcast prior to a game. A Christian prayer is not allowed to be broadcast prior to a game. See...same rules. Yet you have a side SCREAMING that it's a war on Christianity by only pointing out the first line of the first rule, and the second line of the second rule. This happens time and time again when people say there is a war on Christianity. It's not a war, you simply get the same rights as anyone else. Deal with it. (this wasn't directed at anyone in particular, it was a generic "you") Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by Left Brain It is not about holding the beliefs...it is about acting on those beliefs in a way that interferes with others' civil liberties. Christians are allowed to believe homosexuality is a sin if they wish...but they can't discriminate against homosexuals in a way that would infringe on their civil rights. So the reference to boycotting mosques....well, if a Muslim owns a business and refuses to serve homosexuals, then we will boycott those establishments...not the mosques. Nobody is boycotting a church or a belief, they are boycotting using that belief to infringe on the civil liberties of others. That distinction NEEDS to be understood. It is clear that it is not. Originally posted by mdg2003 I think one thing that gets lost in this whole argument is the inconsistencies in who gets boycotted. Without fail, when it comes to dealing with the religious white, BOYCOTT and demand they cede to the wishes of the movement. Other groups? Not so much as a peep. Flash back to 2008 when Prop 8 on the ballot in Cali. That deal got blown out of the water. I didn't hear a word about boycotting California or pulling businesses out. I bet Bruce didn't drop his california concert dates because of the vote. Not a single celeb said 'FTS, I'm moving out of this homophobic state.' Not a single call to boycott black businesses or demand they recind tax exempt status from their churches. Why not? Islamic communities make no bones about their anti gay stand. Where's the drive to change their religious views? Why aren't we boycotting them and picketing mosques? We need to get this mess sorted out, but if we are going to punish those that disagree with us…. let's do it across the board and include everyone. Don't take any shiite off anyone. Boycott everyone and fight each and every case with the same fervor that seems to be reserved just for the religious white. Do it up consistently or accept that the movement will be mired in muck for decades to come. IMO this sentiment will become well known before long. To dismiss it as invalid would be a mistake. That's fine and I'm not saying I disagree.....but increasingly I find myself (in my work) standing between those two sides as the rhetoric and tensions increase. From my interaction with both sides I can easily say that you should not expect that this will just go away......there is a fight of one kind or another coming. Watch and see. What about the poor atheist kid? Doesn't he get a room? I'm outraged No you're not. You just hate kids….  |
| 2016-04-13 5:06 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by tuwood I also think the government state/federal should get out of the marriage business and just have civil unions for any non related couples who want to for a legal partnership. If an individual wants to have a church commitment ceremony or marriage then by all means. Could it be that easy? I'd vote for that. It'd probably make both sides happy. The problem I see is the legal side of things; a gay couple not allowed to be together while one is dying in the hospital, tax benefits, life insurance, health insurance, etc. As far as I'm concerned the term "marriage" is up for each person's interpretation anyway. Are you or I truly married in the eyes of the Islamic faith? No. And that's fine. The work around is called medical power of attorney. Life and health insurance is available to same sex couples where I work. I guess if it weren't available to me, I would quit and boycott the place? Taxes, yeah, the gubmint needs to get boycotted too. |
| 2016-04-13 10:39 PM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC what about this, we get rid of all this legislation forbidding gay marriage etc. and in exchange we cancel the pride parades???? |
| 2016-04-14 2:43 AM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Expert 2180 Boise, Idaho | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by mdg2003 Ahhh, Bruce Springsteen, the music world's equivalent of Donald Trump. Sure, his fans are loyal and love him to death, but those who don't care for his music are like, "Meh, sounds like garbage being tumbled in a 55 gallon drum, with an awesome sax track playing in the foreground." I don't get it, maybe some day I will… I wonder if anyone will consider suing BS for failing to keep up his end of contractual obligations on the grounds that he refused to perform because of his personal beliefs? Boycotts are silly distractions that rarely accomplish anything but making those on the picket line feel they're changing things for the better. I remember a while back there a huge boycott against the financial world, with Wall St. in the crosshairs of those who'd been done wrong. I forget what they called it, but it was so effective that even the street signage of Manhattan was changed to remove all traces of the evil and omnipotent empire that was collectively referred to as Wall St. Them's fightin' words, buddy. I will NOT... I CAN NOT sit idly by while 'THE Boss' is disparaged. (that's it. that's really all I got on this topic. It's North Carolina-what did you expect)
|
| 2016-04-14 7:01 AM in reply to: jeffnboise |
Elite 4547 | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Let's face it, this "boycotting thang" isn't exclusive to Liberals. Conservative groups have been doing the same thing for years with networks airing gay-friendly tv shows and film companies producing gay-friendly movies. Let's face it, it's business. It's about $$$. Springsteen, Bryan Adams, and Ringo Starr are big names who can afford to cancel shows. At least 90% of performers are politically progressive...most all of them would cancel shows in states sponsoring discrimination, but most can't afford to. (of course, that 90% # doesn't include country performers who target the NASCAR crowd, and ironically enough, the "Christian" music scene...ironic of course because I was always taught Jesus was about tolerance, understanding, etc., I just can't see Him being in favor of discrimination.) |
| 2016-04-14 9:33 AM in reply to: jeffnboise |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by jeffnboise Originally posted by mdg2003 Ahhh, Bruce Springsteen, the music world's equivalent of Donald Trump. Sure, his fans are loyal and love him to death, but those who don't care for his music are like, "Meh, sounds like garbage being tumbled in a 55 gallon drum, with an awesome sax track playing in the foreground." I don't get it, maybe some day I will… I wonder if anyone will consider suing BS for failing to keep up his end of contractual obligations on the grounds that he refused to perform because of his personal beliefs? Boycotts are silly distractions that rarely accomplish anything but making those on the picket line feel they're changing things for the better. I remember a while back there a huge boycott against the financial world, with Wall St. in the crosshairs of those who'd been done wrong. I forget what they called it, but it was so effective that even the street signage of Manhattan was changed to remove all traces of the evil and omnipotent empire that was collectively referred to as Wall St. Them's fightin' words, buddy. I will NOT... I CAN NOT sit idly by while 'THE Boss' is disparaged. (that's it. that's really all I got on this topic. It's North Carolina-what did you expect)
Hey, at least give me credit for sugar coating it as much as possible. |
| 2016-04-14 10:53 AM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Champion 6993 Chicago, Illinois | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Christians need to do to NC what they did for Chick-fil-a. They need to take there companies and move them all to NC. |
| 2016-04-14 11:30 AM in reply to: chirunner134 |
Pro 5761 Bartlett, TN | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by chirunner134 Christians need to do to NC what they did for Chick-fil-a. They need to take there companies and move them all to NC.
What we all should be boycotting is Flea's rendition of the National Anthem last night at the Fakers game! Not a Kobe fan, but nobody deserved that garbage! |
| 2016-04-14 2:27 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by dmiller5 what about this, we get rid of all this legislation forbidding gay marriage etc. and in exchange we cancel the pride parades???? lol, I think you may be able to get more than just the legislation removed. Those parades really chap some of the blue hairs. ;-) |
| 2016-04-14 2:46 PM in reply to: 0 |
| 1300 | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by dmiller5 what about this, we get rid of all this legislation forbidding gay marriage etc. and in exchange we cancel the pride parades???? I would be down with that ! Can we get rid of some other parades while we are at it? Edited by Goggles Pizzano 2016-04-14 2:47 PM |
| 2016-04-14 3:50 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by dmiller5 what about this, we get rid of all this legislation forbidding gay marriage etc. and in exchange we cancel the pride parades???? Couldn't we eliminate the legislation and keep the parades? |
| 2016-04-14 6:07 PM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by mdg2003 Originally posted by dmiller5 Couldn't we eliminate the legislation and keep the parades? what about this, we get rid of all this legislation forbidding gay marriage etc. and in exchange we cancel the pride parades???? There must be sacrifices |
| 2016-04-14 8:36 PM in reply to: Goggles Pizzano |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by Goggles Pizzano Originally posted by dmiller5 what about this, we get rid of all this legislation forbidding gay marriage etc. and in exchange we cancel the pride parades???? I would be down with that ! Can we get rid of some other parades while we are at it? You'll never get rid of St. Patrick's day parades.......just try and watch what happens. LMAO |
| 2016-04-15 8:49 AM in reply to: 0 |
| 1300 | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by Goggles Pizzano Originally posted by dmiller5 what about this, we get rid of all this legislation forbidding gay marriage etc. and in exchange we cancel the pride parades???? I would be down with that ! Can we get rid of some other parades while we are at it? You'll never get rid of St. Patrick's day parades.......just try and watch what happens. LMAO I'm good with St Patrick's Day. Perfect holiday because everyone is Irish on St Patrick's Day. Kiss me I'm Irish ! Edited by Goggles Pizzano 2016-04-15 8:54 AM |
| 2016-04-15 8:59 AM in reply to: Goggles Pizzano |
| Deep in the Heart of Texas | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC |
| 2016-04-15 9:01 AM in reply to: Hook'em |
| 1731 Denver, Colorado | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC |
| 2016-04-15 9:01 AM in reply to: Hook'em |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by Hook'em
hahahahaha I do believe Obama has outlawed torture so this would not be possible. |
| 2016-04-15 9:02 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Veteran 869 Stevens Point, Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Boycotting NC Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by 3mar Originally posted by tuwood I also think the government state/federal should get out of the marriage business and just have civil unions for any non related couples who want to for a legal partnership. If an individual wants to have a church commitment ceremony or marriage then by all means. Could it be that easy? I'd vote for that. It'd probably make both sides happy. The problem I see is the legal side of things; a gay couple not allowed to be together while one is dying in the hospital, tax benefits, life insurance, health insurance, etc. As far as I'm concerned the term "marriage" is up for each person's interpretation anyway. Are you or I truly married in the eyes of the Islamic faith? No. And that's fine. I've thought about it quite a bit and I'm sure there's some basic flaws but at a high level I think something like this could work. Obviously you'd have to change all the laws to recognize the same rights as marriage with visitation, death benefits, divorce (can we still call it that), etc. I threw in the "non relative" provision due to a very wealthy elderly gentlemen out in CA, I believe, who "married" his son so that when he dies his son gets his entire fortune tax free. That's obviously a loop hole. (and kind of weird) lol To me it really seems as simple as this. Most of us just want the same rights and privileges that a married couple have. I really don't give a monkeys uncle what it's called. If I were ever to get married (or partnered whatever you want to call it!), I want to make sure that we are protected legally, just as any of you who are married are to your spouses. This includes all things such as my pension, retirement account, savings, of course there is the bad to; debt, in-laws, etc. I also want to be able to have the rights for the harder decisions in life, such as when to pull the plug, visitation in hospitals.
X |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK