Social ***mozilla Firefox ceo forced to resign for personal views****

Status
Not open for further replies.
glennrod said:
I don't like anyone telling me what to do, im also not gonna get upset because the new black panther party wont accept my application and call me "devil". I was never meant to join that club, much like gays aren't meant to join the marriage club. I had no problem with civil unions that offered ALL the same benefits as marriage, as soon as I learned that wasn't good enough for them, I knew they were trolling
Click to expand...

The problem with your argument is that civil unions do NOT offer ALL the same benefits as marriage.

You can't just throw out a false-construct and then debate the merits of it.
 
I can barely keep up with all of you, I will try my best though
 
djacobox372 said:
The problem with your argument is that civil unions do NOT offer ALL the same benefits as marriage.

You can't just throw out a false-construct and then debate the merits of it.
Click to expand...

I have already heard gay people say that they wouldn't be happy with it, in real life and on this very forum
 
Jukai, me telling someone to "fuck off" is not a rare occurrence, and I would take that as an act of disrespect from the priest if he done that, I wouldn't want him to change his views, they are his own, but keep them to yourself damnit!
Click to expand...

But gay people just want to get married. A Priest doesn't HAVE to marry them, they just want to be able to get married. What is the difference here?
 
Dochter said:
Churches aren't going to be forced to officiate gay weddings if they don't want to, just like no one is forcing the catholic church to recognize divorces. Now, if a church normally rents out its facilities to the general public but now wants to deny that access to gays, there might be an issue. That is a very different scenario though.

From my perspective there are two major issues that gays should (and do) focus on:
1) Federal recognition as a protected class a la gender, race, and religion. This would prevent legal discrimination on the basis of sexuality.
2) Federal and state legalization/recognition of marriage.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with number 1 or 2. people have the right to choose their lifestyle, but they don't have the right to be protected unless there is a major threat to their personal safety, which there generally isnt
 
Jukai said:
But gay people just want to get married. A Priest doesn't HAVE to marry them, they just want to be able to get married. What is the difference here?
Click to expand...

but I just want to join the womens boxing league, I feel like a woman so who are you to judge?, I know it wouldn't be fair on the women, but im a minority now damnit!
 
glennrod said:
yes they are, they don't want me in their pubs, they don't want me to date their sisters, daughters etc. some of those racist shit bags would KILL me because the colour of my skin if they knew they could get away with it.
Click to expand...

Pubs are public accommodations. If they discriminate against you based on your race, they are subject to a lawsuit.

A person choosing to date you is not comparable to being banned from marrying someone.

glennrod said:
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/03/18/mill...ple-sues-to-force-their-church-to-marry-them/
http://eaglerising.com/2767/gay-lobby-marriage-wont-enough/

there are many more examples so a swing and a miss from you on that one
Click to expand...

The whiff is yours. I asked you for gay rights advocacy groups. That would indicate a real push for such a change.

You literally have ONE gay couple, and not even in the US.
 
TheBox said:
Pubs are public accommodations. If they discriminate against you based on your race, they are subject to a lawsuit.

A person choosing to date you is not comparable to being banned from marrying someone.



The whiff is yours. I asked you for gay rights advocacy groups. That would indicate a real push for such a change.

You literally have ONE gay couple, and not even in the US.
Click to expand...

google search it, there are many more examples, and it would be foolish to believe that these couples don't have the backing of groups of people that just love to get involved and call people names
 
glennrod said:
but I just want to join the womens boxing league, I feel like a woman so who are you to judge?, I know it wouldn't be fair on the women, but im a minority now damnit!
Click to expand...

You're comparing a GENDER-league rule which is done for physical safety and overall competitive fairness to an arbitrary religious mandate on marriage which, by the way, is completely separated from the LEGAL act of marriage?

Again-- WHY are you bitching about the race comparisons when you are continually using comparisons that are so far off-base, it almost seems like YOU are trolling?
 
TheBox said:
Pubs are public accommodations. If they discriminate against you based on your race, they are subject to a lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Im not worried about a lawsuit, im worried that I might get killed :icon_neut
 
glennrod said:
I don't agree with number 1 or 2. people have the right to choose their lifestyle, but they don't have the right to be protected unless there is a major threat to their personal safety, which there generally isnt
Click to expand...
A protected class isn't about personal safety. It is about legal protections against direct discrimination. For example, in my state but not its eastern neighbor, it is legal to evict someone solely on the basis that they're gay. That's a problem and is what "1" is about.
Also, while it isn't actually relevant, there is ample evidence that homosexuality is not a choice.
 
Jukai said:
You're comparing a GENDER-league rule which is done for physical safety and overall competitive fairness to an arbitrary religious mandate on marriage which, by the way, is completely separated from the LEGAL act of marriage?

Again-- WHY are you bitching about the race comparisons when you are continually using comparisons that are so far off-base, it almost seems like YOU are trolling?
Click to expand...

you are right, I will stop doing that.
 
glennrod said:
google search it, there are many more examples, and it would be foolish to believe that these couples don't have the backing of groups of people that just love to get involved and call people names
Click to expand...

No, there aren't.

If they had the backings of larger groups, then those larger groups would say so. But they don't. Because they aren't.

There is no push to make churches doing anything. That's nothing but unfounded paranoia by wannabe-martyrs.
 
Dochter said:
A protected class isn't about personal safety. It is about legal protections against direct discrimination. For example, in my state but not its eastern neighbor, it is legal to evict someone solely on the basis that they're gay. That's a problem and is what "1" is about.
Also, while it isn't actually relevant, there is ample evidence that homosexuality is not a choice.
Click to expand...

see, I disagree with being able to do that, that isn't fair. I would never evict someone from one of my properties for being homosexual. however, if I found out that he was one of the people that went around shouting down Christians and protesting Christmas, I would probably be an unpleasant landlord to him, the fucking dick
 
glennrod said:
you are right, I will stop doing that.
Click to expand...

So that brings up the question again--- if some Churches want to marry gay people, why aren't they allowed to do so? Marriage has been redefined many times, even in America's history. Why are you so against allow homosexuals to get married if no one is forced to consummate their marriage?
 
glennrod said:
see, I disagree with being able to do that, that isn't fair.
Click to expand...
So then, you do agree that sexuality should be a protected class. That's progress at least. Now, why shouldn't a gay couple have their union be legally recognized in the same way that mine is?
 
be back in ten minutes...
 
Dochter said:
So then, you do agree that sexuality should be a protected class. That's progress at least. Now, why shouldn't a gay couple have their union be legally recognized in the same way that mine is?
Click to expand...

Making "involuntary" sexuality a protected class has a lot more pitfalls than you might imagine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,283,030
Messages
58,477,509
Members
176,048
Latest member
gibberish

Share this page

Back
Top