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

[UpaLoompa]

Making "involuntary" sexuality a protected class has a lot more pitfalls than you might imagine.

That's your addition, not mine. I think the fact that there's loads of evidence that homosexuality (in males) is biologically driven is irrelevant.
Religion is voluntary but is still a protected class.

 

[Jukai]

That's your addition, not mine. I think the fact that there's loads of evidence that homosexuality (in males) is biologically driven is irrelevant.
Religion is voluntary but is still a protected class.

 

[ncordless]

Agree with the above. Skin lightening surgery and sex changes don't mean that gender and race shouldn't be protected either.

 

[glennrod]

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?

because a marriage Is between a man and a woman, I would understand the outrage if marriage was always open and they suddenly nullified gay marriage. you guys act like there is some big injustice all of a sudden. it would be like me getting angry all of a sudden because clubbing seals is legal in Canada, its always been like that so I just chose not to think about it

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?

because it isn't the same as the one you have. well not in my eyes, in yours it is, good for you!

 

[glennrod]

Here is another problem with the whole ordeal, and I would like to know what you think about it, if the constitution is being used to give gay people rights because the laws that restrict them are considered "hate speech" or "unconstitutional" or whatever, then at what point will religion itself be considered "hate speech"?, surely the balance has to tip in one parties favour eventually?

 

[UpaLoompa]

because a marriage Is between a man and a woman, I would understand the outrage if marriage was always open and they suddenly nullified gay marriage. you guys act like there is some big injustice all of a sudden.

Arguably it has always been an injustice, just one that wasn't broadly recognized when it was illegal to even be gay.

And no, marriage has not always been between a man and a woman. Not even in this country.

because it isn't the same as the one you have. well not in my eyes, in yours it is, good for you!

I wasn't married in a church. I don't think there is any supernatural recognition of my marriage. We have no kids and likely won't. What's the difference?

 

[glennrod]

Arguably it has always been an injustice, just one that wasn't broadly recognized when it was illegal to even be gay.

And no, marriage has not always been between a man and a woman. Not even in this country.
I wasn't married in a church. I don't think there is any supernatural recognition of my marriage. We have no kids and likely won't. What's the difference?

I think you should have had a "civil union" :icon_lol:

 

[UpaLoompa]

Here is another problem with the whole ordeal, and I would like to know what you think about it, if the constitution is being used to give gay people rights because the laws that restrict them are considered "hate speech" or "unconstitutional" or whatever, then at what point will religion itself be considered "hate speech"?, surely the balance has to tip in one parties favour eventually?

This is a marvelous misrepresentation or misunderstanding of what's going on. Equal protection provisions are being extended to gays. That's it. It has nothing to do with hate speech.

 

[glennrod]

That's the same ONE couple. All three of your links have been about this ONE couple in UK suing a church.

Again, there is no push for forcing churches to do anything on this issue.

you honestly think that this kind of thing wont occur more frequently now that gay marriage has just been legalised over here?.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I think you should have had a "civil union" :icon_lol:

Civil unions didn't (and generally still don't) provide the same legal and financial protections. I'm fine with everything being a civil union for such purposes and only churches calling some things "marriage". However then you're going to have to deal with the fact that some churches are still going to call some such unions marriages.

And, again, what's the difference?

 

[glennrod]

This is a marvelous misrepresentation or misunderstanding of what's going on. Equal protection provisions are being extended to gays. That's it. It has nothing to do with hate speech.

that's not something I made up, I do my homework. people are citing the constitution to make their cases, which I can understand, but as the balance tips, how long will it be before religion is legally ddefined as "hate speech"?. yet another term being degraded by the left....

 

[TheBox]

you honestly think that this kind of thing wont occur more frequently now that gay marriage has just been legalised over here?.

Not a chance.

That's why, of all the countries and states that have SSM (and have had it for up to a decade), you can only produce one example of a lawsuit like that, the lawsuit has no significant support, and the lawsuit won't succeed.

 

[glennrod]

Civil unions didn't (and generally still don't) provide the same legal and financial protections. I'm fine with everything being a civil union for such purposes and only churches calling some things "marriage". However then you're going to have to deal with the fact that some churches are still going to call some such unions marriages.

And, again, what's the difference?

churches are considered holy places, while you or other people who get married in churches may not be "holy" or righteous, doesn't mean we can and should bring in anti-religious people to that kind of ceremony, that's just ridiculous, well, callous really

 

[Jukai]

because a marriage Is between a man and a woman, I would understand the outrage if marriage was always open and they suddenly nullified gay marriage. you guys act like there is some big injustice all of a sudden. it would be like me getting angry all of a sudden because clubbing seals is legal in Canada, its always been like that so I just chose not to think about it

And WHERE in our constitution does it say that marriage is between a man and a woman? The definition of marriage was a RECENT thing when gays finally began to become accepted enough where they wouldn't be beaten for asking for the right to marriage.

The truth is, marriage WAS always open and people are suddenly nullifying gay marriage. That's exactly the case.

Also, I'm... really confused about your last sentence. If Canada suddenly stopped clubbing seals, would you get ANGRY about it? Because you're getting angry at the thought of gays suddenly being allowed to get married.

 

[Denter]

That's your addition, not mine. I think the fact that there's loads of evidence that homosexuality (in males) is biologically driven is irrelevant.
Religion is voluntary but is still a protected class.

Sure, because of the first amendment.


The problem is, when you start making sexuality a protected class, that brings in aberrant (and often illegal) sexual preferences which the person may not have any control over.

 

[UpaLoompa]

that's not something I made up, I do my homework. people are citing the constitution to make their cases, which I can understand, but as the balance tips, how long will it be before religion is legally ddefined as "hate speech"?. yet another term being degraded by the left....

People are using the constitution to make their cases. More specifically it is usually application of the equal protection clause of the 14th that people argue as being a main basis. That has nothing to do with "hate speech".
I've no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[glennrod]

Not a chance.

That's why, of all the countries and states that have SSM (and have had it for up to a decade), you can only produce one example of a lawsuit like that, the lawsuit has no significant support, and the lawsuit won't succeed.

I wouldn't be too sure of that, that lawsuit was made literally right after gay marriage became legal, there will be more cases like these

 

[TheBox]

that's not something I made up, I do my homework. people are citing the constitution to make their cases, which I can understand, but as the balance tips, how long will it be before religion is legally ddefined as "hate speech"?. yet another term being degraded by the left....

Hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment (provided you're not directly inciting violence).

 

[TheBox]

Sure, because of the first amendment.

Why do you think the protections were based on the 1A? None of the others like race, gender, or national origin were.

 

[TheBox]

I wouldn't be too sure of that, that lawsuit was made literally right after gay marriage became legal, there will be more cases like these

Massachusetts has had SSM for 10 years. Where are the lawsuits?

Why can't you name a SINGLE gay rights advocacy group pushing for it?