4/8/2013 12:06 PM
Posted by bistiza on 4/8/2013 11:52:00 AM (view original):
Equality is equality, BL. 

To pick and choose in what ways people are "equal" is not equality at all, but the same water-down BS that causes people's discontent and has for all of human existence.

The fact is the wealthy and the poor are NOT treated equally under the law. Everyone (including lawmakers) caters to the wealthy and their desires, while virtually no one stands up for the poor.

I do agree not everyone deserves a high paying job - in fact, I think a lot of people who have them don't deserve them - but that's not the point.

The point is telling people they are equal doesn't make it so when any thinking person can clearly see the world isn't an equal place. Also, trying to legislate equality doesn't do any good.
That's my point. You can't make everyone socioeconomically equally.

But the government can give equal protection under the law. For example, you can't open a restaurant and put a sign in the window that says whites only, because that's against the law.

See, black's have equal protection under the law. I'd argue that they, for the most part, don't have equal socioeconomic status but they do have legal protection from institutionalized discrimination.
4/8/2013 12:14 PM
You can't "make" everyone equal in any way except in "official position" by trying to legislate it.

Your example is terrible, BL, as most businesses reserve the right to refuse service to whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish (even if they don't tell you a reason).

So yes, I could open a restaurant and refuse to serve blacks if that is what I wanted to do. I could reserve the right not to serve whomever I wanted, and post a sign that says as much.

There is no way to legislate anything other than the governments "official position" because people will act and do as they want.
4/8/2013 12:21 PM
Posted by bistiza on 4/8/2013 12:14:00 PM (view original):
You can't "make" everyone equal in any way except in "official position" by trying to legislate it.

Your example is terrible, BL, as most businesses reserve the right to refuse service to whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish (even if they don't tell you a reason).

So yes, I could open a restaurant and refuse to serve blacks if that is what I wanted to do. I could reserve the right not to serve whomever I wanted, and post a sign that says as much.

There is no way to legislate anything other than the governments "official position" because people will act and do as they want.
You can refuse service to any individual but you can't refuse service to an entire racial group. You'd be sued and shut down.
4/8/2013 12:25 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/8/2013 11:58:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2013 10:42:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/8/2013 10:27:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2013 10:12:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/8/2013 9:56:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2013 9:46:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/5/2013 6:06:00 PM (view original):
Anyway, to answer your question, yeah, openly gay was discriminated against 30 years ago.     Probably more recently than that.   My dead, gay uncle had to leave his small hometown and move to NYC to be openly gay.  That was late 70s.

I don't think gays are discriminated against in the workforce in 98% of the situations.   You'll have homophobes, just like you'll have RACISTS!!!!, but it's not widespread. 
I don't think they are as much now, I think they definitely were then.  Just like "RACISTS!"
So we agree on something?
Yes, people are more open-minded and accepting now than they were then.  

So, in an overwhelming majority of situations today, a gay man(or woman) isn't likely to be discriminated against?

I would guess yes.
So, I assume, you think they are discriminated against under the laws of marriage.

I'd argue that it's not so much discrimination as it is carefully moving forward. 
What's the problem with eliminating that discrimination?
4/8/2013 12:54 PM
Posted by bistiza on 4/8/2013 12:14:00 PM (view original):
You can't "make" everyone equal in any way except in "official position" by trying to legislate it.

Your example is terrible, BL, as most businesses reserve the right to refuse service to whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish (even if they don't tell you a reason).

So yes, I could open a restaurant and refuse to serve blacks if that is what I wanted to do. I could reserve the right not to serve whomever I wanted, and post a sign that says as much.

There is no way to legislate anything other than the governments "official position" because people will act and do as they want.
Yea, if you refuse service to any group based on race, age, or sex, it's discrimination and it's against the law.  The law is in place BECAUSE there are people in our society who don't see other as equal.  That's the point.
4/8/2013 12:59 PM
FTFY
 
"I'd argue that it's not so much discrimination as it is avoiding the possibility of polygamous marriage."
4/8/2013 1:00 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2013 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Tec,

I'm not sure what the point if you posting here is if everytime someone challenges you, you shut down.
I'm not shutting down at all.  I just don't see the need to have to type the same freaking answer every time b_l keeps asking me the same (or a close variation) freaking question over and over.
4/8/2013 1:02 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2013 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Tec,

I'm not sure what the point if you posting here is if everytime someone challenges you, you shut down.
I'm not shutting down at all.  I just don't see the need to have to type the same freaking answer every time b_l keeps asking me the same (or a close variation) freaking question over and over.
You're saying the definition shouldn't be changed. I'm asking what's the harm?
4/8/2013 1:03 PM
I can't believe this has gone on 49 pages.
The church is free to marry/not marry gay people.
The state HAS to allow civil union for gay people. Door was opened the minute common law union got the same benefit that married couples did.

As for the other ridiculous analogies, sure, allow polygomous marriage. I fail to see how that affects my life one way or another, much like two chicks carpet munching do squat in terms of affecting my life one iota.
4/8/2013 1:04 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2013 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Tec,

I'm not sure what the point if you posting here is if everytime someone challenges you, you shut down.
I'm not shutting down at all.  I just don't see the need to have to type the same freaking answer every time b_l keeps asking me the same (or a close variation) freaking question over and over.
In you opinion, what is the point of marriage?
4/8/2013 1:06 PM
Posted by deathinahole on 4/8/2013 1:03:00 PM (view original):
I can't believe this has gone on 49 pages.
The church is free to marry/not marry gay people.
The state HAS to allow civil union for gay people. Door was opened the minute common law union got the same benefit that married couples did.

As for the other ridiculous analogies, sure, allow polygomous marriage. I fail to see how that affects my life one way or another, much like two chicks carpet munching do squat in terms of affecting my life one iota.
This isn't about civil unions.  It's about marriage.
4/8/2013 1:07 PM
That's church. Why are you foisting church upon state?
4/8/2013 1:10 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/8/2013 9:23:00 AM (view original):
You don't get to vote on rights like this. Just like we couldn't vote to take away interracial marriage, we shouldn't be able to vote to take away gay marriage.
So who gets to decide on what we can and cannot vote for?

Is everything a "Right"?

Given that gays are mostly accepted in society, so gay marraige isnt just a way to attack guys without saying it, and that civil unions are almost always an option, except for a name on a piece of paper, what right are we defending?

This is not like interracial marriage at all. You cannot make any logical connections between blacks in the 60s and gays in modern America.

We need to not let the Federal Government grab more power away from the people.
4/8/2013 1:10 PM
Not every state recognizes marriage between homosexuals.

Marriage doesn't have to be done in a church.
4/8/2013 1:17 PM
Marriage not done in a church is civil union.

State that does not allow union between two people of the same sex are not doing it why? Name one reason outside of religious teaching. You won't be able to, or anything not religious falls into rights that common law partners have.

You do realize that, as usual, when it come to progressive views on what is equal and right, the world falls into line, then the US, then third world countries follow soon after.
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.