Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

Poll

Do you agree with the ruling?

Yes70%70% - 42
No20%20% - 12
No opinion10%10% - 6
Total: 60
2010-08-05 11:00:41
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6776|PNW

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Not gay, not Californian. Voted on poll option three.
No one said that you were gay.

I find it suspicious that you would be so quick to deny those accusations, so quick that the accusations have not even been made.


Yet.
Where did I say anyone said that? Besides which, where the heck did that come from? If this is some attempt at stalking due to some grievance from another thread, you can throw in the towel right now.

edit:
/facepalm. Troll comment on your part, of course. I should've realized.
2010-08-05 21:55:49
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6553|San Diego, CA, USA
I've only read part of the actual judgement, but from the parts I've heard it seems as though the judge is making the case that heterosexuals are homophobic.
2010-08-06 00:19:09
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|6814|Nårvei

SenorToenails wrote:

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:


I might agree, except, when I do not want to walk past a gay couple making out in the mall, just like I don't want to walk past a straight couple making out in the mall, I should not be subjected to being accused of bigotry, intolerance, homophobia, etc......

My only problem with "gay rights" is, there should be no such things as "gay" rights. They are not deserving of any more rights than anyone else.
Precisely ... nothing more, nothing less ...
Except gay couples in the US don't have equal rights.  Try marriage/civil union/whateveryouwanttocallit, getting insurance, adoption, tax benefits, etc...
That's the whole idea, equal rights ... nothing more, nothing less
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2010-08-06 05:11:57
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6655|USA

Varegg wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Varegg wrote:


Precisely ... nothing more, nothing less ...
Except gay couples in the US don't have equal rights.  Try marriage/civil union/whateveryouwanttocallit, getting insurance, adoption, tax benefits, etc...
That's the whole idea, equal rights ... nothing more, nothing less
Unfortunately in some examples they have more rights...

Try adding your girlfriend on your health insurance plan, ain't gunna happen. If you have a "domestic partner "however, no problem they can be added.

If you are gay you ca have special crimes and punishment working in your favor, for no other reason than you are gay.  These things are wrong, being gay does not afford special considerations or treatment.

I feel the same way for handicapped people. They insist on being treated like everyone else, and treated equally and fairly. Ok fine, then you wait in line like everyone else, and you park your ass down the street like everyone else. Where is it that being handicapped grants you special privilege? Especially when the handicapped person parks his Mustang GT in his handicapped spot, and runs into the fuckin' store with a slight limp. Who gives a fuck if they have a limp? They're walking right? Get your ass in the back like everyone else. The only exception to this IMO is vans designed for carrying wheelchairs because they need the space to operate.



Now my disclosure before I get flamed for picking on the handicapped now
Lets be honest, how many times have  you seen the handicapped spots being used by someone that really needed that spot?
Handicapped should not be a limp, fat, old, mental disabilities, missing arms etc.

Handicapped spots should be restricted to wheelchair bound individuals and the families that take care of them for obvious reasons, room to operate their systems and get the chairs on and off, and lessen the distance to operate the wheelchair, especially the battery driven ones. Other than this, everyone else is just lazy and found a loophole for special treatment.

Everybody and their special rights, no group lacks the ability to take advantage of and abuse good intentioned laws meant to honestly help people. especially the "handicapped".
2010-08-06 06:51:37
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6134|North Tonawanda, NY

lowing wrote:

Unfortunately in some examples they have more rights...
Not really...

lowing wrote:

Try adding your girlfriend on your health insurance plan, ain't gunna happen. If you have a "domestic partner "however, no problem they can be added.
If gays could marry, that provision should be eliminated.  But then, people don't want to let gays marry...so you need to find other ways to get the same benefits that heterosexual couples already enjoy.

lowing wrote:

If you are gay you ca have special crimes and punishment working in your favor, for no other reason than you are gay.  These things are wrong, being gay does not afford special considerations or treatment.
When was the last time someone was beat or murdered solely for being heterosexual?  I get the idea behind the hate crime laws, but I do agree that they really shouldn't exist.

lowing wrote:

I feel the same way for handicapped people. They insist on being treated like everyone else, and treated equally and fairly. Ok fine, then you wait in line like everyone else, and you park your ass down the street like everyone else. Where is it that being handicapped grants you special privilege? Especially when the handicapped person parks his Mustang GT in his handicapped spot, and runs into the fuckin' store with a slight limp. Who gives a fuck if they have a limp? They're walking right? Get your ass in the back like everyone else. The only exception to this IMO is vans designed for carrying wheelchairs because they need the space to operate.
I'm not getting into that one, lol
2010-08-06 07:27:15
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5362|London, England
https://completeoutrage.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/hoveround.jpg

Qualifies as handicapped. Shouldn't we be taking away their hoveround and forcing them to park at the very back of the parking lot? Letting them park in the very first spot just enables them
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-08-06 07:47:58
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6655|USA

JohnG@lt wrote:

http://completeoutrage.files.wordpress. … eround.jpg

Qualifies as handicapped. Shouldn't we be taking away their hoveround and forcing them to park at the very back of the parking lot? Letting them park in the very first spot just enables them
Yes take away that fuckin hoverround. If she is capable enough to get into a car and drive to the store, she is capable enough to park like everyone else. being fat is not a handicap. I see 2 legs, and no braces or crutches. Park her fat ass in the back and walk off some of that weight. and reserve those spots for people that actually need them.

Last edited by lowing (2010-08-06 07:54:56)

2010-08-06 07:54:01
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6655|USA

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

Unfortunately in some examples they have more rights...
Not really...

lowing wrote:

Try adding your girlfriend on your health insurance plan, ain't gunna happen. If you have a "domestic partner "however, no problem they can be added.
If gays could marry, that provision should be eliminated.  But then, people don't want to let gays marry...so you need to find other ways to get the same benefits that heterosexual couples already enjoy.

lowing wrote:

If you are gay you ca have special crimes and punishment working in your favor, for no other reason than you are gay.  These things are wrong, being gay does not afford special considerations or treatment.
When was the last time someone was beat or murdered solely for being heterosexual?  I get the idea behind the hate crime laws, but I do agree that they really shouldn't exist.

lowing wrote:

I feel the same way for handicapped people. They insist on being treated like everyone else, and treated equally and fairly. Ok fine, then you wait in line like everyone else, and you park your ass down the street like everyone else. Where is it that being handicapped grants you special privilege? Especially when the handicapped person parks his Mustang GT in his handicapped spot, and runs into the fuckin' store with a slight limp. Who gives a fuck if they have a limp? They're walking right? Get your ass in the back like everyone else. The only exception to this IMO is vans designed for carrying wheelchairs because they need the space to operate.
I'm not getting into that one, lol
yes really, I gave examples.

I disagree, because like most heterosexual couples, being "partners" does not mean you are going to get married. 2 guys can meet and move in together and all of a sudden they are domestic partners and qualify for benefits, they may or may not stay together. It is a system that can and probably is abused.

Well people are murdered for their money or possessions, does that mean the rich should have special rights and considerations as well regarding criminals? I doubt you will sign off on that one. Murder is murder regardless of motive.

Why not? The lack of PC too much for ya?
2010-08-06 08:05:25
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6409|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

Lets be honest, how many times have  you seen the handicapped spots being used by someone that really needed that spot?
Handicapped should not be a limp, fat, old, mental disabilities, missing arms etc.

Handicapped spots should be restricted to wheelchair bound individuals and the families that take care of them for obvious reasons, room to operate their systems and get the chairs on and off, and lessen the distance to operate the wheelchair, especially the battery driven ones. Other than this, everyone else is just lazy and found a loophole for special treatment.

Everybody and their special rights, no group lacks the ability to take advantage of and abuse good intentioned laws meant to honestly help people. especially the "handicapped".
We disagree on gay rights, but I can see where you're coming from on handicapped rights.  I think far too many handicap parking passes are given out to people who don't really need them.
2010-08-06 08:16:39
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5362|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Lets be honest, how many times have  you seen the handicapped spots being used by someone that really needed that spot?
Handicapped should not be a limp, fat, old, mental disabilities, missing arms etc.

Handicapped spots should be restricted to wheelchair bound individuals and the families that take care of them for obvious reasons, room to operate their systems and get the chairs on and off, and lessen the distance to operate the wheelchair, especially the battery driven ones. Other than this, everyone else is just lazy and found a loophole for special treatment.

Everybody and their special rights, no group lacks the ability to take advantage of and abuse good intentioned laws meant to honestly help people. especially the "handicapped".
We disagree on gay rights, but I can see where you're coming from on handicapped rights.  I think far too many handicap parking passes are given out to people who don't really need them.
I really don't see the big deal tbh. I'm not one of those people that circles the parking lot looking for a 'prime' spot. I park in the first open spot I see and walk my ass to the door. I need the exercise anyway
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-08-06 08:16:58
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6134|North Tonawanda, NY

lowing wrote:

I disagree, because like most heterosexual couples, being "partners" does not mean you are going to get married. 2 guys can meet and move in together and all of a sudden they are domestic partners and qualify for benefits, they may or may not stay together. It is a system that can and probably is abused.
Maybe?  I'd like to know how that is more apt to abuse than marriage is.  Regardless, gay marriage should be legalized and then that 'loophole' should be closed, since it would be an unfair advantage.  I do know that where I work, you can only add a 'domestic partner' to your insurance if the law will not legally allow you to wed.  They are denied one right that would solve all the issues here.

lowing wrote:

Well people are murdered for their money or possessions, does that mean the rich should have special rights and considerations as well regarding criminals? I doubt you will sign off on that one. Murder is murder regardless of motive.
See:

SenorToenails wrote:

I get the idea behind the hate crime laws, but I do agree that they really shouldn't exist.
Not much to argue when we agree.  :p

lowing wrote:

Why not? The lack of PC too much for ya?
Because my mother has crippling arthritis (rheumatoid and severe psoriatic), a fused spine, and a pelvis that fractures annually and her unwillingness to admit defeat to her conditions and use a wheelchair is all that's keeping her walking--but she can only do short distances.  According to some, she should have to 'park in the back' and walk.  Though I do believe that stores should not be forced to provide handicap parking, the problem is that if it were voluntary, douchebags would use them improperly more than they already do.  Hell, family of people with handicap tags use them when by themselves, and that is total bullshit.

Last edited by SenorToenails (2010-08-06 08:24:33)

2010-08-06 08:18:04
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6134|North Tonawanda, NY

JohnG@lt wrote:

I really don't see the big deal tbh. I'm not one of those people that circles the parking lot looking for a 'prime' spot. I park in the first open spot I see and walk my ass to the door. I need the exercise anyway
I always park in the back.  I'm less likely to have my car get hit by a stray cart or whatever.
2010-08-06 08:30:15
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6655|USA

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

I disagree, because like most heterosexual couples, being "partners" does not mean you are going to get married. 2 guys can meet and move in together and all of a sudden they are domestic partners and qualify for benefits, they may or may not stay together. It is a system that can and probably is abused.
Maybe?  I'd like to know how that is more apt to abuse than marriage is.  Regardless, gay marriage should be legalized and then that 'loophole' should be closed, since it would be an unfair advantage.  I do know that where I work, you can only add a 'domestic partner' to your insurance if the law will not legally allow you to wed.  They are denied one right that would solve all the issues here.

lowing wrote:

Well people are murdered for their money or possessions, does that mean the rich should have special rights and considerations as well regarding criminals? I doubt you will sign off on that one. Murder is murder regardless of motive.
See:

SenorToenails wrote:

I get the idea behind the hate crime laws, but I do agree that they really shouldn't exist.
Not much to argue when we agree.  :p

lowing wrote:

Why not? The lack of PC too much for ya?
Because my mother has crippling arthritis (rheumatoid and severe psoriatic), a fused spine, and a pelvis that fractures annually and her unwillingness to admit defeat to her conditions and use a wheelchair is all that's keeping her walking--but she can only do sort distances.  According to some, she should have to 'park in the back' and walk.  Though I do believe that stores should not be forced to provide handicap parking, the problem is that if it were voluntary, douchebags would use them improperly more than they already do.  Hell, family of people with handicap tags use them when by themselves, and that is total bullshit.
Allow gay people the right to marry, if this is done all of this domestic partner BULLSHIT should disappear, I have no problem with that. Although I predict, that gay rights activists will try to maintain that "special right", and will scream discrimination when it is removed.


If you understand the idea behind hate crime laws, ( which I do not) then you should understand the "reasoning" for special considerations regarding the rich, which you do not.

With all due respect to your mother, of course there are always exceptions and I speak of the problem generally.
2010-08-06 08:36:54
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6134|North Tonawanda, NY

lowing wrote:

Allow gay people the right to marry, if this is done all of this domestic partner BULLSHIT should disappear, I have no problem with that. Although I predict, that gay rights activists will try to maintain that "special right", and will scream discrimination when it is removed.
It should disappear after gays can marry, yes.  I won't condemn any activists until they actually complain about that though.  :p

lowing wrote:

If you understand the idea behind hate crime laws, ( which I do not) then you should understand the "reasoning" for special considerations regarding the rich, which you do not.
Just because I can understand the idea behind it does not mean I agree with it...  Crime is crime, punish it for what it is, not for what someone can label it as afterwards.
2010-08-06 08:41:17
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6655|USA

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

Allow gay people the right to marry, if this is done all of this domestic partner BULLSHIT should disappear, I have no problem with that. Although I predict, that gay rights activists will try to maintain that "special right", and will scream discrimination when it is removed.
It should disappear after gays can marry, yes.  I won't condemn any activists until they actually complain about that though.  :p

lowing wrote:

If you understand the idea behind hate crime laws, ( which I do not) then you should understand the "reasoning" for special considerations regarding the rich, which you do not.
Just because I can understand the idea behind it does not mean I agree with it...  Crime is crime, punish it for what it is, not for what someone can label it as afterwards.
ok agreed then.

Then can you understand the logic behind a "rich" activist pushing for "rich rights" regarding protecting their wealth from someone that targets their home from theft and not a middle class person..
2010-08-06 08:50:18
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6134|North Tonawanda, NY

lowing wrote:

Then can you understand the logic behind a "rich" activist pushing for "rich rights" regarding protecting their wealth from someone that targets their home from theft and not a middle class person..
Well, no.  Where is the rich equivilent to Matthew Shepard?  His case is why I can understand the idea, but then, using laws that already exist on the books would be better suited for equal justice.  Yes, he was selected by two assholes only because he was gay...but if they had decided to kill me (or a rich man, or a black man, or a homeless man) instead, would that make the crime any less heinous?  Not at all.
2010-08-06 08:58:58
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6655|USA

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

Then can you understand the logic behind a "rich" activist pushing for "rich rights" regarding protecting their wealth from someone that targets their home from theft and not a middle class person..
Well, no.  Where is the rich equivilent to Matthew Shepard?  His case is why I can understand the idea, but then, using laws that already exist on the books would be better suited for equal justice.  Yes, he was selected by two assholes only because he was gay...but if they had decided to kill me (or a rich man, or a black man, or a homeless man) instead, would that make the crime any less heinous?  Not at all.
Yer missing the point, the rich guy was targeted because he was rich, should you not understand the special treatment then?
2010-08-06 09:03:09
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6134|North Tonawanda, NY

lowing wrote:

Yer missing the point, the rich guy was targeted because he was rich, should you not understand the special treatment then?
I wouldn't understand the desire for special treatment because there are not people going out and beating/murdering rich people solely because they are rich.  Do hate crime laws cover larceny?  If they do, that's even more horseshit.
2010-08-06 09:09:17
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6655|USA

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yer missing the point, the rich guy was targeted because he was rich, should you not understand the special treatment then?
I wouldn't understand the desire for special treatment because there are not people going out and beating/murdering rich people solely because they are rich.  Do hate crime laws cover larceny?  If they do, that's even more horseshit.
Actually there are people that traget the rich for crime, and yes sometimes the rich people wind up dead. So again shouldn't you be understanding to the wants of the rich for special consideration?
2010-08-06 09:11:46
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6134|North Tonawanda, NY

lowing wrote:

Actually there are people that traget the rich for crime, and yes sometimes the rich people wind up dead. So again shouldn't you be understanding to the wants of the rich for special consideration?
Were they targetted for violent crime solely because they were rich?

This grey area for what is and isn't a 'hate crime' is why the laws are unfair.  We both know this already.
2010-08-06 09:19:35
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6655|USA

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

Actually there are people that traget the rich for crime, and yes sometimes the rich people wind up dead. So again shouldn't you be understanding to the wants of the rich for special consideration?
Were they targetted for violent crime solely because they were rich?

This grey area for what is and isn't a 'hate crime' is why the laws are unfair.  We both know this already.
You are tap dancing around the point and you know it.
2010-08-06 09:21:28
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6134|North Tonawanda, NY

lowing wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

Actually there are people that traget the rich for crime, and yes sometimes the rich people wind up dead. So again shouldn't you be understanding to the wants of the rich for special consideration?
Were they targetted for violent crime solely because they were rich?

This grey area for what is and isn't a 'hate crime' is why the laws are unfair.  We both know this already.
You are tap dancing around the point and you know it.
Actually, I'm not.  I asked you a direct question, and you're the one tapdancing.

I'll ask again:  Is it a violent crime targetted on the rich solely because they are rich, or not?
2010-08-06 09:25:14
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6655|USA

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:


Were they targetted for violent crime solely because they were rich?

This grey area for what is and isn't a 'hate crime' is why the laws are unfair.  We both know this already.
You are tap dancing around the point and you know it.
Actually, I'm not.  I asked you a direct question, and you're the one tapdancing.

I'll ask again:  Is it a violent crime targetted on the rich solely because they are rich, or not?
Yup, home invasion is a violent crime. If they are breaking into a rich guys house because he is rich and known to have money and valuables in the house, then he is targeted for those reasons.
2010-08-06 09:34:05
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6134|North Tonawanda, NY

lowing wrote:

Yup, home invasion is a violent crime. If they are breaking into a rich guys house because he is rich and known to have money and valuables in the house, then he is targeted for those reasons.
Alright then.  I would still not support any such push for hate crime legislation.
2010-08-06 09:40:32
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6655|USA

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yup, home invasion is a violent crime. If they are breaking into a rich guys house because he is rich and known to have money and valuables in the house, then he is targeted for those reasons.
Alright then.  I would still not support any such push for hate crime legislation.
Point is, you should not even understand it. to understand it, means there is an argument for it.  just like you do not understand "rich rights". there simply isn't an argument for it. There is no understanding special treatment of certain groups. regardless of the group. Again except for the handicapped stipulations I mentioned

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard