San Francisco -- and the tech industry -- are beaming with Pride this weekend.
The United States Supreme Court on Friday ruled same-sex marriage a constitutional right, one day before San Francisco begins its famous Pride festivities, one of the largest celebrations of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender -- aka LGBT -- culture in the country. The tech industry is practically euphoric, especially after high-profile executives this year, from Apple CEO Tim Cook to Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff, publicly advocated advancing gay rights. But that advancement works both ways, said Gary Virginia, board president of SF Pride, which organizes the celebration. Speaking out is not just a personal decision for tech execs; it makes good business sense too, he said.
"They attract a younger population for their workforce, and it's been proven that social attitudes are changing," said Virginia. "So it behooves them to have progressive policies to attract LGBT employees. I think they see the benefit of it."
The celebration caps off a landmark year for the gay rights movement. In September, Apple's Cook wrote an essay saying he's gay, making him the first openly gay CEO of a Fortune 500 company. A month later, he allowed for his name to be attached to an LGBT anti-discrimination bill in his home state of Alabama. In March, Benioff said he had cancelled all Salesforce events in Indiana after its governor signed a law that would allow businesses to refuse service to anyone in the LGBT community on religious grounds. Less than a week later, dozens of executives from Airbnb, Ebay, Jawbone, Lyft, PayPal, Twitter and other companies signed a joint statement in The Washington Post against the religious freedom laws either passed or being considered in several states.
The tech industry is a relatively recent ally. LGBT leaders point out it's taken decades to achieve Friday's Supreme Court decision. New York City, for example, is commemorating the anniversary of the 1969 riots at the Stonewall Inn, which many consider the jump start of the movement. The 1978 assassination of Harvey Milk, an openly gay San Francisco board supervisor, galvanized the national LGBT community.
Original Submission
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @09:45AM
Same-sex union a constitutional right? why not!
> same-sex marriage a constitutional right
redefining the term "marriage"? why?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @10:18AM
redefining the term "marriage"? why?
Why? Who "defined" it in the frist place? I believe that marriage is a small fruit of a certain artic shrub, very similar, but different from a huckleberry. Anyone who says otherwise, is a lemming.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @12:20AM
Who is redefining marriage? Its always been a contract, and contracts are only useful if they're backed by the government.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @09:51AM
There are human rights. Gays are 100% as human as any other human, and therefore they should have precisely the same right. The world will only be truly civilised when the concept of "gay rights" is as meaningless as the concept of "straight rights".
FP
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday June 29 2015, @09:58AM
Technically, there aren't any rights. Just because they are written in a book they don't become real, no? Anyway your point is really valid.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Monday June 29 2015, @11:24AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @12:42PM
Indeed. As intelligent[citation needed] mammals
Really, "[citation needed]"...? Do also say "hashtag me" whenever you refer to yourself in the third person?
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Monday June 29 2015, @05:04PM
Those who involve the concept of what other people do with their own genitalia in their choice process probably aren't making the right choices.
Are you sure about that? It seems to be one of the oldest inclusions of "organizing" that human mammals have, back to the very oldest written language. And, it always and everywhere has a significant impact on all of society. Circumcision, arranged marriages, and gender norms have been enforced in civilizations nearly back to the dawn of man. Most are still in place, and others have been added, such as one-child-per-couple, education programs about contraception and prevention of STD's, and on and on. It's pretty pervasive.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @06:15PM
Are you sure about that? It seems to be one of the oldest inclusions of "organizing" that human mammals have, back to the very oldest written language.
Ah, an appeal to tradition. Slavery is pretty old as well. But so what?
And, it always and everywhere has a significant impact on all of society.
What? No, it doesn't.
Circumcision, arranged marriages, and gender norms have been enforced in civilizations nearly back to the dawn of man.
Again, so what? Who cares how old something is?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @12:25AM
Yes, there is many a society that has a giant stick up its butt about one fetish or another.
...then, to get back onto the LGBT topic, there is the culture of the indigenous peoples of the western hemisphere who saw those folks [google.com] as a resource to be utilized. [wikipedia.org]
You didn't really think that all that feathered stuff they wore ceremonially was dreamed up by someone straight did you?
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday June 30 2015, @09:00AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @01:37PM
Lets not wax philosophic shall we?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday June 29 2015, @01:50PM
Rights only exist as a PR concept invented by the aristocracy because with industrialization and mass media it became cheaper to feed the masses a line of BS than to shoot them down in the street. Temporarily this worked pretty well. Like the scam of democracy where the one party selects two candidates and tells us we have a choice over who lies to us and does the opposite of their PR campaign. Anyone outside the aristocracy who tries to actually use "rights" will be destroyed of course. But the times they are a changin... and the relationship between the masses and "the system" seem more strained than ever in recent history. Gonna be fun to watch. Hope my family and I don't get guillotined.
A historical concept worth thinking about WRT "human rights" is there are professional agitator/victim organizations that are extremely butthurt that Irish and southern euros got rolled into "white" and they can't do their agit prop and divide and conqueror the Italians vs the stereotypical new england WASPs for example, at least not anymore, although it worked quite profitably a century ago. IF gay rights ever do go away and get rolled into human rights, theres going to be amazing butthurt by the community organizer crowd. Don't mess with someone's salary and expect them not to get pissed off about it. Even now, there's lots of people who's salary depended upon gay marriage agit prop who are very anxious and pissed off today... whos going to hire them to promote what?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @02:15PM
Hopefully all the feminists will be killed.
Even the pleasure of marrying a young girl has been stolen from us.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Monday June 29 2015, @04:17PM
Your eloquent argument has me convinced, mikeeusa! We need to get back to traditional marriage! None of this interracial crap or even waiting for sexual maturity! Consent?! Bah! Traditional marriage all the way!
/ducks
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @07:12PM
Yes. Real traditional marraige: that of a young girl (or girls) to a man, all the way.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @11:46PM
"Traditional marriage" is a contract for an exchange of property. Lets not go back to that.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday June 30 2015, @01:38AM
"Traditional marriage" is a contract for an exchange of property. Lets not go back to that.
I quite agree, just find a woman who hates you and give her your house. It saves a lot of time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:32AM
I prefer viewing them as abstract ideals, of which our mortal and fallible minds can only make more or less educated guesses about what they are. Under this model, whether a deed is right or wrong, doesn't depend on whom you are asking about it nor what are the current ideals of the society judging it.
In fact, it is pretty much the only model which allows rights as such immutable entities to exist at all. It is simply an unfortunate consequence of those axioms that you cannot ever know for sure whether your morality is correct.
This doesn't mean they wouldn't exist or are irrelevant, mind you. You cannot compute busy beaver function either, but it is there, just outside our reach.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @10:09AM
Human rights are made up too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @10:39AM
Made up concepts can be useful.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @01:49PM
Given that these general rights are being specifically denied to homosexuals, I think it's perfectly reasonable to refer to this issue as "Gay Rights" and your pathetic excuse to shoehorn the phrase fuck gay rights on to a website shows what a sad little human being you must be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @06:48PM
So which bit of my argument do you think is false? (assuming I'm the same AC as before) Do you think gays aren't fully human? Do you consider these rights not human rights? Go ahead, shoot down my logic with actual logic, rather than spittle.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @02:08PM
Why can't we marry little girls like we could prior to feminism?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @02:30PM
The big problem is that people are assuming things are right's that simply are not rights. Where the SCOTUS got this wrong, was in upholding marriage laws in general that give any kind of benefit from a federal or state level. Remove marriage status as something the government deals with (except in cases where special protections may need to come into play such as protecting kids from being married off).
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @04:41PM
Yea the one place the govt needs to step in is where progressive ideals need to be enforced at gun point. Marrying young girls is most traditional form of marriage and it is the one you demand be suppressed. It's also the only form that benifits men.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @11:49PM
Since when does government not deal with contract? Contracts are useful specifically because the government enforces them, otherwise there's no point to them. Unless you're trying to say that marriage isn't a contract, but the facts show otherwise.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday June 30 2015, @02:26PM
The government certainly enforces most contracts, but in marriage the government is not only the enforcer, it is also an actual party to the contract, and sets the terms of the contract.
If it was simply a contract between you and the spouse, gay marriage would never be an issue. Contract with whoever you want.
If it was simply a contract between you and your spouse and your church, gay marriage would never be an issue. If your church won't marry you, find a new church that will. No problem.
But it's primarily a contract between you, your spouse, and the government. Which is why the government gets to set the rules. And they refuse to renegotiate the contract. And they refuse to allow independent contracts. They're abusing their monopoly to engage in discriminatory practices and it needs to stop. Ideally by eliminating the monopoly entirely.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Tuesday June 30 2015, @07:56AM
You don't seem to understand what "gay rights" are. They are the same basic rights that straight people have, but which were previously denied to gay people. They are not asking for anything extra, just equality.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 29 2015, @11:19AM
Advocate for $cause says that court victory for $cause benefits mankind and the universe. More news at 11:00.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by kaszz on Monday June 29 2015, @01:12PM
LGBT rights or tolerance might not be that central in itself. But when LGBT people are tolerated either on a social convention level or by law. It's an indicator that the society has matured enough to accept people with different ways of living and different values. I once watched a documentary of a girl in a small town in the USA being treated like shit once it came out she was lesbian. That town will not be on the top list of establishing any advanced business, the town just screams close minded people.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Monday June 29 2015, @01:38PM
society has matured enough to accept people with different ways of living and different values
Yeah like evang christians or (pre-neo) republicans or white ethnic groups or ... oh wait this only applies to lefty groups. I'm not even on the right, and from what I see the hypocrisy of the lefties is pretty bad. Tolerance would be nice if it wasn't implemented by being solely provided to one political group.
That town will not be on the top list of establishing any advanced business, the town just screams close minded people.
Oh spare me, that explains one small town, whats the excuse for the other 74999 towns that also didn't get the Apple world headquarters building?
As a wealthy white oppressor I can assure you the world has far too many assholes, its just they supposedly only matter when they annoy special groups of special people other than myself, like that lesbian girl. Something tells me that small town girl isn't the first girl in the history of the planet to have shitty neighbors. I'm not saying her neighbors aren't shitty or it wouldn't be nice to have non-shitty neighbors, just saying her experience is totally irrelevant WRT social policy. Some sort of redneck hunting season where assholes can be shot would obviously benefit her, but it would also benefit me equally.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @04:47PM
So true... it's quite exhausting to fuck so many arseholes; would be less taxing if someone lowered their numbers, thanks.
Your friendly wealthy white oppressor
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mojo chan on Tuesday June 30 2015, @08:01AM
Tolerance only applies to things you can't change, like your sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender etc. It doesn't apply to stupid ideas and beliefs, which are fair targets for criticism and a certain degree of intolerance. Evangelical Christians, Republicans and what I presume you mean to be "white rights" groups are just expressing their opinions, and thus are open to criticism and don't have to be tolerated by anyone.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Monday June 29 2015, @01:37PM
I don't care what your sexuality is, it has no place in the workplace. I do have a beef with LGBT, and it's this: stop shoving your sexuality in everyone's faces. You are not special, you are not the center of the universe, the rest of the world mostly does not care who you have sex with.
Equal protection says that the government should treat people equally: men the same as women, blacks the same as whites, homosexuals the same as heterosexuals. That's great, that's how it should be. Equal protection, however, applies to the government. The problem comes when activists demand that their rights take precedence over the rights of private individuals. The LGBT activist sees nothing wrong with gay sex, but that religious person over there believes it is sinful (*). Each person is convinced that the other is wrong. Neither person's rights should take precedence over the other. You cannot legislate people's opinions, nor should you try.
I don't know why TFA brings Indiana into this, but Indiana gets it right. That classic example of the wedding cake: The gay couple has no right to demand another person's service (that would be called "slavery"). A tattoo artist [inquisitr.com] can refuse to create a tattoo that the artist dislikes, a baker can refuse to create a cake that the baker dislikes, a programmer can refuse to write a program that the programmer dislikes.
The reason shouldn't even matter (this is where Indiana doesn't go far enough): Religion, because the customer is ugly, because it's Tuesday - it shouldn't matter (**). If that offends some precious snowflake, said snowflake can punish the business most effectively by taking their business elsewhere.
(*) For the record, I am neither gay nor religious. I am just tired of hearing activists (LGBT, feminist, black, Islamist, whatever) demanding that their rights trump everyone else's.
(**) The usual objection, when someone says this, is "but what about the Jim Crow laws". That's a strawman: those laws required businesses to refuse service. The government was legistlating personal opinion, just from the other side.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @01:55PM
The gay couple has no right to demand another person's service (that would be called "slavery"). A tattoo artist can refuse to create a tattoo that the artist dislikes, a baker can refuse to create a cake that the baker dislikes, a programmer can refuse to write a program that the programmer dislikes.
The fact that you think refusing to sell to specific types of people is the same as refusing to create something for anyone really shows how poorly you understand the issue.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Monday June 29 2015, @05:35PM
Actually, I think it is you that poorly understands the issue. It doesn't matter to the tattoo artist who is asking for the offensive tattoo - it's the act of creating it. Same with a wedding cake - the patron isn't being discriminated against, they don't want to put 2 grooms (or 2 brides) on a wedding cake. No different than a baker refusing to make a Nazi themed swastika cake.
For another example, I would not create an application to help someone send out millions of spam emails. But for some reason, some people think that if I refuse to create an application to help send out millions of spam emails promoting the LGBT agenda, then I am unfairly discriminating against certain people. It's not true, it's just a way to claim victimhood status to force someone to do something they do not freely choose to do.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @06:15PM
> Same with a wedding cake - the patron isn't being discriminated against, they don't want to put 2 grooms (or 2 brides) on a wedding cake.
And if it is a wedding cake without any tacky figurines [brides.com] - as are the overwhelming majority of modern cakes?
You and I both know that they would still refuse to make it if they knew who it was for.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 29 2015, @01:57PM
Spot on. There should be no "protected classes", there should be no preferences in hiring. None of that nonsense. And, you're absolutely right - there should be NO SEX in the workplace. No gay sex, no hetero sex, no extramarital sex, nothing. I go to work, I work, I get off work, THEN it's alright to think about sex. That's it. Hiring a person because he's gay? That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard of - even worse than hiring someone because he's one color or another. You need to hire the person who is going to MAKE THE MOST PROFIT FOR THE COMPANY. Anything else amounts to nepotism, or racism, or sexism, or some other vulgar form of prejudice.
There is something bad wrong among the tech giants - and they will pay for it eventually. It's just fine to be a "responsible member of the community", but becoming an activist in any given cause is just stupid.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday June 29 2015, @03:37PM
The payback is usually a startup that beat the corporate monolith. Then it gets bought out. Or competition from other countries.
And recruitment to those things is a meritocracy, better have skills and ideas.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday June 29 2015, @09:18PM
Actually I take issue with the concept that "there is something bad wrong among the tech giants".
They seem to hire who ever wants the jobs and comes with the best credentials. If they were worried all that much about sexism, gender, and race, they would have long since started preferentially hiring those folks. But oddly enough, when looking for programmers they seem to hire mostly people who are pretty good at programming.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday June 29 2015, @11:48PM
Or perhaps people with the right papers but commodity "talent" and strong ability suck up the corporate culture. And perhaps most of all O-B-A-Y.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday June 30 2015, @02:34AM
I think it goes without saying that some sucking up to the culture you wish to join is in proper order. Regardless of credentials. If the friggin tie is required you wear it.
As for the right papers, I suspect you've been around long enough that might get you into a chair that requires an MBA, but if you join a tech company and can't manage a line of code you get sent away pretty quickly.
We had a "turkey farm" reserved for these types of people. They were usually too dumb to know they were being sent to the farm, they thought they were joining the Elite next generation projects. Till the layoffs came. It was a State Government, and it was a little harder to get rid of people, but we managed. Big tech has no such problems.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Monday June 29 2015, @04:07PM
I had a few questions for bradley13 and yourself. I had thought that the issue was marriage, which doesn't seem to have much to do with either of your posts. Please be so kind as to help me out.
You don't talk about your wife or girlfriend at work? If you're dating, don't you talk about that around the water cooler?
Who is talking about affirmative action? Yes, gender lunatics seem to want quotas for women (which will be interesting, because this will harm
LGBT folks so keep the popcorn handy), but who has ever wanted quotas for LGBT folks?They attract a younger population for their workforce
Aren't you worried that “gay rights” is being used as a false flag to legitimize ageism here?
Also, when the SJWs come at us again screaming sexism and racism and bigotry in general, won't the revelation that the tech industry is LGBT friendly put a hole in the argument that tech is full of dudebro assholes? I mean, granted, LGBT doesn't rank as high as women and blacks in the Oppression Olympics, but doesn't that at least give us a little more to work with?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 29 2015, @04:39PM
The issues. Marriage is but part of the LGBT agenda. Probably the most important single part of their goals, in that "marriage" legitimizes everything else. The issue, as I see it, is that LGBT is a protected, special class, whose tender feelings we must never offend. You can't refuse to bake them a cake, you can't refuse to serve them for tasteless displays of affection, you can't refuse them anything. They can, and will, trample on any and all sensitivities, but cry when their own sensitivities are offended. And, it has already been demonstrated that the courts are filled with attentive, sympathetic judges, and lawyers competing to take their cases. Being gay will eventually become a near requirement for being a politician, appointee, or even to hold a government job. Guys who have never SEEN a penis aside from their own will be "coming out" in the near future.
This is not a static issue, it is a dynamic, and the gays have the initiative right now.
I could go on - but it is enough that "marriage", although an important part of their plans, is only a part of their goals.
The younger generation thing? Yes - but I can't see that becoming a real, open issue. I mean, I've been told, quite bluntly, by younger people who are either gay, or support gays, "I can't wait until your generation is dead!" Well, that will happen, soon enough. The voters and future voters who have been brainwashed in our public schools will become an ever larger percentage of the constituency.
In short, we are being socially engineered. I can see that pretty clearly, but I can't see the whole picture. The planners at the top most definitely want to move toward socialism, but at the same time, they want an elite class who owes their elite status to those planners. And, of course, those persons and groups in charge of this social engineering plan to hold the reigns of power when everything falls into place.
Don't worry about the tech industry putting any holes in the SJW's arguments. If/when anyone tries that, it's going to be much the same as we hear regarding black people today. "Well, you've historically exploited these people, so yes, of course they deserve everything they can get today!"
Nor does the presence of females damage their arguments. Remember, roughly half of any group are females - that goes across racial, ethnic, religious, and sexual lines, as well as any other lines you may care to bring up. It is safe to argue for any group's rights, and argue for women's rights at the same time, unless you are arguing for men's rights.
Let me kind of repeat myself. I can see this much, but I can't see the whole picture. We ARE being manipulated, in multiple ways. Corporations are moving wealth out of the US into other parts of the world. India, among others, is improving their education, while our own education is slipping. Tech is moving from the US to China and other Asian nations. China's military is being built up, rapidly, while our own is being weakened, often by means of corruption. (look at the F-35, billions poured into it, and not one single unit delivered)
There are issues, and related issues, and yet more related issues, all being addressed by the mysterious powers that actually rule this world. It's one huge spider web of global intrigue - and this "gay rights" issue is just a small part of it all.
And, I guaran-damn-tee that the voters don't rule this world. California, the gayest state in the nation, voted AGAINST gay marriage, and the courts decreed that the voters don't matter - the gay agenda was pushed forward by activist judges who don't answer to any voters.
So - I don't know if I've actually answered your questions, but you might look around and try to get a handle on the BIG PICTURE. Gay marriage is just one of those absurd distractions given to us to argue about, while the important decisions are handled by so-called "Trade agreement treaties".
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday June 29 2015, @09:48PM
There are issues, and related issues, and yet more related issues, all being addressed by the mysterious powers that actually rule this world.
Yes! Yes! And there are known knowns, known unknowns, and the unknown unknowns, to the east and the north and somewhat to the west. Seriously, Runaway, I am not sure whether you are channeling Donald Rumsfeld or Donald Trump. Or Donald Duck. Pull down your tinfoil hat extra tight, and watch the Weird Al video. Just because they are not out to get you, that is no reason to not be paranoid.
And,
The issue, as I see it, is that LGBT is a protected, special class, whose tender feelings we must never offend.
You should tell that to the families of the many LGBT persons whose "tender feelings" were bludgeoned to death. Freedom from being murdered is not usually thought of as a special right.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 29 2015, @10:02PM
"the families of the many LGBT persons whose "tender feelings" were bludgeoned to death"
I am somewhat sympathetic to those families when it comes to that kind of crap. They have the right to demand EQUALITY and EQUAL TREATMENT. They most certainly DO NOT have any right to protected status. Equality, or nothing. The moment they demand special treatment, they become my enemies, and the enemies of America. And, that is precisely what has happened with this "gay marriage" nonsense. Two or more hetero males can live together in the same home, and not seek any special consideration. Two or more females might share an apartment for decades, and not seek any special consideration. A hetero male and a hetero female might even live together for years, and not seek special consideration as a married couple.
But gays? They can't procreate, they can't even pretend that they are trying to procreate. And, they want the tax breaks that procreating couples are entitled to.
Special doesn't cut it. You're either a citizen, or you're not. There are no 1st and 2nd class citizens. Equality, and nothing more.
Gay marriage is an oxymoron.
(Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Monday June 29 2015, @10:18PM
And, they want the tax breaks that procreating couples are entitled to.
Oh! You have Breeder bias! So we force hetero couples to divorce if they don't produce? With jail time if it is by choice. And we cannot allow one infertile partner to tie up the other that could be making future soldiers for our Glorious Fuhrer! No, marriage is not about procreation, it is about recognizing a family. So denying anyone a right to marry, to form a family, without a significance public interest in doing so (recessive genetics, slavery), is inequality, discrimination, the denial of equal rights. So you are NOT really an American, Runaway. I am sure the other, real, Americans will be sad to see you go.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @11:57PM
If marriage was about procreation, all marriages would be immediately anulled at the onset of menopause, if a tibal ligation / vasectomy was performed, or if testicular/ovarian cancer occurred.
If its solely about procreation, then how come nobody is telling my dad he can't remarry because of his vasectomy, or that my mother can't remarry since she's post-menopausal?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 30 2015, @01:29AM
Utter nonsense. No one denied a gay the right to commit to a member of the opposite sex for the purposes of procreation. No matter how you spin it, you're arguing for a SPECIAL RIGHT for gays.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday June 30 2015, @01:42AM
Ah ha! See, you contradicted yourself! You are wrong! Ha! What? You don't see it? It's a blatant contradiction. . . Hm, this is going to make things difficult. Here goes:
No one denied a gay the right to commit to a member of the opposite sex for the purposes of procreation.
Fair enough. But everyone is denying a not-gay person the right to commit to a person of the same sex for purposes of whatever purposes they may see fit. Why would they want to do that? None of your business, nor of mine. Why do old people get married? Certainly not for procreation! Is it right for us to deny heterosexual old people the right to pair up with whoever they can find willing? I can see you're still worried about the gay marrying thing being mandatory, and that you will have to get all gay-married. Don't worry, it won't be that bad. You won't have any pressure to have kids!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 30 2015, @02:41AM
You are describing a formal partnership. Two or more men, two or more women, or any combination of men and women may form a partnership, just as they can form a corporation, to serve almost any purpose which they deem proper. A partnership is a legal, recognized, and honored arrangement that dates back - hell, I don't know how long it dates back. A contract is drawn up, describing the goals of the partnership, and any and all parties must abide by the terms of the contract, or face being sued in court. Not THAT much different from marriage, now is it?
Meanwhile, you continue with preposterous verbiage. Old people get married because they want to. And, some old people manage to have children. Even if they never do have children, they can at least pretend to by trying to make children. The rest of your comment gets even more preposterous.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday June 30 2015, @02:00AM
I feel obligated to respond to this. The one thing that continues coming up for me is the question of what the value of gay marriage is in the face of the larger situation you mention. We're looking at a total destruction of the middle class. So, sure, we can have gay marriage and legal weed, but we'll all be rotting in terrafoam dorms.
I saw clips of Sarkeesian, Quinn, and Wu on John Oliver's Last Week Tonight week before last. I'm thinking this online harassment issue is another link in the chains of slavery as it were. (All in all, it was all just bricks in the wall.)
I admit, I never got my copy of the gay agenda since I was training with the Chinese Amazons at the time, so I'm a bit out of sorts to discuss it. I'd like to report that my employer has been just great in regards to true equality. We had an openly gay supervisor for a while, and I believe they at least still employ half of a lesbian couple. They even considered one of my trans friends for a temporary position (she didn't get it). No special dispensation here. They all stand on their own merits. It's a practical small, but growing, business.
My thoughts (after a pint of vodka) wander to questions of why the Confederate Flag is A Thing now. I've often thought about getting a Gadsden flag bumper sticker and placing it next to a rainbow flag bumper sticker just for the sheer divide by zero that would cause.
John Titor, a time traveller from an alternate timeline where nuclear war breaks out in 2015 (at this point I don't think that'll happen in this timeline—martial law hasn't been established [yet], which had been since 2013 iirc in Titor's timeline), reported that in 2026, America had become closer to Jefferson's ideal agrarian republic.
I'd like to argue that homosexual and trans folks have a place in a Jeffersonian agrarian republic and even as a valuable and natural part of the family. Let's rethink this whole gay marriage thing. Perhaps it's a mistake. Granted, I have an enchantment that makes me biologically 100% female—I'm just lazy about paperwork (a foreign concept to Amazon tradition), so may the readers feel free to flame me. I'd go so far as to say the nuclear family is a mistake. The extended family is more natural, and that's where homosexuals and trans folks come in.
One might invoke Card's vision of marriage, but I think that's wrong. Procreation need not be the absolute goal or absolute measure of a person. Rather, we should move into more of a model of community that Titor reported. Home education, extended family, community, openness, and what struck me most, turning off the TV to talk about things and pass on stories with the family and community.
Think about creepypasta. This used to be something that was passed on by word of mouth by a campfire (see Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, Schwartz). Now we have Hollywood hollow creepypasta. Really, Evil Dead is the only real creepy story Hollywood has to offer, and that's barely Hollywood!
We need to find a new democratized way to realize the Jeffersonian vision of a republic in an age that is most certainly not agrarian.
Project Australia? I've been wondering if it's time to do an IPO for such a thing. More meditation is required for concepts such as the refs.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @05:23PM
It's a variation of the availability heuristic. Because comments affirming heterosexuality are so commonplace, many don't appreciate how much heteros shove their sexuality into others' faces. Since comments affirming homosexuality are rarer, they stand out more. When it was first brought to my attention, I was stunned at how much I did to shove my heterosexuality into people's faces.
(Score: 2) by kadal on Monday June 29 2015, @08:01PM
Example?
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Monday June 29 2015, @08:51PM
Exactly what I asked about above. It's quite normal to hear about somebody's significant other at work, and this is perfectly fine. What I wanted to figure out was whether a homosexual man similarly talking about his boyfriend (or now potentially husband) was somehow special. I think after reading Runaway1956's response, a homosexual man talking about his significant other at work is not the issue here; it seems to be more PDAs¹, which I can see being annoying no matter what sexual orientations or genders are involved.
(I'm still digesting the comment.)
GP is pointing out that once one removes oneself from a heteronormative frame, one notices how frequently heterosexuals talk about their love life. There is nothing wrong with this; it's simply notable, as in note it as interesting, then move on.
¹ Public display of affection.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @01:03AM
The 8 company anniversary dinners we attended together.
The picture of her I have for my desktop wallpaper.
Keep in mind this was first pointed out to me before gay marriage was legal, so some of these are iffier now, but were red flags when I said them
"I can't stay late, I'm having dinner with my in-laws"
"I'm going to go see a movie with my wife"
"I don't watch much TV. My wife is very particular about which show she sleeps through."
"I need to take some bereavement leave to attend my father-in-law's funeral."
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday June 30 2015, @03:28AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 29 2015, @04:58PM
See? With an attitude like that, no wonder Penthouse/Playboy never dared to offer you a job.
And now?... you're too ugly, old and bitter.
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 29 2015, @05:20PM
/me flips the bird to the young wiseass
Don't worry, your day is coming. ;^)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 29 2015, @10:05PM
(I was speaking from direct experience)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @10:19PM
,,!,,
(_|_)
(_⅄_)
( )º( )
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @11:37AM
I dunno... sex at work is pretty darn'ed hot.. Risky maybe (but that's part of what makes it so hot)
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday June 29 2015, @02:00PM
Antidiscrimination laws generally cover public accomodation. That also includes employment and housing.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Translation Error on Monday June 29 2015, @03:17PM
Right. It's sickening how everyone was all happy and peaceful, not caring at all who other people are attracted to and what they do with each other until those attention seeking homosexuals went and had sex on the steps of city hall and stopped people on the streets to make them watch them kiss. It certainly couldn't have instead been that they wanted to simply live their lives how they chose, with whom they chose, without being at a real risk of being beaten, raped, fired, murdered, driven out of town, having possessions vandalized, etc. if people took notice of their lives and disapproved. They should have just stayed quiet and enjoyed their peaceful lives instead of standing up and declaring they're gay, not ashamed to admit it, and will fight for their lives and rights. Selfish, grandstanding jerks.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday June 29 2015, @03:40PM
It can always leak that you are gay or whatever the society at the time happens to disapprove of. So even people that just want to go on with their lives can't ignore the issue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @04:00PM
whooooooosh
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Monday June 29 2015, @04:13PM
Yes, it was indeed once that way, but it isn't any longer, at least, not in any Western country that I know of.
The pendulum has swung. Governmental discrimination has been almost entirely eliminated for a long time now. These things to take time, there are certainly some last details, but the recent court decision in the US is pretty indicative of the situation. On top of that, gays are largely accepted in society; for those who don't accept them (mostly religious conservatives), well, that's their right (see my original comment about trying to legislate people's personal opinions).
The problem is: by the time the original problems are corrected, the pendulum has so much momentum that it starts causing problems by going to the other extreme. That's what I meant about activists demanding that their personal rights trump other people's personal rights. It sure would be nice if we could stop the pendulum in the middle for a change.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @10:54PM
> The pendulum has swung.
29 states where you can legally be fired simply for being gay [snopes.com]
32 states where it is legal to refuse any form of service to gays [answers.com] - not just catering a wedding, but also places like a sit-down restaurant, a movie theater, or even a grocery store.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday June 29 2015, @03:42PM
If no one speaks up how can they be heard? They are a minority who face discrimination. Without speaking up and showing the world that they exist, they can easily be ignored by the majority.
And lets be serious, no one is shoving anything in your face (unless you are up-front at a pride parade). That statement is used by people who are uncomfortable with a particular group of people. They prefer said group keep quiet and stay out of view. That is called oppression.
Slavery? Are you serious? Do me a favor and go look up slavery first. There was no need to make a religious freedom law. That was just pandering to secure christian votes. The bakery was within their right to refuse service. Not exactly a nice thing to do but neither are KKK rallies but they have the right to express themselves too. Even if every christian bakery refuses to sell cakes to gays then the gays can establish their own bakeries. I don't exactly like that idea but you see, not everyone is an asshole. So for every christian bakery who refuses to sell cakes to gays, there are probably a hundred or more who will happily sell to them. Hate is an ugly thing and thankfully as society progresses, hate is weeded out and everyone learns to live with everyone else. The idea that a bakery would refuse service to gays will become unpopular as the my other example, the KKK. Those are extreme fringe beliefs that society on a whole will eventually reject.
This is a very tricky topic. How do you allow religious freedom without also allowing discrimination? And how do you align that with other anti-discrimination laws so they don't allow for loopholes or contradiction? If an idea such as religion is allowed to discriminate, why can't other ideas be allowed the same privilege? Why can't I refuse to sell cakes to ugly people? Fat people? Black people? It is a very slippery slope. How deep does the rabbit hole go before you need philosophy as rights are ideas themselves. What ideas are valid?
My opinion? Treat others the way you would want to be treated. There is no simpler idea than that which guarantees equality.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @05:34PM
All the 'christian' arguments against gay marriage were also made against interracial marriage [thinkprogress.org] before (and for years afterwards in corner cases like Bob Jones University) that was nationally legalized by the supreme court. While it is (currently) not illegal for a bakery to refuse service to a gay couple, it is illegal for a bakery to refuse service to a interracial couple. Has that law been much of a burden at all?
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday June 29 2015, @03:49PM
Im bisexual. Suppose I brought a man as my date to the company picnic. In most US states I could be fired, and I would have no legal recourse.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by useless on Monday June 29 2015, @06:50PM
I'm curious, which states would those be, and under what law exactly?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @12:06AM
See this post [soylentnews.org].
(Score: 2) by stormreaver on Monday June 29 2015, @04:19PM
I do have a beef with LGBT, and it's this: stop shoving your sexuality in everyone's faces.
It's actually the Christian majority that is shoving LGBT's sexuality in everyone's faces, not the LGBT's themselves. The latter are just the messengers, but the message is continuously broadcast entirely by the former. It's the Christian majority that continually says, "No, you can't do that because you're not like us!" Its members then say, "Stop telling everyone what we said, because it's starting to backfire!"
Christians do this not just with sexuality, but with many aspect of life.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday June 29 2015, @04:49PM
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis." -- Dante Alighieri
Ive been out of work for years. Its not actually that I cannot obtain work, in part its because I decline interviews with companies I regard as unethical.
That can be hard to take sometimes but if were ever going to get out of the mess were in someone must step up and accept responsibility.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @12:03AM
Same to you, breeders, stop shoving your sexuality in everyone's faces. You're not special, you are no the center of the universe, the rest of the world does not care who you banged, how hot you think she was, how big her tits were, how tight her pussy was, etc. Nobody gives a fuck who you have sex with, so can it you fucking hypocrites.
(Score: 1) by Kharnynb on Tuesday June 30 2015, @06:25AM
Nope, you shouldn't be allowed to just randomly refuse service to people, you should only be allowed not to provide a specific service(rainbow 2 men weddingcake, swastika tattoo, etc.).
Unless you want to go back to the lovely days of "we don't serve negroes"?
From a business point of view it really shouldn't matter who buys your stuff. it only matters what stuff you are willing to sell.
The only exclusions i could see that would be needed are gendered gyms/sportsteams, maybe age limits where required.
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Monday June 29 2015, @02:09PM
Something I don't understand about the law vs private behavior:
If I were an engaged gay dude or a trans woman or whatever I would much rather prefer to know the wedding cake maker doesn't want my business so I can go elsewhere, instead of being stuck eating a cake thats 5% saliva and god only knows what they mixed into the "chocolate" frosting. Its not like that means a gay dude would not be able to get a wedding cake, seriously, have you ever watched Food Network, about 50% of the folks in the cake business are LGBTQXYZABC so dude is not going to have any problem finding someone to make him a cake that isn't 5% saliva by weight.
And this goes for all transactions not just edibles. If my black car salesman hates white guys like me, I want to know. I don't want him being legally required to sell me a car anyway while he makes sure behind the scenes its the worst lemon to ever roll off the lot, fills the gas tank with sand, drains out the oil, pees in the coolant, whatever.
Meanwhile if I were baking wedding cakes (my MiL used to do this as a side/retirement business, she's all artsy and sculpture-ish) then I would NEVER sell to a black lesbian liberal or whatever because looking at the bell curve lets face it, 1% of my cakes are naturally going to be extra shitty and if I sell that bad cake to a straight white girl worst case is I lose $1000 in small claims court, but if the luck of the draw goes to some weirdo then I'll get the economic death penalty because shitty cake only happens because of hatred, and its just plain old not worth it to risk my life and my families life to entertain "those people". I mean, they're not even "my people" I'd be risking my life over. Go pick up a pilsbury mix at the store and make your own damn cake I have no interesting in gambling with my children's future just to make a lesbian a cake. I mean, sure 99% odds a lesbian would love my delicious cake, and I get along with lesbians and have nothing against them, but its just statistics, I see no reason to destroy my kids lives and my own life just in case the dice roll is bad and she gets a bad cake therefore SHE decides I must hate lesbians even though I don't much care one way or the other (well other than normal straight guy "can I watch" idiocy). So sure I'd be the guy trying not to sell a cake to a lesbian even though I basically like them.
I'm just sayin, WTF are you people thinking?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Francis on Monday June 29 2015, @03:22PM
I'm thinking you need medication.
People will continue to think and act like that as long as there are no consequences and no exposure. Without exposure there's no ability to change and grow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @03:48PM
And then one person actually speaks sensibly, raises good points, and asks a question, and promptly gets recommended medication in lieu of a proper answer. Fantastic. Maybe the inmates do truly run the asylum after all.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday June 30 2015, @06:35AM
It's not a reasonable question. it's rather paranoid and I'm shocked that he could come up with those sorts of scenarios.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday June 30 2015, @11:15AM
I'm shocked that he could come up with those sorts of scenarios.
LOL it wasn't exactly difficult, its merely a news story out of Colorado. Pay more attention to the news. My MiL really is a semi-retired wedding cake decorator.
http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/ [aclu-co.org]
"A Colorado judge today determined that a Lakewood bakery unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to sell them a wedding cake."
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday June 29 2015, @03:44PM
Sometimes you don't get to choose the business you need, the employment opportunity or the place to stay. That's then those laws becomes a necessity. Otoh, there are ways to screen customers etc discretely without breaking anything.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday June 29 2015, @06:43PM
But... wedding cakes? That seems a very weak justification for slavery.
Maybe if the wedding cake market were a closely regulated government monopoly with government guaranteed profit margins then some justification could be made that the government intentionally destroying the market would imply the government has an obligation to keep it cookin in a fair-ish way for all. Think of health care, for example, or the postal service, or anything else the .gov has Fed up for us.
The artist aspect rather than commodity seems to be a very serious issue too. I can see some minimal justification for the government declaring and regulating a commodity and requiring it to be sold to all equally because its an interchangeable commodity. I'd sell anyone an options contract for 50 kilobushels of tribbles at 534 credits of gold pressed latinum, but you're a ferengi and I don't do business with ferengi seems a bit harsh. But we're talking art here not commodities. Greasy sugary fluffy art, but, none the less, art.
VLM draw me a pix of sponge bob for $5. Nah I feel more like drawing a hobbit. OK dude but you're not getting my $5.
VLM draw me a pix of a 6502 microprocessor for $5. Nah not today, just not my thing, was always more a 6809 programmer back in the day. OK dude but you're not getting my $5.
VLM draw me a pix of that christian church for $5. Sorry I am drawing spaghetti monsters today because my religion requires they be drawn on this day. OK dude whatever but you're not getting my $5.
VLM draw me a pix of a happily married gay couple for $5. Nah not today, just not feeling it in my artistic bones. (Insert SJW's being paradropped to utterly destroy VLM and his family for political correctness reasons). I'm just not seeing the point of that kind of utter political extremism, that level of hatred. I guess not being able to sympathize and empathize with blind vicious hatred points to good mental health on my part.
Michelangelo did a nice job on that CATHOLIC church roof, but if he ever turned down a Lutheran church commission we should dig up his bones and burn them, which sounds pretty ridiculous.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @01:46PM
> But... wedding cakes? That seems a very weak justification for slavery.
I read that fully expecting it to mean that anyone calling non-discrimination wedding cake sales slavery was making a very weak argument.
And then I read the rest of your post.
The fact that you have to go to such extremes to illustrate your point really proves just how extreme your position is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @03:52PM
The cynic in me would assume that it wasn't about a cake or a wedding, but for milking the situation for every penny's worth.
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Monday June 29 2015, @04:48PM
It's just prejudice. You don't have any statistics about black people being more litigative or more successful at litigation. Luck of the draw? You must have missed all the crazy [metro.co.uk] white [nydailynews.com] people [mirror.co.uk] out there (courtesy Fark.com).
By your logic, you should be living in a bunker and growing your own food. After all, you are rolling the dice whenever you talk to a white heterosexual or any other human being. You should start a mail-order cake business that sells only to the physically handicapped.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday June 29 2015, @07:01PM
You should start a mail-order cake business that sells only to the physically handicapped.
Nah, if I was asked to draw Mohammed (yeah that one) in a wheelchair and I refused for religious reasons, the SJWs would burn my store to the ground and destroy me and my family, because obviously the only reason I'd turn down a handicapped customer is because I hate them, and hate is now a capital crime according to SJWs.
I did come up with an interesting solution to the problem which is legal abolishment of bespoke cake making.
So my MiL can make homemade wedding cakes all day without a care in the world if the happy couple is gay or furries or pedos or poly or even (gasp) default. Then next door the cake store can sell any cake to anyone who walks in the door all day long. Everyone wins.
Its not possible to prosecute my MiL for hate crime if she insists on covering her cakes with bible verse references or all her homemade frosting sculptures involve one and only one adult male and one and only one adult female. Of course other folk are free not to buy her cakes but at least they can't firebomb her house and kill her kids or enslave her or threaten her with death unless she puts two dudes on the cake. Actually she's pretty mellow and would probably be cool with two adult dudes, but she'd probably draw the line at the pedo. Give society 20 more years and not supporting that will be a capital crime too, then again she'll be 100+ so it'll no longer be relevant to her.
And the store is safe because its highly unlikely the store would care who bought what and not being "arty" they don't need to make a connection with their customers they just need to trade $ for delicious cake. I've never had a cashier ask about my orientation, like, anywhere, ever. Want a delicious cake that has "wedding" written on it? Awesome I don't care if you toss it off a bridge to celebrate your divorce or WTF, just keep buying my delicious cake.
See the important distinction is if someone asks her to write "Jesus loves gay people" and she doesn't write that, they can enslave and kill her and destroy her family, but if she never talks to the buyer and just happens to never write "Jesus loves gay people" all on her own free will, then she's safe and they can't use the government to enslave and destroy her.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @07:51PM
Nah, if I was asked to draw Mohammed (yeah that one) in a wheelchair and I refused for religious reasons, the SJWs would burn my store to the ground and destroy me and my family, because obviously the only reason I'd turn down a handicapped customer is because I hate them, and hate is now a capital crime according to SJWs.
Jesus christ can you not hear the over-the-top crazy in your words? If I didn't know you from your posting history I'd think you were writing deliberate parody.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @12:16AM
"Everything is the fault of SJWs!" ... Sounds strangely familiar... "Everything is the fault of the Jews!", "Everything is the fault of the niggers!", "Everything is the fault of gypsies!", "Everything is the fault of Muslims!". Oh! Now I recognize it, its just standard bigotry and hate-propaganda.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @12:39PM
"Everything is the fault of SJWs!"
No, not everything, except all of the Politically Correct thought policing is their fault. That's where the PC term even comes from, so it is the fault of SJWs.
The recent batch of Internet censorship that's coming down the pike is being paraded by SJWs as a blow against "Hate Speech" and "Online Harrassment" (meanwhile schoolgirls say worse things about each other IRL, but we feel no need to persecute school children for "hate crimes"...yet). Believe it or not when SJWs have intercourse with society and/or its politics, they really do cause harm. As one example, look at how SJWs removed due process in rape accusations. [human-stupidity.com] And turned campuses into toxic places for men with "Teach men not to rape" and various forms of ridiculous campus rape hysteria -- As if men didn't get raped (why not teach women not to rape?); As if without said classes male college students would be raping people by their very nature (ignoring that rapists make up a small percentage of society and they already know it's wrong to rape but do so anyway). Now it's becoming safer for men not to go to such colleges because even if they are SJWs themselves all it takes is one vindictive ex to anonymously report them and they'll not be able to prove their innocence since the event never happened to have evidence of (guilty until proven innocent really is the norm now thanks to policy stemming from the "Dear Colleagues" letter, look that up).
Here's the very sane thought that you don't seem to grasp: If the SJWs hadn't pushed for the ability to ruin lives over "hate speech" then people wouldn't be afraid of incurring wrath for the most minor misstep. Personally, the moment anyone brings up their LGBTQIAPPOF status I disassociate from them unless they're a member of my family or a trusted friend. I do this because I've been falsely accused of being a bigot for having an ordinary disagreement the same as I typically have with other friends, family, etc. The asshole then spread rumors of this "hate crime" and tried to have me fired though the disagreement was not at work and of a political nature, not out of hate: I don't support state recognized marriages, straight or homosexual; And I think gay marriage is sexist since it ignores bisexuality -- Shouldn't bisexuals be able to marry both a man and woman? I was ostracized from several groups of friends thanks to this SJW -- Their LGBTQIAPPOF status was irrelevant, but the social and legal frameworks which allow SJWs to destroy the lives of others is relevant. I've been burned and learned my lesson: Better safe than sorry. Any SJW vibes and I'm out.
Note the double standard in that there is no SJW trumpeting "hate crime" every time a gay says something like "fuck off breeder" to a straight person, nor when someone says "Kill the white devils" to whites or advocates for the genocide of males "#killallmen" [youtube.com]. So, it really is safer to avoid the situations altogether. Ironcially, it's safer than ever to hanging out with straight white men since SJWs hate them and won't try to ruin your life if you offend a straight white man. In the name of destroying a "boys club" the SJW has made that the most desirable club to have. Some of my friends and family are queer, and I love them. They're not SJWs, so it's safe to be around them, but when it comes to strangers I would rather walk out the door if they don a "minority status victim card" and begin talking about SocJus Politically Correct thought police. [youtube.com] I'll avoid those people for the same reason I helped my son select a different college that wasn't an SJW indoctrination camp [thefire.org] and had a policy of involving the police instead of destroying lives via anonymous rape accusation and Inquisitorial Star Chamber where you don't get to confront your accuser and actual rapists get away with a slap on the wrist. There have been cases where the police later exonerated people accused of campus rape and yet the colleges upheld the student's expulsion and defacto blacklisting by leaving "rapist" in their records. Wouldn't you say it's sane to avoid such situations? If so, then it's also sane to avoid other situations that are equally as dangerous.
It's not my fault that SJWs have fucked up our culture and legal system with their Political Correctness -- Their divisionist ideology is to blame for my aversion to random LGBTQIAPPOF people. 9/10 times a person who throws their sexuality or minority status in my face turns out to be one of the useful idiots parroting this destructive ideology, so I've learned to distance myself as the divisionists who created the ideology would have us do. There is real bigoted hate being normalized in this society, but it's from SJWs against anyone they don't like. If you can't see that, you either haven't looked or must be blind. You have no excuse not to see now since I've provided links, one that goes to Foundation for Individual Rights in Education [thefire.org], which has plenty of examples of SJWs skewering people who don't obey their speech laws on campus -- That's right, simply misspeak or have words taken out of context by SJWs and you may need the legal services like FIRE provides. So, who's insane? The cautious individual insulating themselves from the poisonous culture surrounding them, or the person like you maintaining bigoted ignorance of real problems created by the toxic social justice warrior ideology?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @01:34PM
You mad, bro?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2015, @03:38PM
Ofcourse the cunt would draw the line at pedo: she is a woman, man+girl child is against her interests because she is older. The other things are not and do not bother her. This is how women work.
Deuteronomy 22 28-29, hebrew.
Nothing wrong with pedo of man+girl.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @08:03PM
> It's just prejudice. You don't have any statistics about black people being more litigative or more successful at litigation.
They're looking at worse case: being made a social pariah by people prone to jump to conclusions that any mistake is malicious.
That has nothing to do with whoever is more likely to sue. Fact is, you can be openly racist against white people and get away with it in today's culture. There are no "white rights groups" or anyone else to jump down someone's throat when they're being racist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @11:16PM
It's just prejudice. You don't have any statistics about black people being more litigative or more successful at litigation.
It's not blacks, it's social justice warriors and you're selectively ignoring SJWs having the head of Harvard fired over merely hypothesizing (not actually believing) that STEM sexual bias in enrollment might be genetic. [youtube.com] Or, about the SJWs filing title IX harassment charges against professors for not taking "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" seriously enough for their tastes. [youtube.com]
Meanwhile, #BlackLivesMatters protesters disrupt a Gay Pride parade, with actual shots fired. [thegatewaypundit.com] SJWs are to be avoided and delegitimatized, it's dangerous not to do so. So, we have decades of examples of SJWs being very litigative and harassing. Where are your counter examples indicating that caution isn't warranted?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @01:34AM
My first thought was that the gov't might mandate a **We impose our prejudices onto the public** mark that the tightasses must affix to all their stuff so that everyone would be aware of their proclivities.
...then I went all Libertarian|Free Market with the notion.
REVERSE that: Have a body with a mark like the copyright symbol with that body controlling its use like the various kosher symbols or the GPL moniker.
The mark would mean **We DON'T impose our prejudices onto the public**.
Non-tightass businesses could put it on their letterhead, business cards, ads, website, product labels, signage, etc.
Don't see the mark? Pass them by--or, if you are also a tightass, say "My kind of people".
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by Kharnynb on Tuesday June 30 2015, @06:35AM
You mean instead of business people being fucking professional and not fucking up on purpose?
I can see someone refusing to produce a specific cake/type of wedding if they are a caterer/baker/location rental.
Refusing a specific person or sabotaging their products is mean, small minded and spiteful and should rightfully be illegal in case of damaging the product or otherwise sabotaging the service on purpose.
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @01:04PM
Meanwhile if I were baking wedding cakes then I would NEVER sell to a black lesbian liberal
In isolation that makes business sense. Black lesbian liberals aren't often swimming in money. I, on the other hand earn plenty and have hardly any expenses so have a bit to spend on fancy gay things like faux weddings with over-the-top cakes.
However, I too, prefer doing business with shops that don't fill them with saliva and I base my estimate of salivity on how the owner treats black lesbian liberals (among other groups; it's not particularly good sign to unleash shitstorm on well behaving conservative christians either).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @03:18PM
with fat, ugly women. Yes, I live in the USA.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @04:03PM
Why are you so interested in what fat, ugly women do in their bedroom?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @05:18PM
I'm not. But the truth is: it all started with fat, ugly women.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @12:18AM
Because women belong in the kitchen. The only thing they should be doing outside of the kitchen is stroking my cock.
(Score: 2) by stormreaver on Monday June 29 2015, @05:54PM
The summary's basic premise is wrong. The U.S. Supreme Court did not rule that same sex marriage is a Constitutional right. Nowhere in the Constitution is marriage mentioned, in any context.
The U.S. Supreme Court said that if you allow one subset of people to be married, you must allow all similar subsets of people to be married.
That's it.
Republicans and Christians are spewing all kinds of diseased rhetoric from all open orifices trying to blow this simple concept way out of proportion.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by purpleland on Monday June 29 2015, @07:13PM
Yes, but to be precise have a look at this SCOTUS blog post [scotusblog.com] summary.
Dissenting Chief Justice Roberts' primary argument is that since marriage is not mentioned in the constitution, the Supreme Court should not get involved at all. Turns out the Supreme Court have ruled on a lot of things not mentioned in the constitution, which greatly weakens such an argument.
There are other arguments, but they all seem even weaker still. Frankly, it makes all those who are against same-sex marriage look like fucking bigoted idiots.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday June 29 2015, @07:51PM
To be more precise, the Constitution is involved [wikipedia.org]: "On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex marriages and recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states."
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by stormreaver on Tuesday June 30 2015, @06:16PM
Dissenting Chief Justice Roberts' primary argument is that since marriage is not mentioned in the constitution, the Supreme Court should not get involved at all.
He is partially right, and partially wrong. He is right that marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution (a legal statement). He is wrong that it is not a Constitutional issue (clouded by his personal religious beliefs). The Court majority was correct that it is clearly a 14th Amendment issue. Various Government jurisdictions were not providing equal protection to all people within the county's borders.
When religion is discarded from the equation, the solution becomes self-evident.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @08:06PM
>The U.S. Supreme Court said that if you allow one subset of people to be married, you must allow all similar subsets of people to be married.
>That's it.
Ofcourse Man+Girl will be an exception.
Even thought Man+Girls is a traditional form of marraige, pre feminism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @08:46PM
Regardless of how you feel about gays, this is a pretty stupid non-news kind of story.
It would only be news if he *didn't* have something positive to say.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @01:26PM
Let's be honest -- there are a lot of luddites out there that will always discriminate against LGBT. I mean, 150 years after the end of slavery, racism is still a problem!
If white men could be black for a month, there would be no racism. We can't do that (yet!), but we can end homophobia!
How? By requiring all CIS males to engage in gay anal sex. I mean, most states require kids to be vaccinated. This is the same thing, except we're vaccinating against GLBT discrimination!
I'm starting a change.org petition and have talked to a couple of state legislators that were very receptive to the idea!