SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 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.