Amazon has whacked our affiliate account. Hosting Donations/Commitments $2063 of $1920 (Sept 13/18). In Hand $1466 (Lump sum payments minus paypal graft). Paypal Donation Link Here

LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by GreenGoo » Thu Feb 21, 2019 2:05 pm

hepcat wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:54 am
I think Fireball hit the nail on the head. The question of fairness due to physiology is a logical one, but it gets buried by those who want to view it through the lens of prejudice and downplay it as ridiculous, instead of trying to address it as a serious question.
In fairness to the original question Moliere posted and ignoring the emotional examples and the questionable appeals to authority, simply agreeing that when someone claims they are a certain gender they have the right to compete as that gender can result in complications that are potentially (or increasingly) dangerous up to and including life threatening. These questions need to be addressed.

Outside of competition, it is my opinion that it costs society nothing to simply accept and support assertions of gender identity, and provides many benefits in lots of different ways to both the person in question and society in general. That doesn't hold true for competition, particularly highly physical competition.

While I don't agree that there is a clearly defined hard line separating genders in gender based competition, neither do I think it should be whichever gender a person identifies as is the gender they are allowed to compete as. Just because we want equality and want societal justice for all doesn't mean we ignore realities and pretend what we want to be true is true and condemn others who won't join the group delusion.

Max posted the IOC rules which I think are a good starting place, because presumably they are giving this reasoned and thorough thought backed by science. This is their bread and butter after all, and they've been at this a long time with much international scrutiny and pressure. I don't actually know that's true (reasoned opinion backed by science) nor do I want to put myself in a position to second guess the IOC. I withhold judgement on whether they are the final arbiter on what *should* be the guidelines, as any single organization can be monolithic and potentially narrative or politically driven. They certainly have every right to make their own rules, I'm just not willing to evaluate them based on my limited understanding of the entirety of complications that surround transgender/gender competition.

Like I said, the IOC is probably a good place to start. Whether it ends there or not, I'll take a wait and see attitude.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by GreenGoo » Thu Feb 21, 2019 2:11 pm

hepcat wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:25 pm
That's a little different than a free for all of women and men doing their business at the same time.
Agreed. Plenty of places for decades have had a single washroom that is only accessible by one person, whichever gender they happen to be. That's hardly the same thing as multi-person genderless bathrooms.

GungHo
Posts: 3711
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:15 am
Location: Second star to the right

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by GungHo » Thu Feb 21, 2019 2:41 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 2:11 pm
hepcat wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:25 pm
That's a little different than a free for all of women and men doing their business at the same time.
Agreed. Plenty of places for decades have had a single washroom that is only accessible by one person, whichever gender they happen to be. That's hardly the same thing as multi-person genderless bathrooms.
Yall need to stop being reasonable and think about the children.
OR
cry in a corner that the world has come to a point where you have to pay for imaginary shit.

-Hiccup

User avatar
Daehawk
Posts: 43111
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:11 am
daehawk’s avatar
Online

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Daehawk » Thu Feb 21, 2019 2:57 pm

Single person bathrooms were my lifeline in the 90s with all the shopping we did then. One year I got sick on the way to the mall and the store we entered the mall through had a single use restroom for both anyone and handicapped. Between one end and the other Im glad I was alone for it all. Then I left and headed to where my wife was only to make it half way and have to run back to the bathroom. I did that 3 times. I had to go back a couple more times after meeting her.

For some reason after that trip I had what we called panic attacks. Not full blown like you see acted out on tv. I just got sick at my stomach for the next 4 or 5 mall trips. That bathroom was very helpful to me. I still haven't forgotten that to this day. It finally stopped happening I guess because it saw I was not giving up the mall :) That was late 1994 or early 1995.

The last few years going to the movies I dreaded it because I always had to go once or twice during movies and they only have the 4 stall and some trough type restroom. Hated it. But in 2016 and 2017 somehow I could wait out the entire movie and either go before we left ...if I could....or hold it home. One trip I couldn't go with it so crowded so had to wait until home . Luckily home is just up the road.

Man I miss my wife so much thinking of these memories. :(
https://www.gofundme.com/please-help-di ... -wife-died ....Help for me to take care of stuff . Wife died Jan 3 2019 after 31 years. My soulmate.
---------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.
GroovAtroN, stop asking
I guess Ray Butts has ate his last pancake.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/daehawk

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 60475
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Online

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Isgrimnur » Tue Feb 26, 2019 8:29 pm

WaPo
In a contentious meeting years in the making, the United States’s third-largest faith community voted to emphasize its opposition to same-sex marriage and gay clergy — a decision which was cheered by conservatives in the global church, especially in Africa, but was deeply disappointing to many Americans who were eager for change.

Many American ministers in the United Methodist Church already perform same-sex marriages and approve of the ordination of LGBT people as clergy, although the Protestant church’s rules officially forbid these marriages and ordinations. Many Methodists hoped that the church would amend those rules this week. Instead, a group of more than 800 clergy and lay leaders from around the world voted to affirm the church’s traditional view of sexuality — and to punish disobedient clergy more harshly than before.
...
But presented with several options during a four-day special session on the future of the church in St. Louis, the delegates picked the “traditional plan,” with 53 percent voting in favor. Other options would have allowed local churches to choose their stance on sexuality for themselves, or would have split the church into separate denominations.

The choice raises the question of whether churches that hoped for a different outcome will leave the denomination. The United Methodist Church is the largest mainline — meaning nonevangelical — Protestant church in the United States. Most other mainline Protestant churches do perform LGBT marriages, including the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Episcopal Church, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Each of those denominations lost some churches to more conservative faith groups when they decided to affirm same-sex marriage.
...
The end of the meeting was rushed: The Methodists needed to leave, because a monster truck rally was scheduled next in the stadium.
Silver - 1k

User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 38081
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!
hepcat’s avatar
Offline

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by hepcat » Tue Feb 26, 2019 9:27 pm

I was raised Methodist. It always struck me as odd that they never could figure out why they had a small African American congregation. I would think the giant burning cross they use for a symbol might be a clue...
I beat a camel to death with a monkey. Can I do that?
-Mr Bismarck

You have to whack a few rabbits before you are ready to punch a camel.
-Coopasonic

User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4565
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Fireball » Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:36 am

The UMC symbol is not a "burning" cross, it's a combination of the symbols for the Holy Spirit and for Jesus. The UMC was formed 51 years ago from three Methodist churches. In the United States, its membership is overwhelmingly progressive. Unfortunately, about a third of the church is located in Africa and other parts of the world where LGBT people are oppressed. Two thirds of the American UMC delegates at the convention this week supported LGBT inclusion, but they were outvoted by the far-right overseas congregations working in concert with the shrinking minority of anti-LGBT American members.

It's time for the progressive UMC congregations to break away from the denomination and form a proper, progressive church.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 60475
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Online

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Isgrimnur » Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:40 am

Cross and Flame
Adopted shortly after the merger of The Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church, it relates The United Methodist church to God through Christ (cross) and the Holy Spirit (flame). The flame is a reminder of Pentecost when witnesses were unified by the power of the Holy Spirit and saw "tongues, as of fire" (Acts 2:3).The two tongues of a single flame may also be understood to represent the union of two denominations. The two separate flames represent the Evangelical United Brethren Church and the Methodist Church coming together to form the United Methodist Church.
Silver - 1k

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46116
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by LawBeefaroni » Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:47 am

Fireball wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:36 am
The UMC symbol is not a "burning" cross, it's a combination of the symbols for the Holy Spirit and for Jesus.
I took it as a joke. I chuckled. I don't think anyone thinks it's actually a burning cross but it is a quirky symbol.

Fireball wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:36 am
It's time for the progressive UMC congregations to break away from the denomination and form a proper, progressive church.
Oh goodie, I love schisms!
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

User avatar
Enough
Posts: 14105
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:05 pm
Location: Serendipity
Contact:

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Enough » Wed May 08, 2019 5:09 pm

hepcat wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:54 am
I think Fireball hit the nail on the head. The question of fairness due to physiology is a logical one, but it gets buried by those who want to view it through the lens of prejudice and downplay it as ridiculous, instead of trying to address it as a serious question.

<hopefully I'm paraphrasing Fireball correctly. If not, please let me know>

As for the restroom subject, personally, I'm not a fan of same sex bathrooms. I'm too old and too indoctrinated by my generation's view on modesty to feel comfortable with it. As long as they maintain a men's room though, I'm perfectly fine with the existence of any other types.
Deadspin has a good article on transgender athletes up today,
For an athlete, who depends on and knows their body in a unique way, transitioning can be pretty fraught. The hormone therapies involved for transgender women slow them down, reduce their muscle mass, and make it more difficult to recover from workouts. Training, coaching, and nutrition can counteract some of these effects to a point, but transgender athletes are suddenly working with entirely new equipment. “It’s a massive change that happens really quickly,” McKinnon said. “It’s definitely a disadvantage.”

The very fact that transgender women have not somehow dominated all of women’s sport already throws water all over the USAPL’s claim that women powerlifters must be “protected” from them. “The line that we must protect sport for women from other women is inherently discriminatory,” McKinnon said.
USA Powerlifting’s response to transgender athletes is head-spinning. The thing about all this talk equating hormone replacement therapy to doping, and the threat to “biological females,” and the “unfair advantages” of “male puberty”, is that it’s based entirely on social perceptions of gender.

“There’s absolutely no scientific evidence at all that supports their position,” said Rachel McKinnon, an an expert on athletes’ rights and a professor of philosophy at the College of Charleston, and a world champion track cyclist to boot.

When we shove the concept of athletic ability—strength, for instance—into the same black-and-white binary that we try to put gender into, we’re wrong. There is no stark line separating what men can do athletically and what women can. Some women, in fact, are bigger, faster, and stronger than some men. A large data set analyzed for a 2018 study looked at the body composition and endocrine profiles of 689 elite cisgender athletes in various sports. When it came to physical attributes there was complete overlap between the men and women analyzed, McKinnon pointed out. For instance, the shortest person in the data set was male, not female. The lightest male weighed the same as the lightest female. There were men athletes and women athletes who had testosterone levels that hit the top of the chart and the bottom. Simply put, the range of any physical characteristic within a sex, (like, for instance, the six feet of difference between the shortest man in the world and the tallest man) is far greater than the average difference in height between the average man and the average woman (five inches). And elite athletes tend to live at the far ends of these spectra anyway.

When USA Powerlifting claims that transgender women are going to have an unfair advantage over “biological females,” they are making two very inaccurate assumptions, said McKinnon. “They are saying trans women are the same physiologically as cisgender men, which is not missing a few steps, that’s missing a whole staircase,” she said. Furthermore, “society assumes that all men are stronger than all women, which is absolutely false.”

What actually makes a man or a woman achieve what they can achieve athletically is still pretty much scientifically unquantifiable. The Caster Semenya case and even the IOC’s recommendations lean heavily on testosterone levels, but this is flawed. All the current research on testosterone shows that unlike what you have probably been told your whole life, it’s not just a “male” hormone—everyone has some naturally-occurring testosterone—and levels of naturally occurring testosterone have no correlation with athletic ability. Even the data the IAAF is leaning on to require Semenya alter her hormonal makeup is being vigorously contested in the scientific community as inconclusive at best and faulty at worst.

While more studies are expected on transgender athletes in the near future, at least one small study has shown that transgender women long-distance runners, after going through hormone replacement therapy end up running at about the same level for their gender —that is, they finish about the same spot in the field—after transition as they had before.
Considering trans women athletes as women only if they are weak and small and not competitive just furthers the societal narrative that women are only weak and small and not competitive. It is unclear at this point how USA Powerlifting’s board meeting will play out on Thursday and whether they will continue to try to implement a clearly discriminatory practice in the name of “protecting” women’s sport. But if some women are instead being “protected” against, then what is the point of competition at all?
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream

“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 60475
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Online

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Isgrimnur » Tue May 21, 2019 2:36 pm

NBC News
Alabama Public Television chose not to air PBS' recent "Arthur" episode that featured a same-sex marriage.

During the animated series' 22nd season premiere, titled “Mr. Ratburn and the Special Someone," Arthur's third-grade teacher, Mr. Ratburn, marries Patrick, a chocolatier, at a wedding attended by his students Arthur, Francine, Buster and Muffy. It aired May 13.

Mike McKenzie, director of programming at APT, told NBC News on Monday that PBS sent a message to stations in mid-April alerting them "to possible viewer concerns about the content of the program." After he and others at APT viewed the episode, they decided not to broadcast it and showed a rerun instead.
...
"The vast majority of parents will not have heard about the content, whether they agree with it or not," he said. "Because of this, we felt it would be a violation of trust to broadcast the episode."
...
In 2005, APT pulled an episode of "Postcards From Buster," a spinoff of "Arthur," in which the character Buster met a girl who had two mothers.
Silver - 1k

User avatar
coopasonic
Posts: 15893
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Dallas-ish
coopasonic’s avatar
Torchlight II

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by coopasonic » Tue May 21, 2019 2:41 pm

Alabama really misses the 19th century.
-Coop

User avatar
Enough
Posts: 14105
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:05 pm
Location: Serendipity
Contact:

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Enough » Fri May 24, 2019 3:18 pm

Ugh, anyone who argued that Trump would end up being more supportive of LGBTQ rights than expected should go suck a rock.



https://twitter.com/cmclymer/status/1131997664596439041
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream

“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell

User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 38081
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!
hepcat’s avatar
Offline

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by hepcat » Fri May 24, 2019 3:33 pm

Thanks, Caitlyn Jenner.
I beat a camel to death with a monkey. Can I do that?
-Mr Bismarck

You have to whack a few rabbits before you are ready to punch a camel.
-Coopasonic


User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 60475
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Online

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Isgrimnur » Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:52 pm

WaPo
A high court in Botswana struck down two colonial-era laws Tuesday morning, effectively legalizing gay sex and making this southern African country the first on the continent to erase that colonial legacy through its courts.

Reading the unanimous ruling of a panel of judges in front of a packed courtroom, Justice Michael Leburu said that sexual orientation “is not a fashion statement” and that the laws as they stood violated citizens’ rights to privacy and freedom from discrimination. While seldom enforced in Botswana, the laws carried the possibility of up to a seven-year jail sentence.

“It is not the business of the law to regulate the private behavior of two consenting adults,” Leburu said.
...
Gay sex is criminalized in more than half of African countries, many of which inherited penal codes from colonial powers such as Britain. The subject is widely seen as taboo, and discrimination and harassment are rife.

Last month, a Kenyan high court heard a similar case but dismissed it. Other countries such as Mozambique and Seychelles have simply erased mention of gay sex from their penal codes during the rewriting process that has accompanied constitutional reform. Botswana’s powerful neighbor, South Africa, is the only African country to have rights based on sexual orientation explicitly written into its constitution.

Courts in other former British colonies outside Africa have made decisions similar to that of Botswana. Leburu cited India’s ruling in 2018 as one precedent on which his own decision was built.
Silver - 1k

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 60475
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Online

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Isgrimnur » Mon Jun 17, 2019 1:04 pm

Skinypupy wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2015 1:56 pm
Remember that Oregon bakery that recently got fined $135,000 by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries because they refused to bake a cake for a SSM?
CNN
The Supreme Court on Monday wiped away a ruling that went against a bakery in Oregon that refused to make a cake to celebrate the wedding for a same-sex couple.

The justices sent back the case pitting religious liberty concerns against LGBTQ rights to the lower courts for further consideration in light of last term's ruling in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple.
Silver - 1k

User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 38081
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!
hepcat’s avatar
Offline

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by hepcat » Mon Jun 17, 2019 6:20 pm

Idiotic. They just opened up America to everyone refusing service to anyone they don't like as long as they say it's against their religion. Since the bible is a veritable hotbed of subjective tidbits, it won't be hard to find any group in the thing if you're creative enough.
I beat a camel to death with a monkey. Can I do that?
-Mr Bismarck

You have to whack a few rabbits before you are ready to punch a camel.
-Coopasonic

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 18975
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Pyperkub » Mon Jun 17, 2019 7:15 pm

hepcat wrote:
Mon Jun 17, 2019 6:20 pm
Idiotic. They just opened up America to everyone refusing service to anyone they don't like as long as they say it's against their religion. Since the bible is a veritable hotbed of subjective tidbits, it won't be hard to find any group in the thing if you're creative enough.
Well, not just, they did it months ago for the Colorado case - this is at least consistent with that ruling.
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 21022
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Holman » Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:46 pm

stessier wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:44 pm
RLMullen wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:So long as the Republican Party is rife with Evangelical Christians in the South and Mormon church members in the West, its base will be solidly anti-gay.
Don't ignore Catholics in this equation. Catholics aren't as vocal as the other two, but many will vote in line with the church once they are behind the curtain.
I'm not sure that is true. I thought i saw a poll were 60% of American Catholics were for it.
American Catholics are divided by party on major issues. This only seems weird in comparison to American Evangelicals, who are mostly all one party.

Of course Catholic institutions are divided as well. It's not hard to find major Catholic bishops espousing a very conservative line even as priests and nuns (or even whole religious orders) work actively for progressive causes.

I teach at a Jesuit university, and it's the most queer-friendly employer I've ever had.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46116
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by LawBeefaroni » Tue Jun 18, 2019 8:54 am

hepcat wrote:
Mon Jun 17, 2019 6:20 pm
Idiotic. They just opened up America to everyone refusing service to anyone they don't like as long as they say it's against their religion. Since the bible is a veritable hotbed of subjective tidbits, it won't be hard to find any group in the thing if you're creative enough.
Most businesses won't use spurious religious grounds to refuse business. It's bad for...business.


I'm not saying this decision isn't bad. It matters when there is one source (like say only one bakery for a hundred miles) or a unique service. It also matters when an issue is so divisive that it overcomes the the business case to justify prejudicial treatment (in the mind of the business owner). Like in these cases where gay is so scary to some people that they turn into assholes.

But what I don't see is avalanche of discrimination on new, trivial religious grounds. With social media it would mostly be a terrible business decision. I do see some emboldened activists doing legally suicidal things like refusing service to Latinos on some asinine religious claim about borders or something. But that won't end well for them.

Would be interesting to see bank refuse to serve an anti-gay bakery because the owner the bank interprets the Bible differently.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 38081
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!
hepcat’s avatar
Offline

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by hepcat » Tue Jun 18, 2019 9:28 am

I try to never underestimate how truly awful modern day Christian extremists can be. I used to want to believe that they had some level of human decency in them, but I've heard of too many incidents of these sub human animals abandoning their own children for coming out, or even demanding they just be outright killed. Giving them even one iota of justification through things like this is wrong. Real Christians should come out in greater numbers to rail against it.
I beat a camel to death with a monkey. Can I do that?
-Mr Bismarck

You have to whack a few rabbits before you are ready to punch a camel.
-Coopasonic

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46116
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by LawBeefaroni » Tue Jun 18, 2019 9:51 am

Oh, absolutely. I just don't think they'll be denying service to money lenders or strippers or adulterers or whatever.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 38081
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!
hepcat’s avatar
Offline

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by hepcat » Tue Jun 18, 2019 10:04 am

You may be right, you may be wrong. The point is that they now think they could if they wanted to, and that the government supports their right to do so.
I beat a camel to death with a monkey. Can I do that?
-Mr Bismarck

You have to whack a few rabbits before you are ready to punch a camel.
-Coopasonic

User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 17835
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Defiant » Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:00 pm

The U.S. Supreme Court has designed Oct. 8 as the date when it will hear arguments on whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to cases of anti-LGBT discrimination, setting up a showdown for when LGBT rights in all areas of life will hang in the balance.
link

Post Reply