What is it with homoerotic imagery when it comes to talking about gay rights issues?


I agree 1 million %! Right wing radio (and Hannity) has been one giant whine fest about the Gaystapo over a millionaire technology CEO being asked to resign.

Just like poor people who need to pull themselves up by the their bootstraps, he can just go find another job. I'm sure he'll do fine starting his own company or working in another business where gay rights aren't important.

I'm sure that a lot of gay people will be happy to come work for him.
 

YUP

We agree! America is a bunch of whiny bitches! Like Matt Walsh and all of conservatism!

 

I just watched local news (something I rarely do) and there was a segment about Federal Supreme Court not taking a case that NM State Supreme Court already ruled about.
The case was against a small business photographer that refused to take pictures of gay ceremony based on religious views.
Courts have ruled that as a business entity, denying service is a case of discrimination.

I guess Hobby Lobby is going to Supreme Court based on Obamacare laws that require businesses to provide medical insurance, part of which is contraceptives.
From what I saw, Hobby Lobby is owned by christian faith based family and they object on religious grounds.

So how do you feel about that?

What if you, as a business owner didn't want to perform service at a potential client's business due to your views and the said proposed client sued you and won?
From the looks of it, the ruling states that business doesn't have the right to religious freedoms and denying service based on it is against the law.

For fun you should Google what hobby lobby invested 73 million dollars into

Hey, it's just their opinion.

That dude over their who thinks Lady Gaga is better than Madonna?

That girl over there who believes the world will end tomorrow?

All equal to Hobby Lobby's $73m opinion.


 

for fun you should realize that if you invest $73 million dollars in investments to fund your 401K plan, all of that $73 million dollars will not go to any one investment. Blackwire lies by omission, or does not know that the $73 million they comment on was not put all in one place.

And what of it? Are you saying that because a conservative does not believe that the government should be making handouts with the money of the people, a conservative should not use HARP funds? Or unemployment? The conservative wants things to be different and lobbies for that, but is not a fool who ignores its necessity. See, if HARP funds or unemployment did not exist, our money (which fools call "government funds") would not be tied up in those expenses... that itself would improve the economy!

How am I blaming you? I'm simply expressing my opinion of answers to your questions?


You agreed with it and said it was a good point and what if, so I addressed you. That's how a conversation works.


This conversation/debate is definitely intense, but still civil, no need to come it and raise a bunch of hell and name calling. I'm fine with anyone expressing their opinion, but if you're just spewing sh!t, nobody cares.



You're getting completely off topic. We're discussing a single topic, regardless what your viewpoint is, taking any ones views on this topic and lumping them into a bunch of other common assumptions is destructive to the conversation.

We could have another conversation completely about climate change, but this isn't the place. For now lets just ignore that the Antarctic is warming causing it to be cooler in various places around the world, while the north mid west (just heard today) winter's have warmed an avg of 4 degree total since 1970 making for shorter, warmer winters, which the tick's love and are killing off the moose. And who cares if the Oceans will be toxic by 2045 (ish), I know we don't drink that water or live in it....oh but 80% of our oxygen does come from it...hmmm.....But again, that's off topic...I think if this conversation can stay on topic without name calling, it can continue.


The problem is that as of today, until something changes, YOUR (or those against marriage equality) ideas are being forced. If you are the voice of the company, your opinion can have this effect.



Isn't that the public's and stock holders right. Isn't that their Freedom of Speech to express their disgust for his opinion? They did NOTHING wrong either. Fighting for his Voice without defending those opposing him is NOT DEFENDING Free Speech.

Agree or disagree doesn't matter. Free speech goes both ways.




Have you never done a job and the client spouted off some comment that you heartedly disagreed with? Yet, you just keep your mouth shut and make some uber vague head bob or comment, staying totally in the safe zone. You still do a great job and take their money and provide great service. But you probably won't be there talking politics with them...its bad business.



I completely agree (you just saw bonavox's post right....jeez  ;)

Pretty sure he's being sarcastic... single vs married of any type!

By the way - I haven't actually received any complaints about this thread, which is the only reason it hasn't been locked and/or deleted yet. But know that religion and politics are both topics that can never be resolved over the internet and always degrade into the gutter, and are thus not typically allowed on RC. So, be aware that this whole thing could vanish in an instant and very likely will.

hell, I have been married for 11 years and we still haven't resolved the religion part of our marriage.
As for politics, she came around to my side once she realized that her job and industry would dispersal if things didn't change. 

Have you ever tried to invest ONLY in companies/corporations that are in lock-step with your views? Look at any fund and it's going to be a mixed bag. Look at money managers and THEY'RE a mixed bag, too. Of the wealthiest people I can think of, most are Liberal and most have made it known far and wide that they HATE Conservatives, want Conservatives to leave or make empty threats to leave the country if someone is voted into the White House. The most vitriolic comments I have ever read came from Liberals, especially since the '08 election.

It boils down to this- the Left thinks they have the right to their opinions, but those who don't agree should change and be subject to the will of the Left. I hear a lot of BS about the Right trying to "disenfranchise" voters on the Left, but when I was on a jury re: election fraud, ACORN was front and center.

I did that once- haven't been back since and that woman wants nothing to do with me. I had commented about people not doing things for themselves and preferring to live in poverty, when people who have nothing and don't speak ANY English can come here, learn the language better than many whose family has been here for many generations and in less than ten years, they can own a business.

Apparently, she disagrees.

Politicians who need campaign contributions are criminals.

All politicians are criminals! Period.

A vague non-specific comment and a myth. Both emotionally charged talking points common on the right devoid of fact but full of meaning.

They are not meant to further conversations only change them into 'Rah Rah Ideology' intellectual huddles.

It's essentially 'Liberals are big meanies.' There's really nowhere to go from there because it's a statement of emotion that can never be proven or disproven by actual facts or data. However, the ACORN fraud can be, and the real fraud of ACORN was James O'Keefe and a faux narrative of organized corruption. It was a complete concoction of right wing fantasy and made into a myth, now ingrained into the conservative psyche not merely as truth, but as Truth.

If you need to lie to yourself or accept laughably false narratives to convince yourself that the opinion you hold is correct, then maybe your confidence in the opinion is not sound to begin with.