|
Morter posted:I just watched this. Holy crap. This did a buttload to affirm my beliefs so I thank you for pointing it out to me. You are welcome. It demonstrates that people like Tony Perkins are dangerous and how people like him have blood on their hands. Showing gay scat porn mothers and fathers saying that gays want to do that to their sons and daughters. Mr Ice Cream Glove fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Aug 1, 2014 |
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
Here is a white guy doing what was being done in Uganda https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s--zdvFNCTs James Dobson talks about gay mousetrap porn with fishooks and the stenches of glory holes
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
So what's the best place to watch for the supreme court case? A lot of the politicians of South Carolina are still saying how much they oppose same sex marriage, how they're going fight and the gist is we're going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming by daddy federal into modernity. Again.
A. Beaverhausen fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Aug 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
SCOTUSblog is a pretty good source: http://www.scotusblog.com/ Also, the 4th Circuit case is heading to SCOTUS: http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/virginia-clerk-plans-to-ask-supreme-court-to-hear-same-sex-m
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Here is a white guy doing what was being done in Uganda Shall we really put gay porn up against straight porn in terms of kink, either of degree or quantity? Take the plank out of your own eye.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
Is scotusblog still being hosed over and hamstrung by major media not letting them into the courtroom?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Shall we really put gay porn up against straight porn in terms of kink, either of degree or quantity? Take the plank out of your own eye. The only moral scat porn is my scat porn. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 09:41
|
|
|
gently caress the kids, we want to hold our bigotry http://www.citizenlink.com/2014/07/31/federal-legislators-introduce-bill-to-protect-faith-based-adoption-foster-care-agencies/ quote:
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Conservatives: abstinence-only sex education, no abortions ever and all those unwanted babies can only go to Good Christian Households.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
quote:“Limiting their work because someone might disagree with what they believe only ends up hurting the families they could be bringing together.” quote:The bill is important “because kids shouldn’t have to wait,” It's amazing how these quotes would give anyone the exact opposite impression of what they actually want to do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:It's amazing how these quotes would give anyone the exact opposite impression of what they actually want to do. I was getting confused and having to reread. I thought they were arguments for gay couples to adopt.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
It legits pisses me off, these religious agencies voluntarily shut down, then blame it on the mean old gays.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:It legits pisses me off, these religious agencies voluntarily shut down, then blame it on the mean old gays. Saying "We're a bunch of spiteful old shits who would call Jesus Christ a communist Muslim terrorist if he came back tomorrow" would make their funding dry up, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
I'm unaware of this situation entirely, so excuse my dumb line of questioning. So there are "faith-based" adoption centers--which I can only assume means they are discriminant towards who they lend their kids out too, based on heterosexuality and faith. And they've had trouble in certain states (Cali, Mass, Illi, D.C.) because of their own "deeply held beliefs". So what is this bill trying to do, exactly? It says it "protects" these agencies, but from what? Discrimination?! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
Morter posted:I'm unaware of this situation entirely, so excuse my dumb line of questioning. So there are "faith-based" adoption centers--which I can only assume means they are discriminant towards who they lend their kids out too, based on heterosexuality and faith. And they've had trouble in certain states (Cali, Mass, Illi, D.C.) because of their own "deeply held beliefs". Protects them from not being given fat stacks of government cash.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
I guess I'm surprised there are even such things as private adoption agencies. Would they not have already been heavily regulated enough to where this wouldn't even come up? Like I don't even understand why the thing they're fighting is "not being given money." They should be fighting not getting shut down for not following general adoption agency regulations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Actquote:a) The Federal Government, and any State that receives federal funding for any program that provides child welfare services...shall not discriminate or take an adverse action against a child welfare service provider on the basis that the provider has declined or will decline to provide, facilitate, or refer for a child welfare service that conflicts with, or under circumstances that conflict with, the provider's sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions. e: Catholic Charities of Boston was complying with the law and placed kids with same sex couples until the higher ups found out and shut it down, despite opposition from all 42 board members. UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act But [NOT RACIST], so everything's fine!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act It especially sucks because, as the article notes, many gay adoptive parents are more willing to adopt kids with special challenges (including, but not limited to, challenges like "from abusive situations" or "being black" or "not being a disability-free blond male infant"). But of course, all those kids got snapped up immediately by rich straight married folks, right? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
Dirt5o8 posted:I was getting confused and having to reread. I thought they were arguments for gay couples to adopt. Same here. The doublespeak conservative Christians have developed to cloak their bigotry in the wake of the absolute rout they suffered during the Civil Rights Era is impressive in its sinister way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Same here. The doublespeak conservative Christians have developed to cloak their bigotry in the wake of the absolute rout they suffered during the Civil Rights Era is impressive in its sinister way. It's not just the Christians. Look at how many people mistakenly call at-will employment "right to work" because they're so used to dishonest names from the labor-haters that they matched that name with the opposite of working (being fired).
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:It's not just the Christians. Look at how many people mistakenly call at-will employment "right to work" because they're so used to dishonest names from the labor-haters that they matched that name with the opposite of working (being fired). Those are actually not related concepts. At-will employment has to do with firing not for cause, while right-to-work has to do with union and non-union employment decisions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Those are actually not related concepts. At-will employment has to do with firing not for cause, while right-to-work has to do with union and non-union employment decisions. How did you read that post and get the impression that BFB didn't already know that? He's talking about how common that error is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
Kfroog posted:How did you read that post and get the impression that BFB didn't already know that? He's talking about how common that error is. I read it as a complaint re: the terminology "right-to-work" being the opposite of the thing it is applied to (at-will), not re: the mistaken conflation of the two, particularly since it was in the context of doublespeak. Rereading the below it is somewhat ambiguous, though. Blue Footed Booby posted:It's not just the Christians. Look at how many people mistakenly call at-will employment "right to work" because they're so used to dishonest names from the labor-haters that they matched that name with the opposite of working (being fired).
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I read it as a complaint re: the terminology "right-to-work" being the opposite of the thing it is applied to (at-will), not re: the mistaken conflation of the two, particularly since it was in the context of doublespeak. His interpretation is what I meant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Those are actually not related concepts. At-will employment has to do with firing not for cause, while right-to-work has to do with union and non-union employment decisions. And both of these have the same goal: defang labor by making it easier to terminate workers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
GROVER CURES HOUSE posted:And both of these have the same goal: defang labor by making it easier to terminate workers. Yes, but one of them is already effectively nationwide (everywhere but one of the Dakotas, I believe) while the other isn't, and preventing change is easier than reverting it in the US. Blue Footed Booby posted:His interpretation is what I meant. Fair enough, my mistake!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
A Broward judge in FL is going to rule today in the case of a lesbian woman who wants a divorce, in that she wants her marriage recognized by the state so she can get out of it. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-gay-marriage-florida-broward-20140804,0,1714241.story
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Fair enough, my mistake! One love, bruddah.  FlamingLiberal posted:A Broward judge in FL is going to rule today in the case of a lesbian woman who wants a divorce, in that she wants her marriage recognized by the state so she can get out of it. You can't make this poo poo up. I mean, it makes legal sense, but it's such a surreal situation. This poo poo is exactly why SCOTUS needs to sort it is gently caress out. I kinda suspect we'll see some former opponents giving up specifically because of the bizarre, byzantine legal quagmire. "OK, fine, gays can marry. Now can we please move on to the question of whether corporations have the right to euthanize employees??"
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:A Broward judge in FL is going to rule today in the case of a lesbian woman who wants a divorce, in that she wants her marriage recognized by the state so she can get out of it. For those keeping score: 3 weeks. 3 different stayed ban overturns in Florida. Chris James 2 fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Chris James 2 posted:For those keeping score: 3 weeks. 3 different stayed ban overturns in Florida (2 from the same county). All three counties are different; Monroe, Miami-Dade and the latest is Broward.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Ballz posted:All three counties are different; Monroe, Miami-Dade and the latest is Broward. Key West, Miami, and Fort Lauderdale. I can't see Tallahassee sweating over this - I think they'll get worried when a county north of I-4 overturns. I really can't see them giving a gently caress one way or another otherwise unless maybe Tampa and Orlando join in. If this proceeds in Florida mainly on a county basis, expect Duval county - Jacksonville - to be the turning point, I think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Key West, Miami, and Fort Lauderdale. I can't see Tallahassee sweating over this - I think they'll get worried when a county north of I-4 overturns. I really can't see them giving a gently caress one way or another otherwise unless maybe Tampa and Orlando join in. I'm not sure how many cases are left in the pipeline for Florida. I am scratching my head at why none of the rulings were ever applicable beyond their respective counties. Every other case we hear about in the country had it cover the entire state. Is this just Florida being Florida?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
Ballz posted:I'm not sure how many cases are left in the pipeline for Florida. I am scratching my head at why none of the rulings were ever applicable beyond their respective counties. Every other case we hear about in the country had it cover the entire state. Is this just Florida being Florida? Rulings in a county don't seem to be binding precedent on other county courts, and no state-level case has finished yet. I'm not sure if this is a case of "if you want to sue the state of Florida you have to start at county level" or the plaintiffs have been suing at the county level because they know the judges involve will be friendly. This recent ruling puts 22% of Florida's population in gay marriage counties though!
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Ballz posted:I'm not sure how many cases are left in the pipeline for Florida. I am scratching my head at why none of the rulings were ever applicable beyond their respective counties. Every other case we hear about in the country had it cover the entire state. Is this just Florida being Florida? There's supposedly a state-level trial awaiting a verdict, but it's been awaiting a verdict for a while now. I suspect Tallahassee is trying to drag it out as long as humanly possible without actually *opposing* it. They really don't like to acknowledge that the peninsula from Orlando on south is a meaningful part of Florida. Cythereal fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Aug 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Yes we're still waiting on the case that would be statewide.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Holy poo poo!quote:Opponents of Houston's new non-discrimination ordinance did not get enough valid signatures to force a November repeal referendum, Mayor Annise Parker and City Attorney David Feldman announced Monday. "With respect to the referendum petition filed to repeal the 'HERO' ordinance, there are simply too many documents with irregularities and problems to overlook," Feldman said. "The petition is simply invalid. There is no other conclusion." Opponents needed a minimum of 17,269 valid signatures - 10 percent of the ballots cast in the last mayoral election - to put a referendum on the November ballot. Feldman said some of the petition gatherers did not satisfy the requirements of the city charter, such as by not being registered Houston voters or by not signing the petition themselves. If such requirements were not met, he said, all the signatures the circulator gathered were invalid. Less than half of the more than 5,000 pages opponents submitted were valid, Feldman said, leaving the final valid tally at 15,249 signatures. https://www.chron.com/news/politics/houston/article/Petition-to-repeal-equal-rights-ordinance-falls-5667654.php
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Rulings in a county don't seem to be binding precedent on other county courts, and no state-level case has finished yet. I'm not sure if this is a case of "if you want to sue the state of Florida you have to start at county level" or the plaintiffs have been suing at the county level because they know the judges involve will be friendly. Plus we're really just counting the days before SSM is legal nationwide at this point anyway
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
Florida has beaches, lots of couples honeymoon here, the state lives on tourism dollars. Rick Scott, his AG and administration are only offering up a token resistance to SSM that they know will fail because the only thing that BatBoy sees is money, and it spends regardless of the sexual orientation of the people dishing it out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
Also if you're Rick Scott and not doing so well in an attempt to keep your job, you are going to stay as far away as you can from this issue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 16:35
|
|