Honestly, only an asshole would call this "nonsensical use of the English language", and would claim that gays have "equal rights" because of it. Your argument is completely and utterly worthless, and if you had any shred of self-respect, you would cease using that argument immediately.
You think gay marriage is a fundamental civil right? On what grounds?
No, I think the right to marry the person you love is a fundamental civil right. The grounds I have are not only the UN Declaration on Human Rights, to which the US is a signatory, but the Loving v Virginia decision, in which the SCOTUS said that marriage was a fundamental right.
Let's compare it to the right to vote.
Let's not, because there's absolutely no reason to.
The actor and target have to be different sexes
Why? Because your bigoted self says so?
I'd say marriage for anyone, straight or gay, is not a "fundamental civil right."
And you'd be wrong.
There are just too many differences with our real civil rights.
No, there aren't. And you have not demonstrated that there are. Your little examples are cute, but they are definitely not the majority, and they're just shitty reasons. Because a few straight people don't get to marry for love, we should stop a whole bunch of other people from doing it? Pull your head out of your ass.
In the legal sense, Engineer, or Professional Engineer, has a specific meaning, and that's why you can't go around calling yourself that, even though you have studied some form of engineering. Engineers are usually the ones who have to sign off on a project, and legally that means that they have examined everything, and have found it to be meeting standards, and that the calculations show that it will actually work. And they're also held responsible for that.
What about gay people, and other people, that don't share your beliefs? Should they be forced to accept them? If a gay person CHOOSES to deny themselves because of the faith they have, that's fine. But a gay person who doesn't share those beliefs? Why should they cause themselves to suffer?
On a related note, since apparently there are many laws that God gave us in the Quoran, you wouldn't mind being bound to those as well, right?
No, yours is. You're phrasing the right in such a way that heterosexuals get what they want, but homosexuals do not. It's like saying that someone has the right to vote for whatever Republican they want. It doesn't fucking work.
Yes, actually, that does make you anti-gay. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one. Why is that so hard? Why do you have to feel that you can make government bigger just to suit your needs?
black income relative to white income rose faster than it has since the laws outlawing such discrimination were passed.
You mean when they go from slavery (zero income) to actually having a job, their income rises at a faster rate then when they get treated the same? Color me shocked!
I'm sorry, but anyone defending these practices is just a bigot looking to abuse their power. There is absolutely no other fucking reason for it.
I cannot take seriously anyone who claims these laws are "overreaching". You do NOT need to know that information, period. And your attempts to find that information should cause you to be sued into the ground.
As American citizens (or simply as human beings), we need to advocate freedom first and foremost.
Who's freedom, though? My freedom to survive, or your freedom to be a shitfucker?
By the way, when you paint entire swaths of people as "vile and disgusting," you're not much better than they are. Bigotry against bigots is still bigotry.
There are enough confounding variables there that if you try to use that example to PROVE that regulations cause growth, I will be forced to mock you.
I don't see him doing that. I do, however, see him disproving the given point that increases in regulation and taxation always result in less growth. That's clearly not the case.
Don't blame the weasel for being a weasel.
That is a fucking retarded statement. Those banker fucks knew exactly what the fuck they were doing. They're adults, aren't they? Then why the fuck can't they be held responsible for their own fucking actions?
In recent news, you're a fucking idiot who doesn't understand what they're talking about.
The existing coal-fire plants will NOT be shut down, as the proposed regulation only affects NEW plants, not those that exist or are already in the development stages.
You act like it's hard to find this shit out. It's not.
And most of these laws don't apply to businesses with under 15 employees.
And your example of the diner is just retarded. That's like saying, "Denny's can afford a clean kitchen, but Mom & Pop can't afford it, so screw them!"
Quite frankly, I find it incredibly offensive that you would even consider protecting someone's civil rights to be "increasing the cost of doing business."
Slashdot Mirror
You're still trying to rationalize unethical behavior. If you are going to get fired for not doing something unethical, that job was not worth it.
So you're saying your ethics should change depending on where you are? Then those ethics were not very deeply instilled in you to start with.
If you have a boat going down, you've already got a PR mess.
Honestly, only an asshole would call this "nonsensical use of the English language", and would claim that gays have "equal rights" because of it. Your argument is completely and utterly worthless, and if you had any shred of self-respect, you would cease using that argument immediately.
You think gay marriage is a fundamental civil right? On what grounds?
No, I think the right to marry the person you love is a fundamental civil right. The grounds I have are not only the UN Declaration on Human Rights, to which the US is a signatory, but the Loving v Virginia decision, in which the SCOTUS said that marriage was a fundamental right.
Let's compare it to the right to vote.
Let's not, because there's absolutely no reason to.
The actor and target have to be different sexes
Why? Because your bigoted self says so?
I'd say marriage for anyone, straight or gay, is not a "fundamental civil right."
And you'd be wrong.
There are just too many differences with our real civil rights.
No, there aren't. And you have not demonstrated that there are. Your little examples are cute, but they are definitely not the majority, and they're just shitty reasons. Because a few straight people don't get to marry for love, we should stop a whole bunch of other people from doing it? Pull your head out of your ass.
Except that's NOT equality. No matter what twisted viewpoint you try to use to justify it.
And honestly, I don't get why the fuck you'd be against gay marriage, unless you were bigoted. Gays getting married does absolutely nothing to you.
Carly Fiorina has not been the CEO of anything in years, yet she is still considered an business executive more than a politician.
That's probably because she hasn't actually won anything politically.
Correctable how? Contacts? Glasses? Laser surgery?
But then what would recruiters do?
In the legal sense, Engineer, or Professional Engineer, has a specific meaning, and that's why you can't go around calling yourself that, even though you have studied some form of engineering. Engineers are usually the ones who have to sign off on a project, and legally that means that they have examined everything, and have found it to be meeting standards, and that the calculations show that it will actually work. And they're also held responsible for that.
In other news, its not like they force the LGBT encounters on you in the game. You pretty much have to consciously chose them.
And they're afraid that people, including their children, might actually do this.
That more just condemns promiscuity and licentiousness, the idea being that you shouldn't go fuck anything that breathes.
What about gay people, and other people, that don't share your beliefs? Should they be forced to accept them? If a gay person CHOOSES to deny themselves because of the faith they have, that's fine. But a gay person who doesn't share those beliefs? Why should they cause themselves to suffer?
On a related note, since apparently there are many laws that God gave us in the Quoran, you wouldn't mind being bound to those as well, right?
Being anti-gay marriage does not necessarily mean you are anti-gay.
Yes, it does. It means that you are against an entire class of people having a fundamental civil right.
It depends on your motivation for anti-gay marriage AND your definition of marriage.
No, it doesn't. If you're against people having equal rights, you're against that class of people.
Personally, I consider marriage a religious ceremony
Tough titties, that hasn't been how it's been for a long ass time. Since before the US was founded, actually.
if religions or religious people do not believe in gay marriage, fine.
Then they can just not have them, and not perform them. What's so hard about that?
I wouldn't say that'd be better. It might be fairer, but you'd have to have something to back up the idea that it would be better.
No, yours is. You're phrasing the right in such a way that heterosexuals get what they want, but homosexuals do not. It's like saying that someone has the right to vote for whatever Republican they want. It doesn't fucking work.
No. That argument does not work at all.
Yes, actually, that does make you anti-gay. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one. Why is that so hard? Why do you have to feel that you can make government bigger just to suit your needs?
black income relative to white income rose faster than it has since the laws outlawing such discrimination were passed.
You mean when they go from slavery (zero income) to actually having a job, their income rises at a faster rate then when they get treated the same? Color me shocked!
I'm sorry, but anyone defending these practices is just a bigot looking to abuse their power. There is absolutely no other fucking reason for it.
No. I'm sorry, but trying to discriminate against someone like this IS actively harming and cheating someone else.
My right to work trumps your entitlement to be an asshole.
I cannot take seriously anyone who claims these laws are "overreaching". You do NOT need to know that information, period. And your attempts to find that information should cause you to be sued into the ground.
As American citizens (or simply as human beings), we need to advocate freedom first and foremost.
Who's freedom, though? My freedom to survive, or your freedom to be a shitfucker?
By the way, when you paint entire swaths of people as "vile and disgusting," you're not much better than they are. Bigotry against bigots is still bigotry.
No, it's not.
There are enough confounding variables there that if you try to use that example to PROVE that regulations cause growth, I will be forced to mock you.
I don't see him doing that. I do, however, see him disproving the given point that increases in regulation and taxation always result in less growth. That's clearly not the case.
Don't blame the weasel for being a weasel.
That is a fucking retarded statement. Those banker fucks knew exactly what the fuck they were doing. They're adults, aren't they? Then why the fuck can't they be held responsible for their own fucking actions?
In recent news, you're a fucking idiot who doesn't understand what they're talking about.
The existing coal-fire plants will NOT be shut down, as the proposed regulation only affects NEW plants, not those that exist or are already in the development stages.
Take your idiotic FUD and shove it up your ass.
You act like it's hard to find this shit out. It's not.
And most of these laws don't apply to businesses with under 15 employees.
And your example of the diner is just retarded. That's like saying, "Denny's can afford a clean kitchen, but Mom & Pop can't afford it, so screw them!"
Quite frankly, I find it incredibly offensive that you would even consider protecting someone's civil rights to be "increasing the cost of doing business."