So the picture I'm getting here is that no matter what else a company does, we need to tear them down for supporting things we do not support.
I mean, Christ. I'm for gay rights. I don't like what the Chick-fil-a CEO did. But I think some bloody perspective is needed here. The world is not as simple as, "People supporting things I do not support must be brought down and trampled upon." Or at least, it shouldn't be.
EDIT: Never mind. Continue with the crusade, I'm out.
There's a difference between "supporting things we don't support" and "donating $5 million to prevent a group of people from sharing rights others have."
I will continue to hold accountable those that actively oppress me. I will not feel ashamed about it.
This is just the dumbest fucking thing. If you want to support a cause, do it. Corporations do not need "appreciation days". Take that 5$, dont drink a coffee and donate to your cause directly. This is like when yoplait let you mail in yogurt tops 1 per envelope and they would donate 30 cents to breast cancer, and stamps cost something in the 40 cent range.
So it's ok to bash a company for their stance on social issues but not to show your support?
And yoplait was 12 per envelope, and they donated 2million dollars.
Man, I never knew people could get so pissy over positive action.
This is just the dumbest fucking thing. If you want to support a cause, do it. Corporations do not need "appreciation days". Take that 5$, dont drink a coffee and donate to your cause directly. This is like when yoplait let you mail in yogurt tops 1 per envelope and they would donate 30 cents to breast cancer, and stamps cost something in the 40 cent range.
So it's ok to bash a company for their stance on social issues but not to show your support?
And yoplait was 12 per envelope, and they donated 2million dollars.
Man, I never knew people could get so pissy over positive action.
It might not have been Yoplait, but I definitely recall hearing the story of some brand or other only allowing one per envelope and ultimately costing the cause money...was going around during that "Komen hates Planned Parenthood" thing.
Actually, Komen provides us with a pretty good analogue to recent company endeavors. They were pretty much shamed for trying to go political, but the charity aspect also really harmed their ability to say "Just a business free speech lol".
Hopefully, by 2016 the whole anti-gay thing will be so politically toxic that vast majority of politicians will stop harping about it. I'm pretty sure it won't go the route abortion went where one party keeps the issue alive as a cheap means to garner votes.
There is a big difference between the issue of abortion and the issue of gay marriage. The anti-abortion crowd have a much stronger platform to stand on since even (a vast majority of) pro-choice activists agree that an abortion is not something anyone should have without really thinking it through. The same can not be said about gay marriage, where there is no real argument against it other than "the bible/jesus/god told me to hate them" (which isn't really an argument anyways) and the argument for it, equal rights for everyone, is pretty unassailable.
So gay marriage will be one of those things that will eventually be accepted, but I dont think the abortion issue will be settled anytime soon.
This is just the dumbest fucking thing. If you want to support a cause, do it. Corporations do not need "appreciation days". Take that 5$, dont drink a coffee and donate to your cause directly. This is like when yoplait let you mail in yogurt tops 1 per envelope and they would donate 30 cents to breast cancer, and stamps cost something in the 40 cent range.
So it's ok to bash a company for their stance on social issues but not to show your support?
And yoplait was 12 per envelope, and they donated 2million dollars.
Man, I never knew people could get so pissy over positive action.
I didn't say anything about bashing companies. I said no company needs an "appreciation" day. If you want to support a cause, do it directly, dont think you are being all altruistic or a superhero by buying shit from 1 company when you are spending money all the time that neutralizes or negates it without thought. (see the above, you spent all this money at corporations that support pro gay causes to buy 1 chicken sandwhich that supports anti gay causes).
I am saying this is the equivilent as "indulgences" and really should never be a thing where you buy something to say you support or disagree with something and then walk around with a branded bag and talk about it like it makes a difference.
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
A friend of mine had something interesting to say about the whole gay marriage thing. He said that ultimately, whatever we're doing is a diversion. Regardless of voting for or against it, it will ultimately go up in front of the Supreme Court. And they will, most likely, vote to make it legal. We're pretty much wasting time as, in his words, whatever the states say, will get trampled upon by the SC and it won't matter. You should be able to tell some of his biases with that, though it did make me think about it. Isn't that pretty much how other civil rights issues have been in the past? States piss around, the south against, the north for, and then the SC goes in and dictates that it'll be one way or another, and that's that. Right?
What's most likely to happen in DOMA gets struck down. And then ... that's it.
Like, even if there's some wiggle room with "You can't get gay married in Mississippi" or something, you can just go to New York, get married and every state has to recognize your union.
Homeland Security released a statement that they will no longer deport the same sex spouses of American citizens. This is a major announcement because it effects over 30,000+ same sex couples who, because of DOMA, could be separated, with one spouse being removed from the country.
A friend of mine had something interesting to say about the whole gay marriage thing. He said that ultimately, whatever we're doing is a diversion. Regardless of voting for or against it, it will ultimately go up in front of the Supreme Court. And they will, most likely, vote to make it legal. We're pretty much wasting time as, in his words, whatever the states say, will get trampled upon by the SC and it won't matter. You should be able to tell some of his biases with that, though it did make me think about it. Isn't that pretty much how other civil rights issues have been in the past? States piss around, the south against, the north for, and then the SC goes in and dictates that it'll be one way or another, and that's that. Right?
The SCOTUS will ... probably strike down DOMA. I highly doubt they'll find a constitutional right to gay marriage in every state (at least with this court). More likely in the Prop 8 case they'll rule that you can't take away a right once it's granted, essentially limiting it to California, and by killing DOMA make marriage solely a states rights issue.
Once that happens, it's clear that fighting for gay rights at the state level is exactly the opposite of a waste of time- it's the only way to expand rights to everyone (short of a gay friendly constitutional amendment).
What's most likely to happen in DOMA gets struck down. And then ... that's it.
Like, even if there's some wiggle room with "You can't get gay married in Mississippi" or something, you can just go to New York, get married and every state has to recognize your union.
That's as I understand it.
In the near future? Probably not. The case coming to SCOTUS from the First Circuit, and most of the other cases in the lower federal courts, are only challenging the federal benefits provisions. If the interstate recognition part were challenged later the Court would probably uphold it; full faith and credit jurisprudence is pretty lenient, especially when it comes to marriage.
Like any other human being, the Supreme Court justices have their biases and are influenced by them. Not necessarily on purpose, just because . . . well, they're human. Humans trying to be unbiased and logical still have inherent biases.
If the IDEA of gay marriage is normalized, and if the justices personally know gay people and know they don't have fangs, and if they look at states where gay marriage exists and see that it hasn't resulted in people eating babies or whatever, then they are more likely to say "DOMA is unconstitutional, and stupid." It would be nice to think that they would say this in any case but . . . well . . . Dred Scott.
In addition, it also gets the non-gay, everyday citizens used to the idea. This leads to less whining and moaning when gay marriage does become legal countrywide and also gives some breathing room for gay people who marry, either legally or doing a non-legal marriage just to show their commitment. Even though a lot of people are still against gay marriage, gay marriage is no longer considered absurd by the general public. It is conceivable. This is not something you could say at the start of the gay rights movement. That is important because it directly effects the amount that gay couples are ostracized. (Obviously some regions are more accepting than others.)
If you just bought a new house Sears is the perfect place to register seeing how the only things they are good at anymore are appliances and tools.
On the actual topic I'm going to bet that DOMA is ruled unconstitutional but the majority opinion is written in such a way where they don't actually force states to accept out of state marriages, defeating the purpose of it all.
Isn't the hunch that the four liberal justices will vote in favor of gay marriage in all states. That pretty much leaves either Roberts or Kennedy being the deciding vote, my money is on Roberts. Now given full faith and credit jurisprudence, I could see him pretty much also ruling that no state should be allowed to deny same-sex couples from marrying simply because that state would still have to honor such marriages from outside of the state. It's just going to be more efficient to get it done now, so that you aren't forcing homosexual couples to cross state lines to get married because their state is back asswards and don't have another 1-15 year of court battles at the state level so a state can refuse let same-sex marriages happen, while having to honor the ones outside of state.
I forget, was Kagan still Solicitor General of the United States when the decision to no longer defend DOMA came down? If she was, I'd imagine she'd recuse herself, as she has actual principles.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Hmm, that might be an issue. I don't have much faith in Kennedy doing the right thing. He'll probably agree that DOMA needs to die at the very least, but I could be wrong here.
I'm just glad we're hitting a point where politicians can't use their opposition of same-sex marriage to score political points. I don't know if that will force them to focus more on real issues or if they'll find a way to divert the time they spend on combating same-sex marriage to other non-issues in a way that won't quickly grate on everyone's nerves.
Tasmania is set to go it alone on gay marriage after the state's ALP conference voted to introduce laws that could have wedding bells ringing by the end of the year.
Premier Lara Giddings received a standing ovation at the party's state conference after she spoke passionately in favour of a motion to introduce the country's first state-based gender-neutral marriage act.
"This was a last area of discrimination that was left, and we fundamentally believe that it's wrong that people do not have the same choices in life that the rest of us take for granted when it comes to marriage,'' Ms Giddings said.
"The time has now come for marriage equality to be part of our community.''
Ms Giddings said the state government would look to introduce legislation before the end of the year if acts currently before the federal parliament fail.
Feels so odd for this state to be at the forefront of anything in this country.
"This was a last area of discrimination that was left, and we fundamentally believe that it's wrong that people do not have the same choices in life that the rest of us take for granted when it comes to marriage,'' Ms Giddings said.
I really hate it when people say anything like this. There are much worse memes ("Fat people are the last group in society it's ok to publically mock" being probably the most offensive) but any time someone says "This is one of the last discriminatory arenas in our society!" I wonder what groups are so marginalized so as not to even be considered, and what other things are wrong even with the same group that don't even occur to the speaker.
Slightly off topic, so:
I went to the Wikipedia page for LGBT rights in Australia and was struck by two things. Firstly, a skimming with ctrl-f for Tasmania didn't say much of anything about the T. Which was expected, really, but pretty annoying both because it's information I want to know that's in the page title, and also because it's pretty relevant to that quote.
The second thing I noticed was that it was extremely heavily dominated by marriage. I get that that's really important for some people, and important overall, but it seems so... weird to me. Maybe it's because I'm personally not enthusiastic about marriage as a thing, for myself anyway, but I feel like there are a lot of other issues with respect to queer people that don't get enough discussion, and it's frustrating that "LGBT rights" has become synonymous with "Gay marriage" in the general public's eye.
Shivahn on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
"This was a last area of discrimination that was left, and we fundamentally believe that it's wrong that people do not have the same choices in life that the rest of us take for granted when it comes to marriage,'' Ms Giddings said.
I really hate it when people say anything like this. There are much worse memes ("Fat people are the last group in society it's ok to publically mock" being probably the most offensive) but any time someone says "This is one of the last discriminatory arenas in our society!" I wonder what groups are so marginalized so as not to even be considered, and what other things are wrong even with the same group that don't even occur to the speaker.
Slightly off topic, so:
I went to the Wikipedia page for LGBT rights in Australia and was struck by two things. Firstly, a skimming with ctrl-f for Tasmania didn't say much of anything about the T. Which was expected, really, but pretty annoying both because it's information I want to know that's in the page title, and also because it's pretty relevant to that quote.
The second thing I noticed was that it was extremely heavily dominated by marriage. I get that that's really important for some people, and important overall, but it seems so... weird to me. Maybe it's because I'm personally not enthusiastic about marriage as a thing, for myself anyway, but I feel like there are a lot of other issues with respect to queer people that don't get enough discussion, and it's frustrating that "LGBT rights" has become synonymous with "Gay marriage" in the general public's eye.
They don't have to worry about medical insurance. So benefits aren't as big an issue.
Also, homosexuality is essentially a protected class in most places, so that's kinda the big two issues here.
Also, there are Aboriginal Tasmanians (although not many, because they pretty much got wiped out), so that is an area of discrimination as well.
I forget, was Kagan still Solicitor General of the United States when the decision to no longer defend DOMA came down? If she was, I'd imagine she'd recuse herself, as she has actual principles.
Kagen has recused herself from so many cases that it no longer looks like principle and looks more like "That fucking lemon justice that Obama stuck us with".
I forget, was Kagan still Solicitor General of the United States when the decision to no longer defend DOMA came down? If she was, I'd imagine she'd recuse herself, as she has actual principles.
Kagen has recused herself from so many cases that it no longer looks like principle and looks more like "That fucking lemon justice that Obama stuck us with".
Not really. This is how it's supposed to work. If you argued for one side of a case, as she did for a lot of them as the chief arguer for the government, you should recuse yourself. When she's ruled, she's ruled (for the most part) quite nicely so as time passes and her own cases work their way out of the legal system she'll become more impressive.
And isn't a diabetic like Sotomayor who has been somewhat better in her rulings so far, but likely won't have as much longevity.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
I forget, was Kagan still Solicitor General of the United States when the decision to no longer defend DOMA came down? If she was, I'd imagine she'd recuse herself, as she has actual principles.
Kagen has recused herself from so many cases that it no longer looks like principle and looks more like "That fucking lemon justice that Obama stuck us with".
I suspect this will cease to be a problem in a few years, after all the cases she was party to have worked their way through the system.
supreme court justices should recuse themselves for the first 10 years of office
it would at least make the political consequences pretty interesting
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Oi, debating gay rights with your super-conservative Bible fundamentalist family can be a real hassle. It's a great way to get everyone in the household against you, cause serious rifts in relationships, and have your mom actually break down and cry because she's scared to death for you beliefs.
For the record, I'm not gay ad have no real stake in the effects of gay marriage, I just debate their views because if feels like the right thing to do.
This is actually causing some serious conflicts between my dad and I
Godfather on
0
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
I understand that Godfather. My mother is a similar way, and debating this stuff with her brings the same effects. She's said before that she was upset because she knows that when we both die she won't see me in heaven (I don't remember if that was a gay rights debate or when I talked about being atheist). We can find other things to talk about and it's fine, but if the topic comes up fireworks start.
I have a bit more of a stake since my wife's mother is a lesbian, but whatever... I think we all have a stake in it.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
NocrenLt Futz, Back in ActionNorth CarolinaRegistered Userregular
I hope my Aunt doesn't go this route. That side of the family is mostly conservative (with some exceptions) and she recently started posting Creationist "proof" videos. She's basically a step away.
Man I catch enough flak for having the nerve to suggest Romney might not be an honest man. I studiously avoid anything further left than that -- I'm not going to change them, as much as it bothers me.
Posts
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
You will accept your Craftsman socket wrench set AND YOU WILL LIKE IT.
So it's ok to bash a company for their stance on social issues but not to show your support?
And yoplait was 12 per envelope, and they donated 2million dollars.
Man, I never knew people could get so pissy over positive action.
It might not have been Yoplait, but I definitely recall hearing the story of some brand or other only allowing one per envelope and ultimately costing the cause money...was going around during that "Komen hates Planned Parenthood" thing.
Ughhhhh.
Although I just watched season one of Sister Wives and I thought that was the husband and his fourth wife. Apparently it is the Palins.
There is a big difference between the issue of abortion and the issue of gay marriage. The anti-abortion crowd have a much stronger platform to stand on since even (a vast majority of) pro-choice activists agree that an abortion is not something anyone should have without really thinking it through. The same can not be said about gay marriage, where there is no real argument against it other than "the bible/jesus/god told me to hate them" (which isn't really an argument anyways) and the argument for it, equal rights for everyone, is pretty unassailable.
So gay marriage will be one of those things that will eventually be accepted, but I dont think the abortion issue will be settled anytime soon.
I would like to talk about Chik-Fil-A, but want to acknowledge this post.
So, would it be appropriate to start a Chik-Fil-A thread, or should this thread be renamed?
Edit: I'll go ahead and assume that We need a Chick-fil-A thread
I didn't say anything about bashing companies. I said no company needs an "appreciation" day. If you want to support a cause, do it directly, dont think you are being all altruistic or a superhero by buying shit from 1 company when you are spending money all the time that neutralizes or negates it without thought. (see the above, you spent all this money at corporations that support pro gay causes to buy 1 chicken sandwhich that supports anti gay causes).
I am saying this is the equivilent as "indulgences" and really should never be a thing where you buy something to say you support or disagree with something and then walk around with a branded bag and talk about it like it makes a difference.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
Like, even if there's some wiggle room with "You can't get gay married in Mississippi" or something, you can just go to New York, get married and every state has to recognize your union.
That's as I understand it.
Steam
The SCOTUS will ... probably strike down DOMA. I highly doubt they'll find a constitutional right to gay marriage in every state (at least with this court). More likely in the Prop 8 case they'll rule that you can't take away a right once it's granted, essentially limiting it to California, and by killing DOMA make marriage solely a states rights issue.
Once that happens, it's clear that fighting for gay rights at the state level is exactly the opposite of a waste of time- it's the only way to expand rights to everyone (short of a gay friendly constitutional amendment).
In the near future? Probably not. The case coming to SCOTUS from the First Circuit, and most of the other cases in the lower federal courts, are only challenging the federal benefits provisions. If the interstate recognition part were challenged later the Court would probably uphold it; full faith and credit jurisprudence is pretty lenient, especially when it comes to marriage.
If the IDEA of gay marriage is normalized, and if the justices personally know gay people and know they don't have fangs, and if they look at states where gay marriage exists and see that it hasn't resulted in people eating babies or whatever, then they are more likely to say "DOMA is unconstitutional, and stupid." It would be nice to think that they would say this in any case but . . . well . . . Dred Scott.
In addition, it also gets the non-gay, everyday citizens used to the idea. This leads to less whining and moaning when gay marriage does become legal countrywide and also gives some breathing room for gay people who marry, either legally or doing a non-legal marriage just to show their commitment. Even though a lot of people are still against gay marriage, gay marriage is no longer considered absurd by the general public. It is conceivable. This is not something you could say at the start of the gay rights movement. That is important because it directly effects the amount that gay couples are ostracized. (Obviously some regions are more accepting than others.)
On the actual topic I'm going to bet that DOMA is ruled unconstitutional but the majority opinion is written in such a way where they don't actually force states to accept out of state marriages, defeating the purpose of it all.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
I'm just glad we're hitting a point where politicians can't use their opposition of same-sex marriage to score political points. I don't know if that will force them to focus more on real issues or if they'll find a way to divert the time they spend on combating same-sex marriage to other non-issues in a way that won't quickly grate on everyone's nerves.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Feels so odd for this state to be at the forefront of anything in this country.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
I really hate it when people say anything like this. There are much worse memes ("Fat people are the last group in society it's ok to publically mock" being probably the most offensive) but any time someone says "This is one of the last discriminatory arenas in our society!" I wonder what groups are so marginalized so as not to even be considered, and what other things are wrong even with the same group that don't even occur to the speaker.
Slightly off topic, so:
The second thing I noticed was that it was extremely heavily dominated by marriage. I get that that's really important for some people, and important overall, but it seems so... weird to me. Maybe it's because I'm personally not enthusiastic about marriage as a thing, for myself anyway, but I feel like there are a lot of other issues with respect to queer people that don't get enough discussion, and it's frustrating that "LGBT rights" has become synonymous with "Gay marriage" in the general public's eye.
They don't have to worry about medical insurance. So benefits aren't as big an issue.
Also, homosexuality is essentially a protected class in most places, so that's kinda the big two issues here.
Also, there are Aboriginal Tasmanians (although not many, because they pretty much got wiped out), so that is an area of discrimination as well.
Kagen has recused herself from so many cases that it no longer looks like principle and looks more like "That fucking lemon justice that Obama stuck us with".
Not really. This is how it's supposed to work. If you argued for one side of a case, as she did for a lot of them as the chief arguer for the government, you should recuse yourself. When she's ruled, she's ruled (for the most part) quite nicely so as time passes and her own cases work their way out of the legal system she'll become more impressive.
And isn't a diabetic like Sotomayor who has been somewhat better in her rulings so far, but likely won't have as much longevity.
I suspect this will cease to be a problem in a few years, after all the cases she was party to have worked their way through the system.
it would at least make the political consequences pretty interesting
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
For the record, I'm not gay ad have no real stake in the effects of gay marriage, I just debate their views because if feels like the right thing to do.
This is actually causing some serious conflicts between my dad and I
I have a bit more of a stake since my wife's mother is a lesbian, but whatever... I think we all have a stake in it.
Why people feel that strongly about something that really doesn't affect them at all, I'll never understand.
Steam
Or something.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
They think it means no grandkids, quizzically.
We usually avoid it now, but it definitely left some rifts.