Equal Marriage Arizona Off and Running
Reverend Charlotte was the first signer on our petition for ballot qualification. She was incredible, telling the TV audience that she wants the ability to marry gay couples in her church, but doesn't want to force her brothers and sisters in other parishes to conduct marriages that are against their beliefs.
It was a big day for her on a personal level as well. She was married to her same-sex partner in New York a couple of years ago, and as of yesterday the Feds recognized that marriage. We still have not done so in AZ, but she was thrilled to help us get started repairing that as well.
Some of you may know that I blog in part because I am incredibly introverted and have trouble with public interactions with strangers. Yesterday I did 2 live TV feeds, one live in-studio TV appearance, and 4 taped TV interviews plus any number of radio and print interviews. Today I think I am suffering from some form of PTSD. But that is why we hurried to get our petition filed -- we wanted to be part of the story when the Supreme Court ruled, and we were.
If you are in AZ, check out our web site at equalmarriageaz.com to see how you can help. If you are out of state, you can still help financially, or just check out our Facebook page and lend us your moral support there.
Yup. And their inability to practice polygamy shows.... ????
That the government has been passing bigoted laws for a long time?
I don't have faith. I have positions derived from reasoning. (You may not agree with my reasoning. But I can explain a logical chain of reasoning from the base principle "people own themselves" to every position I hold.)
But please, do go on.
And if I have a problem with UNMARRIED couples or GAY couples FUCKING in my home then that is my right as the OWNER.
YES, I AGREE, YOU RETARDED FUCKING MORON.
Funny how you keep claiming the CRA is an abortion yet you keep defending further enhancements to its application being used to screw over little people.
You're really terrible at this reading comprehension thing, aren't you? Every argument I have made on this entire page has been to overturn Title II CRA 1964, and to argue against people who say "No, but we should keep it for 'race' or 'gender' or 'disability'" or whatever other reason they feel like fucking private property owners.
There, was that clear enough for you?
}}}} Yup... just what I expected... lots of hyperbole, but not a single example of your religion freedom being denied in any way, shape or form.
Me PERSONALLY? No. Since i already gave a CLEAR example, the B&B owner, this wasn't presumed necessary. I expect in MOST cases the right of someone to be gay to win out -- in MOST cases, their right to be as they wish is higher than the right of the religious person to not do business with them.
}}} But I'm pretty sure that the lesbians never actually "sodomized her for being decent and honest". If they had, I'm sure it would have been a very different court case.
The fact they MADE IT A COURT ISSUE in the first place was totally sodomizing her. You can blow that off if you wish, but that "blow off" is exactly the kind of BS attitude that sets me adamantly AGAINST gays on ALL issues. It should never have been brought to court at all, regardless of the law. As an individual, you need to make reasonable accommodations for the fact that you have one belief, someone else has another, and there's no reason to really make a big deal out of it in most cases.
As I'd commented elsewhere, if this had been a major chain, or even a large 30-room "small corporate hotel" (i.e., a "Dew Drop Inn" owned by a corporation, as opposed to sole-owner), then there would be cause for issue. But failing to respect the owner's religious principles, even if you don't agree with them, when they have caused you NO SUBSTANTIVE HARM...? It's not even like they made the reservations, then they GOT there and were refused the room. The owner refused the reservation in the first place, leaving more than adequate time for them to find other arrangements.
FUCK 'EM. Gays can osculate my posterior until they LEARN HOW TO BE CIVILIZED.
Among other things, that means not treating a small disagreement of personal opinion into a fucking FEDERAL CASE (yeah, "State case", don't be a pedant) when there's no harm on either side.
}}} And I happen to agree with you that the B&B owner
Yeah, lip service. That's all you got on it.
}}}} This explanation however, entirely fails to explain the lower obesity rate of gay males.
LOL, duh. Males are far more appearance conscious. This goes to male-male sexual attractions where they exist, too.
Not arguing for the proposition either way, but that's a clear possible explanation.
Can't do a study on that. Might actually lead to a "cure" for being gay, after all, and that's not something that can be allowed, you must ACCEPT and SUPPORT people who are gay, not "cure" them of it. :-S
}}} I'd like you to find in even one of my comments where I advocated for more laws giving government more power. Please use quotation marks... no paraphrasing.
My, the clueless is strong in this one! Or are you just playing stupid because you think it somehow makes you more endearing?
What do you THINK "gay marriage rights" do? Given that I ALREADY spelled it out to you. And provided a case where they aren't even applicable but would be EVEN MORE SO given open Federal support for it.
You clearly SUPPORT more "gay marriage rights" -- at the FEDERAL, not STATE, level. Ergo, you support more power given to gays to use the battering ram of Federal Rights Attorneys against everyone. Supporting them at the STATE level does the same, but at least then you can move out of the state if you dislike the idea... at least until the whole idea is accepted enough by the entire nation that most, if not all, states allow it, at which point it actually has some semblance of BUSINESS BEING LAW in the first place.
}}} . See also, Title II CRA 1964 is an abomination.
LIP SERVICE. You're in favor of granting it MORE people under whom it can be used as a bludgeon.
Some "libertarian".
}}} That's absurd. A B&B owner won't know 99% of her customers, and popular jokes notwithstanding, married couples do still fuck on occasion. If people you don't know fucking in your house bothers you, B&B owner is probably not the wisest career choice.
You're an imbecile, are you? She probably doesn't CARE if married couples FUCK in her B&B. She considers that religiously sanctioned. She does NOT believe that heterosexual unmarried couples should do so, so she openly stated in her conversation with the lesbian attempting to make the reservation and the lesbian acked it. So it WAS NOT even a matter of discrimination against homosexuals at the heart of this case -- it's SPECIAL PRIVILEGES -- that thing you imagine somehow is NOT being granted -- that is happening here -- since, if an unmarried Heterosexual couple attempted to bring suit it would almost certainly be laughed out of court.
The B&B owner should have the CHOICE to make such distinctions if she chooses based on RELIGIOUS grounds. Hell, if she wants to require full sexual segregation in rooms that's HER RIGHT. Cost her quite a few customers but that's up to her.
And for me, that statement is NOT lip service. I'm taking a stance to punish gays for their lack of civilized behavior -- "can't we all just get along". There was no harm here, no foul. There was a mild but distinct difference of opinion based on religious and personal beliefs, here, and one side used the GOVERNMENT as a battering ram against the other for it.
THAT is the "rights" being TRAMPLED that you seem so @#%#$^#$^#^ obtuse about. Figure it out or STFU, you're a moron.
How can you claim I advocated something, when you didn't quote a single thing I wrote.
Want to try again? My words are all over this thread... I challenge you to find one single sentence that advocates for more government power.
"I expect in MOST cases the right of someone to be gay to win out -- in MOST cases, their right to be as they wish is higher than the right of the religious person to not do business with them."
As I've written above... you should have the right to do business, or not do business with absolutely anyone you choose, for whatever reason you like. And when people discover what kind of person you are, they can decide whether or not they want to do business with you.
"You can blow that off if you wish, but that "blow off" is exactly the kind of BS attitude that sets me adamantly AGAINST gays on ALL issues."
Well... thanks for sharing the logic of your position.
"As I'd commented elsewhere, if this had been a major chain, or even a large 30-room "small corporate hotel" (i.e., a "Dew Drop Inn" owned by a corporation, as opposed to sole-owner), then there would be cause for issue. "
I disagree with you entirely. The type of owner (corporate or individual person) doesn't justify the restriction of property rights. For any privately owned property (i.e. owned by anyone other than the government), the owner should have the exclusive right at all times to decide who is authorized to be on the property and who is trespassing. The only exception is police with a warrant.
"FUCK 'EM. Gays can osculate my posterior until they LEARN HOW TO BE CIVILIZED."
Way to set an example.