06-30-2014 01:17 AM
1,813 ... 6162636465 ...
tools
  1. pappy53's Avatar
    You can not discriminate based on race, sex, religion or sexaul orntation.
    I'm not so sure about the sexual orientation part.
    02-23-2014 11:38 PM
  2. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    For me, when I hear something like "It shouldn't be illegal to discriminate against..." what that suggests to me, of necessity, is "Who in their right mind would want to do business with..."

    You can legitimately plug in a few groups there, like thieves, people threatening you with violence, etc., and not sound stupid in doing so, but it is a fairly short list.
    02-24-2014 08:54 AM
  3. GadgetGator's Avatar
    As for the comment that was made earlier about a business not being a church, my faith is a part of every aspect of my life. Yes it determines who I socialize with, where I do business, it is a very large part of my life.
    But when you become a business owner, you don't get to dictate and project your religious beliefs onto everyone else. Religious beliefs are meant to be one's own...as a guide for guiding their own life, not a weapon to be used against others.

    And Harvey Milk was a disgusting person, a sexual predator, and a pederast. I think it cheapens the legacy of Rosa Parks, MLk to have his name in the same sentence as theirs.

    Sexual Predator Honored With U.S. Postage Stamp - Matt Barber - Page 1

    Harvey Milk Was An 'Evil Man' Who Raped Teenage Boys, Unworthy Of Postage Stamp: Matt Barber
    That's one right winger's opinion. But there is no factual evidence to support that. You'll have to do better than one man's opinion piece with hearsay "quotes" if you want me to believe that. Character assassination of a dead person is easy when they are not around to defend themselves. You could make such claims about me after I was gone. They wouldn't be true, but you could make them. It's always so interesting when people on the right want to throw stones while celebrating, even campaigning with someone like Ted Nugent. There's no hearsay or opinion needed on that one. By his own words he admits to having had relationships with underage girls and even wrote a song about it. Yet until now at least, Republicans had no problem with that. Romney campaigned with him. Greg Abbott campaigned with him. Hmmmm...interesting. And hypocritical considering comments the right makes about Bill Clinton who had affairs with adult women.

    But getting back to Harvey Milk, if you want a Republican viewpoint on the man, fine...I'll go with this one:

    Arnold Schwarzenegger signs law establishing Harvey Milk Day | Film | theguardian.com
    02-24-2014 01:35 PM
  4. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Here's a quote from one of the links I supplied.

    "Here’s what’s especially telling about their reaction. Not one of the dozen-or-more publications that reported on my comments even challenged their veracity. Not one attempted to refute or deny that Harvey Milk was, in fact, a pederast and a sexual predator.

    That’s because they can’t.

    One of Milk’s victims was a 16-year-old runaway from Maryland named Jack Galen McKinley. As previously mentioned, Milk had a soft spot in his, um, heart for teenage runaways. Motivated by an apparent quid pro quo of prurience, Milk plucked McKinley from the street.

    Randy Shilts was a San Francisco Chronicle reporter and close friend to Harvey Milk. Though Shilts died of AIDS in 1994, he remains, even today, one of the most beloved journalists in the “LGBT” community.

    Shilts was also Harvey Milk’s biographer. In his glowing book “The Mayor of Castro Street,” he wrote of Milk’s “relationship” with the McKinley boy: ” … Sixteen-year-old McKinley was looking for some kind of father figure. … At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him.”

    In a sane world, of course, the only direction his “new lover” should have pulled him was toward San Quentin. But, alas, today’s America – a burgeoning relativist land of make-believe – is anything but sane.

    Randy Thomasson, child advocate and founder of SaveCalifornia.com, is one of the nation’s foremost experts on Harvey Milk. Of the Shilts biography, Thomasson notes, “Explaining Milk’s many flings and affairs with teenagers and young men, Randy Shilts writes how Milk told one ‘lover’ why it was OK for him to also have multiple relationships simultaneously: ‘As homosexuals, we can’t depend on the heterosexual model. … We grow up with the heterosexual model, but we don’t have to follow it. We should be developing our own lifestyle. There’s no reason why you can’t love more than one person at a time.’”

    Whereas McKinley, a disturbed runaway boy, desperately sought a “father figure” to provide empathy, compassion, wisdom and direction, he instead found Harvey Milk: a promiscuous sexual predator who found, in McKinley, an opportunity to satisfy a perverse lust for underage flesh.

    Years later McKinley committed suicide.

    Another teen who crossed paths with Harvey Milk was Christian convert and former homosexual Gerard Dols. In a 2008 radio interview with Concerned Women for America, Dols shared of how – as a physically disabled teen – the “very nice” Harvey Milk had encouraged him in 1977 to run away from his Minnesota home and come to San Francisco.

    According to Dols, Milk told him, “Don’t tell your parents,” and later sent him a letter with instructions. Thankfully, the letter was intercepted by Dols’ parents who then filed a complaint with the Minnesota attorney general’s office.

    The incident was evidently swept under the rug.

    So what does a man like Harvey Milk get for his apparent crimes? While most sexual predators get time in prison and a dishonorable mention on the registry of sex offenders, Harvey Milk got his own California state holiday (“Harvey Milk Day”) and, more recently, his own commemorative postage stamp, awarded by the Obama administration’s USPS."
    02-24-2014 02:58 PM
  5. Scott7217's Avatar
    A vote for GOP is a vote for bigots.
    That may be changing. Both of Arizona's senators (John McCain and Jeff Flake) are calling for Governor Jan Brewer to veto Senate Bill 1062:

    John McCain Urges Veto of Arizona Anti-Gay Bill - Fusion

    The Log Cabin Republicans (which represent the lesbian and gay members of the GOP) are also fighting this bill. The Arizona chapter has posted this on their Facebook page:

    "Contact Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer and ask her to VETO SB 1062. Arizona stands for freedom for ALL."

    The Log Cabin Republicans of Arizona - Facebook
    02-24-2014 05:16 PM
  6. Scott7217's Avatar
    I know our constitution does not explicitly state gay, LGBT, etc but I thought it guarantees everyone equal protection against the law.
    That's probably the source of the problem. I think the Constitution only protects people based on race, religion, sex, and national origin. Sexual orientation is a gray area. This is why you can have same-sex marriages in some states but not in others. If the Constitution explicitly stated sexual orientation, we would have less confusion over what is permitted.
    GadgetGator likes this.
    02-24-2014 09:02 PM
  7. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Here's a quote from one of the links I supplied.

    "Here’s what’s especially telling about their reaction. Not one of the dozen-or-more publications that reported on my comments even challenged their veracity. Not one attempted to refute or deny that Harvey Milk was, in fact, a pederast and a sexual predator.

    That’s because they can’t.

    One of Milk’s victims was a 16-year-old runaway from Maryland named Jack Galen McKinley. As previously mentioned, Milk had a soft spot in his, um, heart for teenage runaways. Motivated by an apparent quid pro quo of prurience, Milk plucked McKinley from the street.

    Randy Shilts was a San Francisco Chronicle reporter and close friend to Harvey Milk. Though Shilts died of AIDS in 1994, he remains, even today, one of the most beloved journalists in the “LGBT” community.

    Shilts was also Harvey Milk’s biographer. In his glowing book “The Mayor of Castro Street,” he wrote of Milk’s “relationship” with the McKinley boy: ” … Sixteen-year-old McKinley was looking for some kind of father figure. … At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him.”

    In a sane world, of course, the only direction his “new lover” should have pulled him was toward San Quentin. But, alas, today’s America – a burgeoning relativist land of make-believe – is anything but sane.

    Randy Thomasson, child advocate and founder of SaveCalifornia.com, is one of the nation’s foremost experts on Harvey Milk. Of the Shilts biography, Thomasson notes, “Explaining Milk’s many flings and affairs with teenagers and young men, Randy Shilts writes how Milk told one ‘lover’ why it was OK for him to also have multiple relationships simultaneously: ‘As homosexuals, we can’t depend on the heterosexual model. … We grow up with the heterosexual model, but we don’t have to follow it. We should be developing our own lifestyle. There’s no reason why you can’t love more than one person at a time.’”

    Whereas McKinley, a disturbed runaway boy, desperately sought a “father figure” to provide empathy, compassion, wisdom and direction, he instead found Harvey Milk: a promiscuous sexual predator who found, in McKinley, an opportunity to satisfy a perverse lust for underage flesh.

    Years later McKinley committed suicide.

    Another teen who crossed paths with Harvey Milk was Christian convert and former homosexual Gerard Dols. In a 2008 radio interview with Concerned Women for America, Dols shared of how – as a physically disabled teen – the “very nice” Harvey Milk had encouraged him in 1977 to run away from his Minnesota home and come to San Francisco.

    According to Dols, Milk told him, “Don’t tell your parents,” and later sent him a letter with instructions. Thankfully, the letter was intercepted by Dols’ parents who then filed a complaint with the Minnesota attorney general’s office.

    The incident was evidently swept under the rug.

    So what does a man like Harvey Milk get for his apparent crimes? While most sexual predators get time in prison and a dishonorable mention on the registry of sex offenders, Harvey Milk got his own California state holiday (“Harvey Milk Day”) and, more recently, his own commemorative postage stamp, awarded by the Obama administration’s USPS."
    You don't have to bother quoting the link you posted. I followed it and already read the whole thing which was where my hearsay response to you came from. Because that is what it is. Nothing more. Until you produce a police report and some real evidence, that is all it will ever be.
    02-24-2014 09:21 PM
  8. GadgetGator's Avatar
    That may be changing. Both of Arizona's senators (John McCain and Jeff Flake) are calling for Governor Jan Brewer to veto Senate Bill 1062:

    John McCain Urges Veto of Arizona Anti-Gay Bill - Fusion

    The Log Cabin Republicans (which represent the lesbian and gay members of the GOP) are also fighting this bill. The Arizona chapter has posted this on their Facebook page:

    "Contact Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer and ask her to VETO SB 1062. Arizona stands for freedom for ALL."

    The Log Cabin Republicans of Arizona - Facebook
    And that's a good start towards changing perceptions, but I venture to say their motivations are likely more about protecting business and tourism then gay people. You only see this kind of stuff against gay people come from Republican controlled government. You don't see such laws against gay people being drafted by Democratic legislative bodies. And as long as an anti-equality message is written into the official GOP party platform, they will not be associated with equality. In fact, even after they drop that someday, it will take generations for them to recover the lost gay votes, the lost friends and family of gay people, and the people that just care about equality in general.
    02-24-2014 09:28 PM
  9. Scott7217's Avatar
    You don't see such laws against gay people being drafted by Democratic legislative bodies.
    You are probably correct if you are talking about the legislative branch. I'm not so sure when it comes to the executive branch, though. For example, Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, which was a step back for gay rights.
    02-24-2014 10:16 PM
  10. Scott7217's Avatar
    What would you say to a business allowed to say sorry you are black we do not serve your kind.
    We would say that the business would not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race per the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-352, 78 Statutes at Large 241).

    I don't think a similar law currently exists to protect members of the gay community from discrimination that could be enforced in Arizona. (If there is, I would be happy to see the citation.) Therefore, you would either need to enact a new law, amend an existing law, or provide a legal precedent from a court decision.
    02-25-2014 12:08 AM
  11. Timelessblur's Avatar
    You are probably correct if you are talking about the legislative branch. I'm not so sure when it comes to the executive branch, though. For example, Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, which was a step back for gay rights.
    That was over 15 years ago. Now since then it has been a lot of going against it.
    Also do not forget DOMA made it threw with Veto proof majority and to top it off there was a constitutional amendment that the anti gays at the time wanted to shove threw. From what I have read part of DOMA was to defuse that but even out side of it was still 17-18 years ago.

    Also in the past 10 years GOP has been the bigots and Dems have been more supportive and even more so in the past 5.
    GadgetGator likes this.
    02-25-2014 12:13 AM
  12. Scott7217's Avatar
    Also do not forget DOMA made it threw with Veto proof majority and to top it off there was a constitutional amendment that the anti gays at the time wanted to shove threw. From what I have read part of DOMA was to defuse that but even out side of it was still 17-18 years ago.
    My reply to GadgetGator was a friendly reminder that just because a politician is a Democrat (like Bill Clinton), it doesn't mean that every bill that he signs into law is positive for the gay community. Politicians look out for themselves first. In Clinton's case, he had to worry about the election for his second term that was coming up in two months. That had priority over everything else.

    You do bring up a good point about DOMA taking away the momentum for amending the Constitution. Thanks to DOMA, we do not have a Constitutional amendment that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.
    02-25-2014 01:04 AM
  13. Scott7217's Avatar
    Why is a florist or photographer's religious beliefs protected and another business owner's is not?
    They are probably making a distinction between places of public accommodation versus private establishments. Legally speaking, a place of public accommodation is (roughly) defined as:

    - Any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests

    - Any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises

    - Any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment

    When you are talking about businesses that fall into these categories, you trigger the possibility of applying additional legal protections against discrimination. Other businesses may fall under the category of private establishments, which do not offer the same legal protection. This is why private clubs (for example) are legal. They are open to members only, so they are not open to the public. (Thus, they can legally discriminate against non-members.)
    02-25-2014 03:07 AM
  14. pappy53's Avatar
    A photographer should have the right to decide who they do business with based on religious beliefs.

    Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
    02-25-2014 09:35 AM
  15. Aquila's Avatar
    That's probably the source of the problem. I think the Constitution only protects people based on race, religion, sex, and national origin. Sexual orientation is a gray area. This is why you can have same-sex marriages in some states but not in others. If the Constitution explicitly stated sexual orientation, we would have less confusion over what is permitted.
    The Constitution doesn't specifically mention any of these things except once each in the cases of race and sex in the context of the right to vote, and that's in amendments subsequent to the Bill of Rights.

    To everyone else... if we've already fought the battle several times and every time the conclusion was, "you don't get to discriminate"... why does changing who you are trying to discriminate against mean having to fight the battle again? Just see the previous 20 arguments about the same thing. It doesn't matter if you don't like their religion, or their hat, or their gender or their political party or their skin color or their accent or their clothing or who their friends are or anything like that. If they are not breaking the law or an existing rule of the establishment, such as a minimum dress code, then what exactly is the problem?

    There is no religion on earth that says, "thou shalt not take a bake a cake for a gay person" in any sacred text of any kind. They also do not say, "thou shalt not sell a BLT to a person with darker skin than the shop owner" and they certainly do not say, "thou shalt assault, rape and murder those who thou art hateful towards". In fact, quite the opposite is said in most mainstream religions, something to the effect of not being judgmental, being kind and humble, spreading love and eradicating hatred, starting with one's own thoughts and actions.

    If you hate someone enough to actively try to suppress their ability to enjoy the same freedoms you want your children, or your neighbors, or yourself to be granted upon birth, their "lifestyle" or "race" or "religion" is not the problem, it's entirely psychologically internal. The words for the oppression, murder, genocide, rape and exploitation of people in the name of religion are: oppression, murder, genocide, rape and exploitation. See how what you're doing doesn't change just because you think a book says it's okay? (it doesn't, but even if it did, it'd still be wrong)

    "With liberty and justice for all, so long as they're not different from me." - Said by no sane person, ever.

    Long story short: If discrimination against any one category of people is wrong, it's probably wrong in every case and that should be the assumption going in, rather than the "surprise" at the end. "Oh, I never realized they were people too and should have all the same rights and legal protections as me" - Really?
    GadgetGator and msndrstood like this.
    02-25-2014 10:55 AM
  16. GadgetGator's Avatar
    A photographer should have the right to decide who they do business with based on religious beliefs.
    Why? Why do photographers get more standing based on their beliefs than say a restaurant owner or hotel owner? I keep asking that question in various places and never get an answer. How about a photographer working in a Sears or Target retail store? Do they also get to pick and choose who they take photos of? Why or why not?

    My reply to GadgetGator was a friendly reminder that just because a politician is a Democrat (like Bill Clinton), it doesn't mean that every bill that he signs into law is positive for the gay community.
    But you are looking through a historical lens. Go back far enough and you would find a bigoted democratic party too. But that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about how the two parties are right here, right now, today. VERY different party platforms on this issue.
    02-25-2014 02:36 PM
  17. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Came across this and though it was interesting. A visual example of the points that NothingIsTrue made. Also, if you want to call the Governor's office on this, her number is (602) 542-4710. It will be interesting to see what she does in the face of so much opposition from the business community.

    DOMA and Prop 8 fall-signs-discrimination-through-centuries.jpg
    02-25-2014 02:52 PM
  18. Scott7217's Avatar
    Why? Why do photographers get more standing based on their beliefs than say a restaurant owner or hotel owner? I keep asking that question in various places and never get an answer.
    My post probably got lost in the sea of replies, but it's #41 in this thread. I basically talk about the legal definition for places of public accommodation (which include restaurants and hotels) and how they differ from private establishments.
    02-25-2014 05:47 PM
  19. GadgetGator's Avatar
    My post probably got lost in the sea of replies, but it's #41 in this thread. I basically talk about the legal definition for places of public accommodation (which include restaurants and hotels) and how they differ from private establishments.
    Yes, I actually did miss that one. Thanks for calling my attention to it. I personally do not see a photographer or a bakery as some sort of "private" establishment, especially when they use religious views as excuses for gay discrimination, but then go ahead and make cakes for a long list of other things that violate their religion. Clearly they are being disingenuous. Which brings me to my next question....why do people elevate gay people to the ultimate "sin" status? If people want to hang their discrimination on the religion issue, then they need to embrace that stated religion whole heartedly, not pick and choose which things to follow and which people to discriminate. If they won't make a cake for me, then they shouldn't make for an atheist couple either. Or an adulter. Or any number of things that their religion frowns upon. At least be consistent.
    02-25-2014 06:36 PM
  20. The Hustleman's Avatar
    It also guarantees the right to be close minded, more or less. Don't businesses already reserve the right to refuse service to anyone? I do know that there was a recent news story about a wedding photographer refusing to tend a gay wedding due to religious reasons. I think that one went to court, but I didn't really follow it. This bill may be a result of that story. In either case, whatever happened to simply going to another business? Taking that wedding photographer case, that couple should have just went to another one willing to serve them instead of forcing that one specific photographer to do so.

    I don't think anything like this bill is needed, and I do support businesses having the right to refuse service for whatever reason. Even if that reason is because you wore white with pink polka dot shoes. We as consumers have the right to not go to such a business.
    Totally agree.

    They already have the right to refuse service to anyone.

    I wouldn't call it bring closed-minded though, I just disagree with it

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 2
    02-25-2014 06:49 PM
  21. toober's Avatar
    One question that hasn't been asked is do you really want a photographer or baker, or anyone else that doesn't want to do the job? I would think you would want someone that is excited to serve you, not just doing the minimum because some court says they have to. What happens to the beautiful memories of your special day if every shot cuts off the top of someone's head or is out of focus? Yes, you can sue the person, but hopefully a wedding is a once in a lifetime event. Why screw it up just to say "look what I made that stupid christian do"? Some things should be more important than that.
    The Hustleman and Scott7217 like this.
    02-25-2014 06:53 PM
  22. Scott7217's Avatar
    If they won't make a cake for me, then they shouldn't make for an atheist couple either. Or an adulter. Or any number of things that their religion frowns upon. At least be consistent.
    This is something that could be used in court. For example, if a bakery makes a wedding cake for an atheist couple, they would have to explain why that doesn't violate their religious beliefs. If they can't explain it, the court is more likely to throw out the law because it cannot be consistently applied.

    On the other hand, if the bakery were forced to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, I don't think there's a law to prevent the bakery from donating the money from the cake sale to anti-gay organizations. They could also inscribe Bible verses in hidden places, if that makes them feel better. In-N-Out (a hamburger restaurant) and Trijicon (a gun sight company) are famous for putting Bible verses on their products.
    02-25-2014 07:48 PM
  23. GadgetGator's Avatar
    One question that hasn't been asked is do you really want a photographer or baker, or anyone else that doesn't want to do the job? I would think you would want someone that is excited to serve you, not just doing the minimum because some court says they have to. What happens to the beautiful memories of your special day if every shot cuts off the top of someone's head or is out of focus? Yes, you can sue the person, but hopefully a wedding is a once in a lifetime event. Why screw it up just to say "look what I made that stupid christian do"? Some things should be more important than that.
    An interesting example was given yesterday by one of the lawmakers that passed this bill. He asked if you were a gay printer, and Westboro Baptist Church wanted you to print up some flyers, would you want to do it? Ironic question, since with OR without this bill the gay person would have no such recourse to refuse them. That being said, if I was that printer, I'd have no problem printing up the flyers and doing a professional job while I was at it. I am just that kinda guy. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't let everyone know where they were going to be once I saw the info on the flyer,

    But let's take your hypothetical and extend it to another group. If you were black and as a couple were told they didn't take photos of black people, how would that make you feel? What if every business of that type felt that way in your given area? Or worse, what if they did take your business just to ruin your day on purpose? You'd have no way of knowing. And there doesn't seem to be any protections in place for such a scenario for either the black couple or the gay one. Businesses should be professional about things and do good jobs. These kind of questions shouldn't even be an issue. They are in business to make money, not to proselytize a certain religion.

    Once you open your doors to the public, you have to get used to the idea that there are going to be all sorts of people you will have to interact with that you won't always agree with. It's one of the cost of doing business. You have a right to refuse service to someone being disruptive or threatening in some way, but not to just pick and choose things at random that you don't agree with. If you want your business to be a private club where you cater to only one kind of customer, then you shouldn't open a storefront, but rather should advertise your business in church newsletters and similar instead.

    The question everyone seems to be struggling with, is where do you draw the line? And how do you know beforehand? If they are going to pass something like this, then I rather them have to put a no gays allowed sign in the window and stand by their convictions if it is that important to them, but they wouldn't pass that amendment to the bill. Because they want to be able to hide instead of publicly standing up for their beliefs like they should be willing to do. If they can't be honest about it, then they must think they are doing wrong in some way. And to get back to something I said earlier, why is this law okay for bakeries, florist, and photographers, but not hotels? If someone runs a small hotel and has deeply held religious beliefs, why are their beliefs any less important? Frankly, considering what goes on IN the hotel room on a wedding night, you would think that would be even MORE of an important business for people to focus on and worry about, but strangely it's all about the photographer and bakery. Go figure.

    Finally, the question needs to be asked, is that the kind of world we want to live in...where people post signs of all the groups they won't cater to? Like in the photos I posted earlier. Is that the kind of days we want to go back to and see everywhere? Really??? What if instead of seeing it as an attack on their religion, those people saw it as an opportunity to talk to others about their religion instead if it is so important to them? To me that seems the much better path. For instance, I don't mind In and Out Burger putting bible verses on their cups at Christmas time. Doesn't affect me in the least. In fact, though I don't agree with their beliefs, I think it's great.
    02-26-2014 02:50 AM
  24. Aquila's Avatar
    Finally, the question needs to be asked, is that the kind of world we want to live in...where people post signs of all the groups they won't cater to? Like in the photos I posted earlier. Is that the kind of days we want to go back to and see everywhere? Really???
    Here's the problem. We all presumably agree with the fundamental argument that discrimination is wrong. So why ever bother trying to amend that argument with, "well, what if it's because" or "well, what if they're part of ...". This is one of the biggest problems with another question I asked in here once, do human rights, as expressed by Thomas Paine and others later to be enshrined into the Constitutions of the US and France (and later others) apply to humans or just to American's? If you believe that the rights American's have are granted either by the creator or by the virtue of being human, why does a border matter? Why would it be okay to grant rights to American's and deny them to others? Whatever the answer to that is, and it's guaranteed to be logically flawed, is most likely the same logically flawed argument justifying the uneven application of rights to different groups of Americans. If discrimination is wrong, under what circumstances does it matter what type of human the person is? Be it location, gender, color, national heritage, age, whatever, why would we ever even consider entertaining the argument that discrimination is okay 40% of the time, as long it is against someone that "I" don't like, but wrong the other 60% of the time, because those people don't bother "me". There are several words to describe living with that contradiction active in thought processes.
    02-26-2014 03:00 AM
  25. anon8126715's Avatar
    Lets remember that Arizona was also one of the last states to recognize MLK day. If not for the NFL threatening to pull out of the state, I think Arizona would've stayed the course in regards to MLK day.

    The local media in Philly is reporting that the governor of PA is recommending that the NFL move the Super Bowl out of Arizona if this bill does become law, which I think would be a good PR move for the NFL, especially as a gesture to welcome the 1st openly gay NFL prospect.

    As far as everyone that's ok with this type of discrimination, my question is would you be ok with this type of discrimination if it was against a demographic that you're a part of? Something tells me that you're ok with this level of discrimination because it doesn't affect you on a personal level, but if it did affect you, you'd scream foul.
    GadgetGator likes this.
    02-26-2014 05:42 AM
1,813 ... 6162636465 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Automatic time zone and date/clock are wrong
    By ajua in forum HTC One M7
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 07-04-2018, 01:12 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-05-2013, 10:34 AM
  3. Using the TMobile Note 2 in Asia (not Japan & Korea) and Europe for 3G internet
    By Internet_Tough_Guy in forum T-Mobile Galaxy Note 2
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-27-2013, 01:54 PM
  4. Icon question and SMS question
    By JT Peters in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-26-2013, 02:55 PM
  5. USA today review and water damage...
    By quietlybrilliant in forum Samsung Galaxy S4 Active
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-26-2013, 11:13 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD