Chik-Fil-A and tolerance

[RedPaddy]

What "the pundits" said then is still true today. How has Adam and Steve's marriage in Massachusetts defiled your marriage? Or how does recognizing the basic right of John and Joe to marriage and its rights and obligations defile the same right to Jim and Mary? Please be specific. Generic fear mongering does not advance anyone's understanding of the issue.

• Since homosexual marriage became “legal” the rates of HIV / AIDS have gone up considerably in Massachusetts. This year public funding to deal with HIV/AIDS has risen by $500,000. As the homosexual lobby group MassEquality wrote to their supporters after successfully persuading the Legislature to spend that money: "With the rate of HIV infections rising dramatically in Massachusetts, it's clear the fight against AIDS is far from over."
• Given the extreme dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships, the Massachusetts Legislature has felt the need to spend more money every year to deal with skyrocketing homosexual domestic violence. This year $350,000 was budgeted, up $100,000 from last year.
• The wedding industry is required serve the homosexual community if requested. Wedding photographers, halls, caterers, etc., must do same-sex marriages or be arrested for discrimination.
• The Massachusetts Bar Exam now tests lawyers on their knowledge of same-sex "marriage" issues. In 2007, a Boston man, Stephen Dunne, failed the Massachusetts bar exam because he refused to answer the questions in it about homosexual marriage.
• Since homosexual relationships are now officially “normal”, the Legislature now gives enormous tax money to homosexual activist groups. In particular, the Massachusetts Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth is made up of the most radical and militant homosexual groups which target children in the schools. This year they are getting $700,000 of taxpayer money to go into the public schools.
• In 2008 Massachusetts changed the state Medicare laws to include homosexual “married” couples in the coverage.

How same-sex "marriage" affects Massachusetts

 

[dies-l]

• Since homosexual marriage became “legal” the rates of HIV / AIDS have gone up considerably in Massachusetts. This year public funding to deal with HIV/AIDS has risen by $500,000. As the homosexual lobby group MassEquality wrote to their supporters after successfully persuading the Legislature to spend that money: "With the rate of HIV infections rising dramatically in Massachusetts, it's clear the fight against AIDS is far from over."
  
• Given the extreme dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships, the Massachusetts Legislature has felt the need to spend more money every year to deal with skyrocketing homosexual domestic violence. This year $350,000 was budgeted, up $100,000 from last year.
  
• The wedding industry is required serve the homosexual community if requested. Wedding photographers, halls, caterers, etc., must do same-sex marriages or be arrested for discrimination.

• 
  
  Cite?
  Arrested for discrimination? Not just sued? Cite please?
  
  
  
  

  [*]The Massachusetts Bar Exam now tests lawyers on their knowledge of same-sex "marriage" issues. In 2007, a Boston man, Stephen Dunne, failed the Massachusetts bar exam because he refused to answer the questions in it about homosexual marriage.

  
  Imagine that! Lawyers being expected to know the law as a condition of being licensed to practice law? Outrageous!
  
  
  

  [*]Since homosexual relationships are now officially “normal”, the Legislature now gives enormous tax money to homosexual activist groups. In particular, the Massachusetts Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth is made up of the most radical and militant homosexual groups which target children in the schools. This year they are getting $700,000 of taxpayer money to go into the public schools.

  
  Okay? And that defiles opposite sex marriages how exactly?
  
  
  

  [*]In 2008 Massachusetts changed the state Medicare laws to include homosexual “married” couples in the coverage.

How same-sex "marriage" affects Massachusetts

Same questions.

 

[RedPaddy]

Cite?

The link is at the bottom of my post. Sorry you missed it.

 

[RedPaddy]

Imagine that! Lawyers being expected to know the law as a condition of being licensed to practice law?

Lol, MA has no law legalizing same sex "marriage". Closest I've seen to date are the annually proposed laws to legalize it but they never get out of committee here in MA. No law has ever been passed that legalize same sex marriage in MA.

 

[dies-l]

The link is at the bottom of my post. Sorry you missed it.

I didn't miss it, but I noticed that it failed to provide citations for certain of the facts that it alleged. Considering the fact that it has made some obviously incorrect statements (e.g., the penalty for discrimination is not criminal arrest) and that it has made some patently absurd arguments (e.g., that there is something wrong with a candidate for the bar being expected to know the law of the state he intends to practice law in), I would put the onus on you to provide some reliable citation for the remaining allegations of fact.

 

[RedPaddy]

I didn't miss it, but I noticed that it failed to provide citations for certain of the facts that it alleged. Considering the fact that it has made some obviously incorrect statements (e.g., the penalty for discrimination is not criminal arrest) and that it has made some patently absurd arguments (e.g., that there is something wrong with a candidate for the bar being expected to know the law of the state he intends to practice law in), I would put the onus on you to provide some reliable citation for the remaining allegations of fact.

Your disagreement with facts does not neccessitate any action on my part.

 

[dies-l]

Lol, MA has no law legalizing same sex "marriage". Closest I've seen to date are the annually proposed laws to legalize it but they never get out of committee here in MA. No law has ever been passed that legalize same sex marriage in MA.

Lol indeed!


GOODRIDGE vs. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 440 Mass. 309

A State Supreme Court holding that a legal prohibition violates the state's constitution generally nullifies said legal prohibition, thus rendering legal that which was previously illegal. This is taught during the first week of law school in any accredited law school in the country.

 

[dies-l]

Your disagreement with facts does not neccessitate any action on my part.

But, posting a link that contains patently false information is just cause for any reasonable person to disregard any other facts that you may allege if you are unwilling or unable to provide evidence to support said allegations of fact.

One could even reasonably infer from your unwillingness to provide reliable citations that you yourself are uninterested in making sure that what you say is actually true.

 

[stamperben]

While trespassing is not

Sorry, but the comment was made regarding gathering on the public sidewalk.
Sorry you missed that.

 

[RedPaddy]

Lol indeed!


GOODRIDGE vs. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 440 Mass. 309

A State Supreme Court holding that a legal prohibition violates the state's constitution generally nullifies said legal prohibition, thus rendering legal that which was previously illegal. This is taught during the first week of law school in any accredited law school in the country.

This is from the link you could not locate earlier:
How same-sex "marriage" affects Massachusetts

On November 18, 2003 the court merely ruled that it was unconstitutional not to allow it, and gave the Legislature six months to “take such action as it may deem appropriate.”

Note that the Massachusetts Constitution strongly denies courts the power to make or change laws, or from ordering the other branches to take any action. The constitution effectively bans “judicial review” – a court changing or nullifying a law. Thus, the court did not order anything to happen; it simply rendered an opinion on that specific case.

And the Legislature did nothing.

The marriage statutes were never changed.

emphasis mine.

 

[RedPaddy]

But, posting a link that contains patently false information is just cause for any reasonable person to disregard any other facts that you may allege, especially if you are unwilling or unable to provide evidence to support said allegations of fact.

Not sure if I need your permission or not, but just in case, do you mind if I save this post as a classic example of argumentum ad hominem?

One could even reasonably infer from your unwillingness to provide reliable citations that you yourself are uninterested in making sure that what you say is actually true.

lol. Where did you get your training in law? Your impeachment skills appear to be well honed.

 

[dies-l]

This is from the link you could not locate earlier:
How same-sex "marriage" affects Massachusetts


emphasis mine.

Once again, the lack of any citation (in this case, one which should be easy to obtain, if such a provision is actually in the Massachusetts Constitution) is quite telling as to the accuracy of the statement.

 

[MachZer0]

Sorry, but the comment was made regarding gathering on the public sidewalk.
Sorry you missed that.

Which I said would be fine as long as they remain within the confines of the law. Things outside the confines of the law would be throwing rocks, breaking windows, harassing people, etc.

 

[dies-l]

Not sure if I need your permission or not, but just in case, do you mind if I save this post as a classic example of argumentum ad hominem?

If you say so. But, any court in America consider one's general reputation for dishonesty as indicative of the veracity of its other statements of fact. Anyone else is free to consider whether the fact that a given source has lied about some facts is reason to doubt the veracity of any other unsubstantiated claim that it might make.

ETA: please note that I have edited my previous post to make clear that it is not merely the reputation for making false statements of facts that undermines your credibility in my opinion, it is also your unwillingness to support your claims with reliable citations or evidence.

lol. Where did you get your training in law? Your impeachment skills appear to be well honed.

Ironically, at a law school that would firmly take your side on this particular issue.

 

[stamperben]

Which I said would be fine as long as they remain within the confines of the law. Things outside the confines of the law would be throwing rocks, breaking windows, harassing people, etc.

We are talking about a kiss-in though. Kissing is still legal on public sidewalks.

 

[RedPaddy]

If you say so. But, any court in America consider one's general reputation for dishonesty as indicative of the veracity of its other statements of fact. Anyone else is free to consider whether the fact that a given source has lied about some facts is reason to doubt the veracity of any other unsubstantiated claim that it might make.

ETA: please note that I have edited my previous post to make clear that it is not merely the reputation for making false statements of facts that undermines your credibility in my opinion, it is also your unwillingness to support your claims with reliable citations or evidence.
....

Since we're sharing, it was your choice of icons that undermined your credibility in my opinion.

Regardless, you are still free to verify any and all facts if you are displeased with another's choice of sources.

 

[OllieFranz]

What it does do is legalize sin which to me and many many others as witnessed by the mass support has no place in our society(legally I mean)

But Tomas did not say that the problem was that he believed it to be a sin. He said that the pundits" lied when they said it would not defile his marriage. That is a much stronger statement and that is what I was questioning.

 

[BleedingHeart]

Since we're sharing, it was your choice of icons that undermined your credibility in my opinion.

Regardless, you are still free to verify and and all facts if you are displeased with another's choice of sources.

His choice of icons. Are you insulting him because he's a Democrat? Stay classy Red.

 

[RedPaddy]

His choice of icons. Are you insulting him because he's a Democrat? Stay classy Red.

wasn't an insult bro, we was just sharing.

 

[OllieFranz]

• Since homosexual marriage became “legal” the rates of HIV / AIDS have gone up considerably in Massachusetts. This year public funding to deal with HIV/AIDS has risen by $500,000. As the homosexual lobby group MassEquality wrote to their supporters after successfully persuading the Legislature to spend that money: "With the rate of HIV infections rising dramatically in Massachusetts, it's clear the fight against AIDS is far from over."
• Given the extreme dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships, the Massachusetts Legislature has felt the need to spend more money every year to deal with skyrocketing homosexual domestic violence. This year $350,000 was budgeted, up $100,000 from last year.
• The wedding industry is required serve the homosexual community if requested. Wedding photographers, halls, caterers, etc., must do same-sex marriages or be arrested for discrimination.
• The Massachusetts Bar Exam now tests lawyers on their knowledge of same-sex "marriage" issues. In 2007, a Boston man, Stephen Dunne, failed the Massachusetts bar exam because he refused to answer the questions in it about homosexual marriage.
• Since homosexual relationships are now officially “normal”, the Legislature now gives enormous tax money to homosexual activist groups. In particular, the Massachusetts Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth is made up of the most radical and militant homosexual groups which target children in the schools. This year they are getting $700,000 of taxpayer money to go into the public schools.
• In 2008 Massachusetts changed the state Medicare laws to include homosexual “married” couples in the coverage.

How same-sex "marriage" affects Massachusetts

Still, none of that (and most of it -- at least most of the non-hysterical version of the facts -- is just treating gay people like human beings equal under the law to straight people -- you know "All men are created equal) defiles Tomas' marriage (or yours, either, for that matter).