What is Digg?173 Comments
- Detritus, on 10/12/2007, -25/+56Which rights are you referring to? Their defense based on free speech rights is a joke. Free speech doesn't apply in this case at all, the fact that they pulled that one as their trump reveals they know they don't have a case.
This is a discrimination case, the only thing free speechy in discrimination cases is that the business does have the right to hang a sign "***** and Coloreds Not Welcomed" but they are not allowed to actually discriminate from providing service to persons based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexuality. So the colored does in fact get to enjoy the drinking fountain, and the ***** does get to eat babies!
You'd go ballistic if I told you about how those damned foreigners also have protections from discrimination at the hands of businesses. - fantasmacanino, on 10/12/2007, -22/+51You're probably one of those homophobic morons that cringe at the thought of two guys kissing, but as soon as you see two girls doing it, well, that's just sexy, isn't it?
If people love each other, that's all that matters, really. Whatever they do in the privacy of their homes and whatever thing they decide to stick in whatever hole they got is none of my business, neither yours', nor the government's. Live your life by whatever moral code you want, just don't tell everybody else what's right and what's wrong. - scubajim, on 10/12/2007, -12/+37You are equating homosexuals with pedophiles. The two are not the same at all. There are heterosexuals whom are pedophiles but that doesn't make all heterosexuals (or even the majority) pedophiles.(Yes, I am sure there is a tiny minority of homosexuals who are pedophiles, but that is much different than equating homosexuality with pedophilia.)
I am sure most heterosexuals and homosexuals despise pedophiles and want nothing to do with pedophiles peridictions. - Detritus, on 10/12/2007, -18/+43I'll see your quote:
FTA: "U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton"
This is a Federal case.
And raise your intolerance:
I'm afraid the constitution is very clear about protecting the rights of individuals. If you feel the rights of corporations should trump those of individuals, you will need to have that old thing amended. Perhaps you could even go so far as to codify your feelings and prohibit specific religions, behaviors, or ethnicities from existing in your vision of America. As it stands the constitution considers all men (and now women) to be equal, such that any discrimination is implicitly unconstitutional. This is further troubling to some since coloreds are now considered to be "men" and not "property", and even the term "men" now includes females (genetically or otherwise), which sets a nasty precedent for those seeking to degrade some segments of the citizenry.
Do not lose hope though, as this is a democracy and the constitution can be changed dynamically to meet the needs of the people. You just need to convince enough people that we should legitimately degrade other people. - quasipalm, on 10/12/2007, -14/+39"Think about it, would you want gay parents?"
I don't love my parents because of their gender -- I love them because they're great, loving parents. I'm sure the kids of gay parents would agree. - pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -17/+41readthis: yeah, segregation is a great idea. i guess we should have "straight only" water fountains too.
- eriksanerd, on 10/12/2007, -14/+38Can we get some "intolerant idiot" fountains while we're at it? I hear those people could be the downfall of society...
- FizixMan, on 10/12/2007, -16/+40According to the judge, they do have a case. Regardless of how many Digger "experts" claim otherwise.
- BunnieLebowski, on 10/12/2007, -22/+40the only disease I see is you. spreading your hate just like an infection
- aaronridge, on 10/12/2007, -10/+27It's completely normal... except for the metal thing stuck through the dude's tongue. Now that's just weird.
- terribly1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21I don't think people with the psychological disorder of thinking homosexuality is a psychological disorder should be allowed to post on the internet. Even if that disorder is nonviolent (albeit closed-minded) like thinking homosexuality is a psychological disorder.
- Cossins, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19I find it humourous that I allegedly carry a "psychological disorder", and am still about twice as intelligent as you are.
- Simon - elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19"I'm afraid the constitution is very clear about protecting the rights of individuals. If you feel the rights of corporations should trump those of individuals, you will need to have that old thing amended. "
Detritus, it's you who doesn't understand. This isn't about the 'rights of corporations vs the rights of individuals' this is the rights of businesses vs the business of individuals.
You do NOT have the right to go to any business you want and have them provide services to you. That is NOT a right. It IS a right, however, to choose who you provide services to. The business should be allowed to allow or disallow anyone they want for any reasons from using their service. I'm not saying that it's a good thing to discriminate, but I'm saying that there are many cases when it is perfectly within your rights to discriminate. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19I want to be adopted by the good looking rich family
- nomonkey, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19"I truly believe this would have psychological effects on the children. Daddy and daddy? Where is the child going to get the mother figure from (The most important figure in his/her life)? Homosexuals can't naturally have children, and they shouldn't be allowed to adopt children. We've grown way too politically correct as a society."
You know what has a bigger psychological effect on children? Being raised by stupid parents. Seriously.
Should we ban half the people in this thread from adopting?
You know what else screws kids up up? Poor parents. So they're off the list.
You know what really screws kids up? Rich parents. So they're off the list.
What else? Oh yeah, having a really, really hot mom screws kids up. So don't let them adopt.
Add spankers, and parents who can't walk, and parents who don't like to read, and parents who are too fat...
Oh, and cop's kids, they're screwed up. And military kids, because mom or dad is away so much.
Certainly single parents should be banned.
Oh and the granddaddy of all screw-your-kids-up... overly-religious parents. So ban them.
Or... and I'm just throwing this out there... we don't discriminate on generalities but instead on whether they seem like they will love and take care of the kid.
|How 'bout we do that? - nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23People defending the rights of the website aren't bigots and don't deserved to be attacked. This is not a case of segregation, it is a matter of discrimination. And yes, you DO have a right to discriminate, with the exception of specific categories outlined by federal and state laws. For better or worse, legal discrimination happens every day. Men are not allowed to work out at a "Curves" Gym. Some (but not most) gay mens bars discriminate against women and straight guys. If you are a guy who hasn't felt the painful sting of discrimination, go to an abortion clinic sometime. If you're not there with a girl, they won't even unlock the door for you, even if you say you just want to get some information.
We live in a society which thinks discrimination, in all forms, is wrong and yet we continue to allow it. Some defend discrimination as free speech or freedom of assembly, which I think it is in many cases, but that's not the reason I defend discrimination. I don't think tolerance should come at the price of liberty. I don't want to take away someones freedom to make decisions about their club/bar/business just so they don't step on the toes of certain groups of people. I just don't think it's worth it. There have been major issues in the past (such as race discrimination) which people felt were important enough to correct with constitutional amendments, but I think this should be the exception, not the rule. - ngmcs8203, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19Just another notch in my block belt. It's 2007 ChicknBot and I nominate you for the 2008 Douchebag ticket. Someone needs to teach you something about tolerance.
- apetrie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14According to your argument then, heterosexuals who are incapable of reproducing should not be allowed to adopt either, since they can't naturally have children. Basically only people who can have children of their own should be allowed to adopt then, sounds like a lot of orphans would grow up without any parents at all.
It has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with logic and compassion. Children are better off with parents than without them. - wushu18t, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16i agree with carolinecrane. ..that's hot. but i am left wondering. if you think homosexuals are perverts...what are you doing with a picture of two "*****" or why do you know where to get them?
- Cossins, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14I wonder if you've ever actually met a homosexual. My bet is on "no".
- carolinecrane, on 10/12/2007, -10/+21That's hot.
- Jolls, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18@amoira
yes. but then, I and millions of other people would never go to denny's (on second though, i dont really go there anyways, but thats a food quality thing). and denny's would flop. that's the way the market is supposed to work. I'm for people boycotting and sending letters to companies that discriminate. I'm NOT for government stepping in and doing their usually crap-tacular job of 'correcting citizens'.
It's *not* okay for companies to discriminate, but it is their right too. - Hacbarton, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Homosexulaity (according to this...http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/health/10gene.html?_r=1&ei=5087%0A&em=&en=931923a564fed9e9&ex=1176436800&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1176312358-/j6PusN3pV8CD4qpSpyNQg&oref=slogin...)
isn't necessarily genetic, but rather an effect of prenatal biological formation of a babies' gender. Just as well, its also possible that, if homosexuality is genetic, then it may be an effect of another gene (they think it might have something to do with a gene for higher fertility). Oh, and homosexuality was declassified as a "condition" or "disorder" in 1972 by the American Psychological Association. - mvirgilio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Unfortunately there may be a case for Adoption.com. Arizona permits single GLBT adoption, but is not clear on joint gay adoption. Second-parent adoption is also unclear. They could use a state interest defense against the gay couples. A case was made in FL just recently banning any gay parent from adoption, saying the environment is unstable. They still let gays be foster parents though. Hypocrites. People are so stupid :-P
- MrSunshine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12There's no mother figure either in a heterosexual relationship if she died due to an illness or accident and the father has to raise the kid alone.
- CBTF, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Actually, if you did some research you'd know that children raised by gay/lesbian couples are not more likely to be any more different than those raised by straight parents. Many studies have been done on this.
Having an opinion is fine, just make sure it's educated before spewing it out. - quasipalm, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14OMG THAT JOKE NEVER GETS OLD!
grow up, kid. - Hacbarton, on 10/12/2007, -10/+19"I'm not homophobic, but when it comes to raising children I think the best way is the natural partnership of a mother and a father."
First off, you're almost by definition homophobic. Secondly, these are orphans. I'm pretty sure they'd do better with gay parents than they would with no parents. Oh, and please link any study you're willing to quote (dont have the 5 seconds to google it?) - Murdats, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13and unfortunatley for you, not bigot sympathisers
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12If businesses want to discriminate, they have to be more creative in how they do it. Yes, businesses generally have the right to refuse any customer for ALMOST any reasons. But not every reason. Race and sexual orientation are protected. If Adoption.com could have come up with another reason to refuse them, they would be fine.
The bar I go to frequently was having a lot of problems with fighting a couple months ago. The culprits were a small but growing group of black guys who were coming from another club that got shut down due to violence. The manager was desperately trying to prevent this bar from being the next one that get shut down. It was not always clear which ones were causing the trouble, as there were lots of lots of black guys who were regulars who never caused a problem. Finally it hit me how to stop the problem, so I told the DJ, who told me to relay my solution to the manage which I did.
The next week, there was a sign on the door saying NO NEW ERA BASEBALL CAPS ALLOWED.
Bang. The fighting stopped overnights. Because the ***** who were starting fights ALL wore those idiotic New Era hats with the stickers still on, and all 2 sizes too big pulled down over their ears so they all looked like ***** idiots. And they'd all rather go somewhere else that be caught dead without their precious lids.
The bar cannot prohibit black guys from coming in. But they can prohibit anyone wearing New Era hats and it is perfectly legal.
They have refined the rules over the last couple weeks, banning other clothing. And it is working perfectly. Those who just want to come down to have a good time have no problem changing their wardrobe if they happen to be wearing things on the banned list (which is unlikely since the banned clothes are ones that are almost exclusively worn wannabe gangstas.) whereas those who want to start trouble will refuse, usually screaming at the bouncers from outside until the cops come and take them away. - jacobsor, on 10/12/2007, -10/+18No.
- Amadeus2490, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11I don't think two people that actually care about you is as bad as watching your father beat up your mommy, or having your mommy raise you alone and turn into an alcoholic because she can't deal with the stress? How about if you have a single father, and you have to grow up with him constantly bringing home "new mommies," and dealing with these women, and him "caring" more about them than he does about you needing to be parented?
Like I said, it's not about sexuality, it's about the people themselves.
I imagine that yes, other kids would make fun of them for having two mothers or fathers, but not nearly as bad as having a transgendered parent, right? - Kingfisherx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Brilliant.
- elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Ideally, the intolerant idiot water fountains would actually be pumping chlorine.
- nomonkey, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13"***** them. Until they prove that you are born gay, it's al lifestyle CHOICE. Just like you can refuse service to a drunk, you can refuse service to them. Don't compare being gay to being black."
Look at the adorable little bigot.
He still thinks being gay is a lifestyle choice. How cute. - jacobsor, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16"However, I'm against some low I.Q. government official forcing his beliefs on my person and my personnal belongings."
That was the same argument that Southern business owners used to justify segregation of their "private" businesses. "Your honor, I own this store and the lunch counter, I can exclude whoever I want." - Hacbarton, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11I keep seeing these comments, then I suddenly remember that there are 14-year-olds hating their moms and listening to another Underoath record AS WELL AS real people that comment on these.
- jvdimas, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16So if I wanted to make a store that wouldn't allow Jews or Blacks to shop then that would be a great idea in your book? It's fine for a store to refuse service to someone if they violate a clearly posted objective rule (Shoes and Shirts Required).
- jvdimas, on 10/12/2007, -16/+23To those saying that they should be allowed to choose who they allow to post profiles:
Thats basically the exact same argument that people used to say restaurants had the right to choose not to serve Blacks. - JonnyTrombone, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"romeyRome"? Wasn't Roman society highly accepting of homosexuality?
- Ryan121, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8If a business wouldn't sell me something or provide me a service because I'm gay I wouldn't care. If they don't want my money fair enough, I'd rather spend it some where else and not give it to ignorant bigots.
- laserblazer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8So many people in this thread used way too many words and a half-assed interpretation of this issue to say little more than, "I hate fags."
Dressing it up doesn't hide your true feelings. Why bother? - CBTF, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Joe- while that's true, where does the problem lie? Certainly not with the parents. Gay parents can offer a stable loving home just as well as anyone else can. The problem lies in ignorant parents who are hedero and teach their children that it's okay to pick on those who are different than them.
- nomonkey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"So the only reason you are not racist is because the government told you not to be?"
Me? No.
Many other people? Yes.
If you think otherwise, you're kidding yourself.
For example... Adoption.com... right?
It's great and all if you are so free of bigotry that you naively believe that no one needs protection... but if you think everybody is like that... you should re-read this thread. - avidlinuxuser, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Problem is California has an Anti-Discrimination law and Arizona doesn't. Now, Adoption.com does business in all states. The issue is should it abide by the rules of the state that it is located in or the states that it does business in?
- laplacian, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10I'm going to go into a restaurant without shirt and shoes, then sue them for discrimination if they won't serve me.
- awhiteflame, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"but it is their right"
Rather, it's not, but it should be. - iamthenoise, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4hoserjoe,
that's the worst fuzzy logic i've ever read in my life. if a black man in the 60's living in the south were asked if he could change his color, he might very well do it, if not for anything more than improving the quality of his existance within society at the time. now go find a gay person to go straight.....any legitimate takers? i didn't think so. ask any gay person if there is any social advantage to being gay. Even in the MOST liberal cities, being heckled or otherwise abused a few times a week is considered "good". oh, and while you're at it, ask a gay person how much fun it is for them to "come out" to friends and family. how much fun they have being blocked from trying to adopt a child when they could so easily choose to be straight and not put up with the BS. ask yourself, if it were in any way easy and comfortable to be, excuse me, "decide" to be gay, why do so many put up with the torcher and abuses of bigots like you....unless you're telling me all gays are masochists too.
but on to more on your magical display of intellect...you gave someone a hard time for saying what he/she thinks gays "FEEL". yet in your post you call it "an urge, an impulse". hmm, where have i heard those words before "urge" and "impulse"....oh right, those two things are what people have when they FEEL like doing something, moron.
but wait a minute, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're not the backwoods inbred idiot you come off as. no, lets make a stretch here and say you're actually smart. that's all you'd have to be since it doesn't take a genius to understand sexual urges. everyone has them, and everyone reacts to them....
"urges"
you're trying to equate the "urge" (there's that magic word again that for you, somehow doesn't mean a degree of "FEEL"ing) to strangle someone and your saintly restistance to this urge, with a gay/lesbian's urge to be intimate with someone of the same sex and their inability to resist this urge....that's just all kinds of stupid...
1. the conclusion you're drawing by saying that is that by acting out on sexual urges, gays are an irritation to you due to their innability to control themselves sexually. ok, i don't get how men being with men is any of any interest to you, but if you pay that much attention to the activities of gay people, that's a little creepy but hey, that's your thing and by all means, go for it.
2. lets go the conservative christian route and say you don't agree with gays acting on their sexual urges because intimacy between same sexes cannot result in procreation. not that i think you're clever enough to have thought of that, but hey, let's just play this one out. this one is just as stupid as the first one. by following this line of thinking, you'd have to be pissed off at EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO'S EVER HAD SEX THAT WASN'T AN ATTEMPT AT PREGNANCY. so are you telling us you've never been intimate with someone without it ending up in procreation? oh, and you'd also have to kill off everyone who's somehow infertile....or at least tie their penises in knots so they couldn't act on "urges".
3. when you compare gays to "small, self-centered children who pee on the floor just because they FEEL like it", you equate acting on sexual urges to an immature annoyance similar to a kid peeing on the floor? have you ever masturbated? is masturbation similar to wiping boogers on the wall?
i had a good time writing this, as i'm sure you had writing your inflammatory posts, and you're getting the attention you want, and i'm writing the way i like to...but, like i said in my other post, your a bigot, you're entitled to your opinion, and you're going to make the world less-one-bigot when you die. - Hacbarton, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@Beyondgoodnevil
First off, how dare you name yourself after Nietzche's greatest work then act so ignorant.
More so, What guidelines of a "disorder" are you following? Homosexuals lead healthy lives with little to no trouble (accept that which we receive from ignorant people like yourselves). Most Schizophrenics need daily medication just to get through their day without having an emotional breakdown. And to have the nerve to stereotype homosexuals by saying they want children as fashion accessories? Welcome to my block list. It is an innate human desire to have a family. When circumstances outside of the person's control doesn't allow them to have a relationship that can produce children, then it is perfectly acceptable and reasonable to want to adopt. And for chrissake, PLEASE cite any study or statistic you're going to place on this board. - nomonkey, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Samslembas -
"Whatever happened to freedom? Since when can businesses not decide who they want to do business with?
Gah, reading the news is getting me depressed again. Back to the tech news."
If someone getting there day in court to fight discrimination depresses you... you need to hit the yellow pages under T for therapists.
And "since when" is "since always" if it is to discriminate against a minority group.
So sorry if not being able to be a bigot inconveniences you. -
Show 51 - 100 of 161 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is