Huh...Religious Conservatives were right...
Re: Huh...Religious Conservatives were right...
by The Tooth » Tue Apr 30, 2013 6:22 pm
No kidding. 70 pages. Galt and Battleaxe are doing yeoman's work.
Not well, mind you. But yeoman's work nonetheless.
Nevertheless, after 70 pages I'm still pretty puzzled as to what, if not the sexual orientation of the participants, the basis is for this woman's discriminatory practices. "She's against gay marriage!" I've been told repeatedly. I'm not even convinced that's a distinction, much less a distinction without a difference. What is it about gay marriage that warrants her refusal when heterosexual weddings don't? Hmmm. Maybe in another 70 pages I'll be convinced that it's not the sexual orientation of the grooms, but I doubt it. Arguments along the line of "she'd do the same thing if two straight men were getting married, so it can't be their sexual orientation" or "she never did it before so she can't be doing it now" do not convince.
It will take more than 70 pages to convince me that her religion is a valid excuse for such discrimination, that much is certain.
Not well, mind you. But yeoman's work nonetheless.
Nevertheless, after 70 pages I'm still pretty puzzled as to what, if not the sexual orientation of the participants, the basis is for this woman's discriminatory practices. "She's against gay marriage!" I've been told repeatedly. I'm not even convinced that's a distinction, much less a distinction without a difference. What is it about gay marriage that warrants her refusal when heterosexual weddings don't? Hmmm. Maybe in another 70 pages I'll be convinced that it's not the sexual orientation of the grooms, but I doubt it. Arguments along the line of "she'd do the same thing if two straight men were getting married, so it can't be their sexual orientation" or "she never did it before so she can't be doing it now" do not convince.
It will take more than 70 pages to convince me that her religion is a valid excuse for such discrimination, that much is certain.
-
The Tooth - Mayor
- Posts: 275
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:21 pm
- Location: Calgary, AB
- Gender:
- Has thanked: 0 time
- Been thanked: 12 times
- Political Leaning: Very Liberal
Re: Huh...Religious Conservatives were right...
by battleax86 » Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:40 pm
- battleax86
- Mayor
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 8:15 am
- Gender:
- Has thanked: 9 times
- Been thanked: 5 times
Re: Huh...Religious Conservatives were right...
by lil bit » Wed May 01, 2013 12:46 am
'She couldn't help wondering what use Carl had for a double bed in his bachelor establishment' - Rafferty's Legacy -Jane Corrie
- lil bit
- Senator
- Posts: 1181
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 7:45 am
- Gender:
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 42 times
Re: Huh...Religious Conservatives were right...
by lil bit » Wed May 01, 2013 10:23 am
That concerned a school. Consumer rights laws don't affect schools.
'She couldn't help wondering what use Carl had for a double bed in his bachelor establishment' - Rafferty's Legacy -Jane Corrie
- lil bit
- Senator
- Posts: 1181
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 7:45 am
- Gender:
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 42 times
Re: Huh...Religious Conservatives were right...
by exploited » Wed May 01, 2013 11:01 am
Come on now. We all know that religious organizations are exempt. If the lemon test doesn't apply, neither does ministerial exemption. It undermines their explicit message.
-
exploited - Vice President
- Posts: 23035
- Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
- Location: Ontario, Canada
- Gender:
- Has thanked: 2562 times
- Been thanked: 1837 times
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 317 guests