On the Threshold of Bigotry

I live in the country. what you are saying is not a factor. nice try Orlando, FL, but if this small town doesn't have it that one will. in the area of healthcare, people will either go to a hospital, or the doctor that gave them the prescription, WILL NOT SEND THEM TO PHIL.Larry on the other hand is trying to make a law which will effect everyone in his area. Phil may effect 5 people a year.

i agree with you. but some 14th amendment fans are gonna jump out of the woodwork and call you names for that. I told them marriage was up to the states. Edited by Artemis Entreri, : quote didnt take

All Phil is doing is not keeping it stocked. its against the law in some states to refuse to sell the drug due to personal moral issues, but simply not carrying the drug because you "forget" to order every month is not illegal. Im not calling larry a bigot, but i am calling him wrong.

i really wasn't trying to make an argument here. the OP was open ended and asked a couple questions which i have answered.i dont think either are bigots, yet i disagree with what larry is doing. if larry lived in my community i would peacefully act in opposition to him, like two americans excersizing thier abilties to disagree on an issue. Though in my community Larry would not have much support.

i know you didn't. no harm no foul. i dont call anyone a bigot, that word is basically not in my vocabulary. yeah phil affects maybe 5 people one year, then word gets out that Phil's Pharmacy does not sell that drug, nobody goes to phil for that drug, they go elsewhere.Larry wants to change a law for his benefit, that will affect everyone to whom it applies.yeah i guess numbers have some issue in it for mereally trying to stay away from the same gender marriage thing, because that thread was closed. whats the point of opening a new thread that is the same as the last one that was closed?Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.

depends on the state, a couple states allow it, the democratic majority do not.the ugly side to democracy is if you are in the minority, you may not get enough votes for your side. haven't got any, though marriage is a term that by definition does not aply to same sexed couples. they would have to invent a term and pass laws for it, which i would not vote against.BTW we worked with gay couples in the pink pistols, to finally get a real answer in the DC v. Heller case.

except gay marriage is a contradiction in terms. an oxymoron. heterosexuals get marriage, period. gay can have civil unions or whatever you want to call it.

Heaven forbid i dont listen to the guy (Rrhain) who tries to put words into my mouth, strawman me, and constantly uses snarky language.Bigot - when a conservative is winning an arguement with a liberal.

Word. QED, how ever you want to say it.i finally found the "cry to the admins" thread, and you are right Rrhain is a little cry baby.i ignore him too.oh yeah back the topic or whatever it has strayed to now, looks like gay marriage again.so i guess i'll try it. even when gay marriage becomes "legal" in a place like California, they are still doing it wrong. the clown court went against the state's constitution to begin with. The CA Constitution specifically does not allow the Legislature to overturn voter initiatives. The Legislature did everything but do that (since it legally could not) and because it did the CA high court decided that it should just go ahead and do it for them.Baxter's dissent spells it all out.Undaunted, the majority nonetheless claims California’s legal history as evidence of the constitutional right it espouses. According to the majority, the very fact that the Legislature has, over time, adopted progressive laws such as the DPA, thereby granting many substantial rights to gays and lesbians, constitutes “explicit official recognition” (maj. opn., ante, at pp. 68, 69) of “this state’s current policies and conduct regarding homosexuality,” i.e., “that gay individuals are entitled to the same legal rights and the same respect and dignity afforded all other individuals and are protected from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation.” (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 67-68, fn. omitted.) “In light of this recognition,” the majority concludes, “sections 1 and 7 of article I of the California Constitution cannot properly be interpreted to withhold from gay individuals” full equality of rights with heterosexual persons, including the right to same-sex legal unions that are fully equivalent ”including in name ” to those of opposite-sex partners. (Id., at p. 69; see also id., at pp. 81, 101-119.) This analysis is seriously flawed. At the outset, it overlooks the most salient facts. The Legislature has indeed granted many rights to gay and lesbian individuals, including the right to enter same-sex legal unions with all the substantive rights and benefits of civil marriage. As the majority elsewhere acknowledges, however, our current statutory scheme, which includes an initiative measure enacted by the People, specifically reserves marriage itself for opposite-sex unions. (Fam. Code, 300, 308.5.) Under these circumstances, it is difficult to see how our legislative history reflects a current community value in favor of same-sex marriage that must now be enshrined in the Constitution.7Of even greater concern is the majority’s mode of analysis, which places heavy reliance on statutory law to establish a constitutional right. When a pattern of legislation makes current community values clear, the majority seems to say, those values can become locked into the Constitution itself.8Ends do not justify means.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : forgot to stay on topic

how? im not going to bitch and cry to the admin. im a man i dont do that stuff.

i think its because they are socialists and cant actually argue worth a crap so they change the arguement. the close minded often speak of open-mindedness, just as the intolerant speak of tolerance, and the authoritarins speak of liberty.I bet not a single one of them could or would debate with you the legality of the gay marriage issue, especially the illegal way california reached its descision on the issue. I bet they wanted to strawman you up and put words into your mouth, and then attack the strawman. I bet they claim to be reading between the lines as if you are propagating some conspiracy, and try to point to a slippery slope, rather than simply opening thier minds and looking at the legality of same sex marriage.What is really funny is the context of this site. I bet many of them consider themselves to be objective scientists in other topics and other threads. yet when it comes to this topic, thier objectivity is completely gone, almost as if they never had any in the 1st place. I bet they want to assume things, change the subject, NOT test the observable facts. I bet they want to get political.I bet it is the same folk who attack the creationists for doing the same exact thing on other topics as they are doing with this one.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.

I bet that one person used the common false argument against it by bringing up the 14th amendment. An amendment that took 145years to ratify, and one of the most shady amendments to date as a good reason for continuing to be shady in law making.