I thought we already agreed they need to be concentrated somewhere, in a camp-style environment.Yeah .. unless you have any plans for them
The Official LGBTQ Thread
- Thread starter Natalie
- Start date
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Not in Ireland. The traditional way of handling the opposition in Ireland is to drink them under the table, then destroy their family with your blades and conquer their holdings, then sending weregild to the Ui Niall so he doesn't have you killed for your insolence.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
So, they have not fully integrated into the EU
One might suggest they are concerned about the effect of Irish immigrants in places like Slovenia and Poland.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Some common sense and actual tolerance from Captain Picard
--------
Star Trek" icon Patrick Stewart has come to the defense of Northern Ireland's Ashers Bakery, which was found guilty of discrimination last month after refusing to prepare a cake decorated with a same-sex marriage slogan.
The case made headlines in 2014 after Belfast-based activist Gareth Lee requested a cake featuring "Sesame Street" characters, along with the message, "Support Gay Marriage." Although the bakery's owners initially accepted the order, they called two days later to cancel it, citing their religious beliefs.
In response, Stewart called the Ashers case "a deliciously difficult" subject in an interview with BBC's Newsnight, adding that he "found himself on the side of the bakers" because nobody should be forced to write politically-relevant text that they didn't support.
"It was not because it was a gay couple that they objected. It was not because they were celebrating some sort of marriage or an agreement between them," Stewart is quoted as saying. "It was the actual words on the cake that they objected to, because they found them offensive."
He went on to note, "I would support their rights to say, 'No, this is personally offensive to my beliefs, I will not do it.'"
The remarks may come as a surprise to some fans of Stewart, who has previously spoken out in defense of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. In January, the actor said his background in theater made him a natural LGBT advocate.
LGBT advocate.
“I think this is where the theater is such an appealing world, because it embraces everything and always has. So there was never a moment where I made an intellectual choice that I would be a supporter of gay civil rights," he said at the time. "It was always a natural and uncomplicated choice."
--------
Star Trek" icon Patrick Stewart has come to the defense of Northern Ireland's Ashers Bakery, which was found guilty of discrimination last month after refusing to prepare a cake decorated with a same-sex marriage slogan.
The case made headlines in 2014 after Belfast-based activist Gareth Lee requested a cake featuring "Sesame Street" characters, along with the message, "Support Gay Marriage." Although the bakery's owners initially accepted the order, they called two days later to cancel it, citing their religious beliefs.
In response, Stewart called the Ashers case "a deliciously difficult" subject in an interview with BBC's Newsnight, adding that he "found himself on the side of the bakers" because nobody should be forced to write politically-relevant text that they didn't support.
"It was not because it was a gay couple that they objected. It was not because they were celebrating some sort of marriage or an agreement between them," Stewart is quoted as saying. "It was the actual words on the cake that they objected to, because they found them offensive."
He went on to note, "I would support their rights to say, 'No, this is personally offensive to my beliefs, I will not do it.'"
The remarks may come as a surprise to some fans of Stewart, who has previously spoken out in defense of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. In January, the actor said his background in theater made him a natural LGBT advocate.
LGBT advocate.
“I think this is where the theater is such an appealing world, because it embraces everything and always has. So there was never a moment where I made an intellectual choice that I would be a supporter of gay civil rights," he said at the time. "It was always a natural and uncomplicated choice."
This is old, but still so good and needs to be posted:
The right decision. Unfortunate that it is not a larger majority, but the right decision has been made.
Congratulations to everyone in the USA who can now get married to the person to whom they want to get married.
Congratulations to everyone in the USA who can now get married to the person to whom they want to get married.
Cornfed Hick
Ancient Mariner
Actually, you've got that wrong. The right for homosexuals to marry was denied in certain states due to a majority of (not a "few") people's views on the matter in those states. But in other states, a majority of people (or their representatives in the legislature) voted to legalize gay marriage. That is the democratic process at work. Different states have different marriage laws, different tax codes/rates, different minimum wage laws, different minimum driving age requirements, etc. Heck, some states won't even let you buy a Tesla! That's what the United States of America is -- a union of states. It's also why many people choose to live in one state versus another. If it is important to you to not pay state income taxes, move to Texas or Florida. If it is important to you to live in a state that recognizes gay marriage, then move to New York. If you love smoking weed more than life itself, move to Colorado. If you are planning to get divorced and don't want to pay alimony for the rest of your life, move out of California. (No, not me.) It's not just an empty philosophy: as a real-life practical matter, America truly is a marketplace of ideas -- and governments.
Justice Roberts' thoughtful dissent is recommended reading, and thought-provoking. To paraphrase/summarize, projecting my own views as a gloss: I agree in principle with allowing gay marriage and echo many of the sentiments expressed by the majority. And I encourage all states to recognize gay marriage and repeal any laws to the contrary via the legislative process. Many states have done so, and that's a good thing. Right now, it sure seems that gay marriage supporters are overwhelmingly winning the debate in most places (including most places where gay people actually want to live). That's why the Constitution leaves it to the states to decide questions like how to define marriage (or even whether to recognize any marriages of any kind, in the first place). But the Constitution does NOT let courts just "cut off the debate" and decide whether a law is a good idea or not.
Courts interpret law. They are not supposed to make policy -- even policy that most people think is good policy. (Of course, if most people everywhere thought it was good policy, there would be no need for courts to create that policy; the voters would.) Allowing nine unelected people to legislate policy is not only unconstitutional, it is a dangerous precedent.
So long as the Supreme Court's judicial policymaking expands people's liberties, as it seems at first blush to have done here, then no harm no foul, right? But what happens when courts start taking away liberties? And how do we know the difference? Are there unintended consequences? Take, for example, the likely next wave of gay marriage-related constitutional challenges: the "wedding cake baker" cases. For those who aren't following it, the argument goes like this: A baker in the business of selling wedding cakes decides that her religious principles are inconsistent with supporting gay marriage, so she refuses to provide a wedding cake for a gay couple's wedding. Is that unlawful? If it was not unlawful before, then does today's decision now make it unlawful? Or is it protected by the First Amendment right to religious freedom? Does giving some people the constitutional right to gay marriage take away another group of people's constitutionally protected rights? Can a person be compelled by the state to act against his or her genuinely held religious preferences -- particularly when, for many, marriage is undoubtedly a religious ceremony as well as a legal arrangement? All interesting questions.
Another interesting question raised by Roberts' opinion: In the long run, wouldn't it have been better for gay people to have gained majority support and won the legislative battle over the next few years? Maybe, maybe not. It's not an easy answer, and we will see what happens. It's possible that it may not matter, as the Court's majority opinion may reflect where the majority of people were headed, anyway. (But that's Roberts' point -- we should have got there that way, not by misreading the Constitution.) On the other hand, we can no doubt expect a conservative backlash, including a push for a constitutional amendment either defining marriage as man-woman, or at least making it clear that states can make up their own rules about marriage. Also, what happens if the Court gets a conservative majority in the next five years?
However you look at it, today's decision is a momentous one, as was yesterday's decision re health care. These are cases that directly affect the lives of ordinary Americans. To paraphrase another great American, at least on a par with the nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices: it's kind of a big deal.
I wholeheartedly reject the assumption that this is policymaking. The justices were asked to rule on a series of questions, and they did so. These questions were raised by Constitutional challenges to various same-sex marriage bans in various states enacted by various methods. The legal reasoning for the decision is incredibly sound - it is rooted in previous case law that has established that marriage is a right under the Fourteenth Amendment, most famously, Loving v. Virginia - which Justice Kennedy cited in his opinion. To those who support same sex marriage, this has long been the equivalency. If, under Loving, interracial marriage is a right, then same sex marriage - a marriage of two adult individuals of the same earnestness and willingness as the two Lovings - should also be a right. Now it is.
When you talk about religious freedom, you are discussing a specific subset of regions and laws - laws where gay people in the United States have minority protection, similar to the function of the Civil Rights Act. It is completely illegal in the United States to refuse to provide a wedding cake for a black wedding, or interracial wedding, even if you have sincerely held religious beliefs. The remedy in those areas where such protections for homosexual people exists is simple - don't do weddings. If you do weddings, you must do all weddings. The areas of the USA where gay protections don't exist will continue to allow discrimination in this form. Plenty of people had sincerely held religious beliefs 50 years ago regarding miscegenation.
I have no doubt that there will be a conservative backlash to this ruling, but I suspect, personally, that it will be unable to move the bar. Statistically, many more Americans approve of same sex marriage than are opposed to it, which means it's not a winning issue in an election year, like it was in 2004. The likelihood of an amendment to define marriage as one man, one woman passing the required Constitutional thresholds is extremely slim. And Donald Trump is running as a Republican, which could realistically destroy the brand, especially if he has a deep run. (I mean, I'm kinda joking here, but seriously, if I were a Republican, I'd be livid that Trump was in the race.) And I honestly don't believe that Roberts will vote against overruling this decision, based on his confirmation hearings. He seems to lean towards established policy, both in his hearings, and in his rulings on the Affordable Care Act. So I find the idea of a conservative backlash interesting, but not alarming.
Some questions of equality are destined to be answered under the Fourteenth Amendment. It's the most important amendment for a reason - it's the one that makes the Bill of Rights really count, and it's the one that guarantees, more than anything else in American law, the rights requested in the Declaration of Independence - the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Edit: I just finished reading Scalia's dissent, and while Justice Kennedy cites case law and previous rulings in his decision, Scalia doesn't make a single reference to a single case, merely an assertion (proven wrong by the Court's previous, many previous, rulings on marriage) that marriage is a function of the states. While individual policy is part of what the states can set, what they cannot do is discriminate in who they apply their policy towards. That is what Loving v. Virginia found, and now what Obergefell v. Hodges has found.
When you talk about religious freedom, you are discussing a specific subset of regions and laws - laws where gay people in the United States have minority protection, similar to the function of the Civil Rights Act. It is completely illegal in the United States to refuse to provide a wedding cake for a black wedding, or interracial wedding, even if you have sincerely held religious beliefs. The remedy in those areas where such protections for homosexual people exists is simple - don't do weddings. If you do weddings, you must do all weddings. The areas of the USA where gay protections don't exist will continue to allow discrimination in this form. Plenty of people had sincerely held religious beliefs 50 years ago regarding miscegenation.
I have no doubt that there will be a conservative backlash to this ruling, but I suspect, personally, that it will be unable to move the bar. Statistically, many more Americans approve of same sex marriage than are opposed to it, which means it's not a winning issue in an election year, like it was in 2004. The likelihood of an amendment to define marriage as one man, one woman passing the required Constitutional thresholds is extremely slim. And Donald Trump is running as a Republican, which could realistically destroy the brand, especially if he has a deep run. (I mean, I'm kinda joking here, but seriously, if I were a Republican, I'd be livid that Trump was in the race.) And I honestly don't believe that Roberts will vote against overruling this decision, based on his confirmation hearings. He seems to lean towards established policy, both in his hearings, and in his rulings on the Affordable Care Act. So I find the idea of a conservative backlash interesting, but not alarming.
Some questions of equality are destined to be answered under the Fourteenth Amendment. It's the most important amendment for a reason - it's the one that makes the Bill of Rights really count, and it's the one that guarantees, more than anything else in American law, the rights requested in the Declaration of Independence - the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Edit: I just finished reading Scalia's dissent, and while Justice Kennedy cites case law and previous rulings in his decision, Scalia doesn't make a single reference to a single case, merely an assertion (proven wrong by the Court's previous, many previous, rulings on marriage) that marriage is a function of the states. While individual policy is part of what the states can set, what they cannot do is discriminate in who they apply their policy towards. That is what Loving v. Virginia found, and now what Obergefell v. Hodges has found.
35 years of waiting in one photograph:
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
ISIS Celebrates Gay Love by Tossing 4 Gays from Roof of Building
Several Islamists tweeted out #LoveWins – the same hashtag that was used today after the Supreme Court ruling.
A massive crowd assembled to watch ISIS rebels throw another gay man off a building top earlier this month.
Hundreds of spectators came out to watch the brutal public execution.
They hung the man from his feet and then let him drop!
ISIS is reportedly using “flirting squads” to single out gay men for trial and execution in the Caliphate.
The Islamic State has posted several public executions of gay men online.
Several Islamists tweeted out #LoveWins – the same hashtag that was used today after the Supreme Court ruling.
A massive crowd assembled to watch ISIS rebels throw another gay man off a building top earlier this month.
Hundreds of spectators came out to watch the brutal public execution.
They hung the man from his feet and then let him drop!
ISIS is reportedly using “flirting squads” to single out gay men for trial and execution in the Caliphate.
The Islamic State has posted several public executions of gay men online.
