Chic-Fil-A

Pastors? Pastors do not have control over people.

Tell that to the poor Christians who had to move their marriage last week because the pastor agreed with the good ol southern "christians" that the couple were too not white

Now - as for the "black" argument - are you really going to try and equate people objecting of the use of the word "marriage" for relationships between homosexuals to the widespread acceptance of lynchings, denials of service in restaraunts, etc - of blacks?

Bigotry is bigotry. Scale of bigotry is irrelevant as it is still bigotry.
If you are so hung up on your prefered definition of a word do you happen to throw a fit if a carpenter marries two pieces of timber?

So tell me Steve, Mookie - do you have a problem with polygamy between consenting adults? Should such be legalized? Why or why not?

Polygamy comes down to a massive set of financial complications, due to marriage being nothing but a business contract....
In a Traditional manner of course

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

No

So you don't agree.

Now why don't you quit trying to change the subject?

Me changing the subject? We can deal with the other questions in another thread - but lets look at my original post - my question was: is it appropriate for government officials to use the power of their office to attempt to interfere, harm or block the exercise of free enterprise because the official disagrees with the moral stance of a company or executive. I made that question very clear - it was not I who sidetracked this thread into yet another debate about homosexual marriage - or hypocrisy.

So I asked you if you agreed that official government interference in free enterprise because of an objection to an executive's morals is wrong. You said no. So you are fine with government officials discriminating against and causing harm to a company over moral beliefs? Really?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Again, your avoiding both the point of the thread - and the legal reality.
Are you really telling me that Federal recognition of civil unions - specifically equating them to and granting the same rights as marriage - would somehow be less than equal? So how do you figure that if 2+2 equals 4 but if you reverse the numbers to make it 2+2 it somehow doesn't equal 4 anymore?

Yes, I'm really telling you that separate but equal is inherently unequal, and so has the Supreme Court.

So tell me Steve, Mookie - do you have a problem with polygamy between consenting adults? Should such be legalized? Why or why not?

Red herring.

Also Mookie - do you have a problem with the actions of the mayors or the speaker of the NY city council?

Free speech is free speech.

Yes, I'm really telling you that separate but equal is inherently unequal, and so has the Supreme Court.

Funny that isn't it, comes back nicely what with him walking straight into it in terms of politicians calling for boycotts over others "moral" issues(which is of course a matter for those that elect those particular individuals anyway).
So mookie do you think Haplo deliberately walked himself into a Montgomery situation or was he just going off blindly without thinking it through .....again?

Free speech is free speech.

And consequences are consequences.
If someone wants to put money into some political theocracy groups then you can expect people who don't like your strange ideas to target your money and the groups, that is the consequence.
If a politician wants to take a stand on an issue and people don't agree with it then they face the ballot, that is the consequence.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Funny that isn't it, comes back nicely what with him walking straight into it in terms of politicians calling for boycotts over others "moral" issues(which is of course a matter for those that elect those particular individuals anyway).
So mookie do you think Haplo deliberately walked himself into a Montgomery situation or was he just going off blindly without thinking it through .....again?

Oh I think he's just trying to avoid admitting that the two situations are more similar than they are different.

And consequences are consequences.
If someone wants to put money into some political theocracy groups then you can expect people who don't like your strange ideas to target your money and the groups, that is the consequence.
If a politician wants to take a stand on an issue and people don't agree with it then they face the ballot, that is the consequence.

Great point. If you don't like what they say, vote 'em out. Politicians use their bully pulpit all the time to try and influence all sorts of business. This isn't anything new or shocking.

[CaptainHaplo]

Well its nice to see my stalker is still following me around LOL.

So mookie, a conservative politician threatening to block a company expansion - or trying to harm their business - in an official capacity - because they might be pro gay marriage is perfectly ok with you then, right?

After all, free speech is free speech.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

So mookie, a conservative politician threatening to block a company expansion - or trying to harm their business - in an official capacity - because they might be pro gay marriage is perfectly ok with you then, right?

After all, free speech is free speech.

Happens every day here in Texas.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Happens every day here in Texas.

Can you provide any documentation to such a thing?

If so, I can assure you I will personally contact the office of said official and express my displeasure. To do such a thing - regardless of the politics, is an abuse of office.

Its ok to have a personal view - its another to try to use the power of an office to harm a private entity for not agreeing with you.

So - who else agrees with mookie that such a thing is perfectly acceptable?

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Great point. If you don't like what they say, vote 'em out. Politicians use their bully pulpit all the time to try and influence all sorts of business. This isn't anything new or shocking.

My old mayor Buddy Cianci thought the same way you do but that 5 1/2 year stretch he did in the Federal pen kinda disabused him of that idea.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

So you don't agree.

I explained myself quite clearly, but you didn't quote or answer that part. You either didn't read what I wrote, or you intentionally ignored it. Prevarication is not debate.

Me changing the subject? We can deal with the other questions in another thread - but lets look at my original post - my question was: is it appropriate for government officials to use the power of their office to attempt to interfere, harm or block the exercise of free enterprise because the official disagrees with the moral stance of a company or executive. I made that question very clear - it was not I who sidetracked this thread into yet another debate about homosexual marriage - or hypocrisy.

Yes, it was you who sidetracked it. It was you pointed out that you wish for government to withhold the right of gays to marry, and you've been dancing around that accusation but never quite answering it. So now it's time for you to answer a direct question: Do you or do you not wish for government to deny gays the right to marry? Simple question, but one you keep avoiding.

So I asked you if you agreed that official government interference in free enterprise because of an objection to an executive's morals is wrong. You said no. So you are fine with government officials discriminating against and causing harm to a company over moral beliefs? Really?

Where did you ask me that. To repeat myself, I said your comparison of public officials, pastors, murderers and others with gays was invalid, because there was a reason for restricting all those people. Everything else you've said about my comment has been a diversion.

And just to be clear, no, I don't believe the government should be interfering in anything.

The accusation against you has been that you claim you don't want any government interference, yet that is the only way to prevent gay marriage, and you support that prevention. Thus the "hypocrite" claim.

As to your claims about redifining "marriage", words are redifined every day, and I'm willing to bet that you accept terms that have been redifined and don't even know it.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Yes, it was you who sidetracked it.

So what was post #5 and post #7? They sure were not discussing the issue brought up in the original post were they? But its "all my fault".... Yeah right.

It was you pointed out that you wish for government to withhold the right of gays to marry

I have never known you to make stuff up, so WHERE did I do that???? Show me where I derailed this thread with such a statement, as I don't appreciate accusations that are untrue. I even went and reread every post I have made here and I do no such thing!

and you've been dancing around that accusation but never quite answering it. So now it's time for you to answer a direct question: Do you or do you not wish for government to deny gays the right to marry? Simple question, but one you keep avoiding.

Steve - I don't know what your reading - but you haven't been paying attention when reading my posts. Read the first line of my post #64 - how much clearer of an answer do you want?

To quote what I said:

Funny - we agree that government should not be involved in marriage

If government is not involved in marriage - it couldn't keep people from getting married, now could it? I don't with government to be involved. I wish government was OUT of the equation.

But you know - we don't live in the world of WISHES. We live in reality - and reality is that government is involved. Until it is out of the equation, then we need to maintain the status quo. My reasoning is explained below for why that is.

Where did you ask me that.

Post 73 - regarding restricting politicians. You said it should be done - so you agreed with me.

And just to be clear, no, I don't believe the government should be interfering in anything.

So your agreeing with me again.

The accusation against you has been that you claim you don't want any government interference, yet that is the only way to prevent gay marriage, and you support that prevention. Thus the "hypocrite" claim.

And what I have stated is that I don't want government involved at all. While my training is Baptist - I was ordained through a different faith - one that does sanction homosexual marriage. I don't have to agree with it - I don't have to perform any ceremony that violates my own, personal views.

I will say it again - if government is not involved in marriage - it couldn't keep people from getting married, now could it? If government was not involved in marriage - and a gay couple (consenting adults) wanted to get married and went to a minister who was willing to perform the ceremony - then they would get married, wouldn't they? I would support that - because at that point - it affects no one but themselves. Unfortunately - it currently involves government, and thus the rest of society. There is a rule I follow when looking at government - the more it gets involved in something - the more screwed up that something gets.

Governmental sanction of a divisive social issue makes it more divisive and more screwed up. If you need an example - just look at the issue of abortion. Society not only fights over it - we now also fight over whether or not tax money is used for it, whether or not those who don't believe in it have to pay for it through increased insurance premiums, etc etc..... See -the more they get involved - the more screwed up the issue becomes.

So the more government tries to "fix" or change things - the worse they get. Government needs to leave well enough alone. Leave things be or create a civil union recognition to stop the whining - until we can get it further OUT of the issue. Once that is done - its a moot point, now isn't it?

The federal government needs to have no input on marriage other than requiring participants to be mentally competent consenting adults. Such a requirement should simply mirror State law that should also exist. Otherwise - neither the State nor the feds should have a blasted thing to say about it. That is the ideal. Until the ideal happens - then I support keeping government from tinkering with the issue even further and causing even more problems. Currently, that means DoMA - though I have issues with it.

I also take issue with the "one man/one woman" definition (though for a different reason that homosexuality). Yet I support DoMA - because it is what it is right now - and I feel we are better off not screwing with it any more except to get government out of the equation.

Which - btw - is another great reason I support the flat tax. It would again help get the government out of the business of marriage - because it wouldn't be making money on it anymore!

As to your claims about redefining "marriage", words are redifined every day, and I'm willing to bet that you accept terms that have been redifined and don't even know it.

Oh there may be a few - I suspect there are some we all think have one meaning but that has changed frome something else. However - there is a difference between meanings changing over time naturally and a small group tryng to use the force of government to ramrod a change in the definition to accomplish their agenda.

Oh I think he's just trying to avoid admitting that the two situations are more similar than they are different.

I know, he is tying himself up in knots with the running around and contortionism while bumping into things.
It does raise an statement which missed by a mile at the begining but is very telling.
Instead of ....I am suprised no one has brought this topic up...it should be ....I am surprised anyone brought it up and even more surprised given the angles they are trying to argue as it can never paint their views in a positive light.

Well its nice to see my stalker is still following me around LOL.

You poor deluded individual.

If government is not involved in marriage - it couldn't keep people from getting married, now could it? I don't with government to be involved. I wish government was OUT of the equation.

So you are in favour of gay marriage then and polygamous marriage and marriage to children or siblings or to mules.
After all if the state cannot regulate business contracts then people can sign up for whatever their whim may suit.

Until it is out of the equation, then we need to maintain the status quo.

What status quo? you are choosing a meaningless arbitary measure to suit your own personal hang ups and attempting to establish that as everyone elses standard measure.
You are like a little tinpot dictator in that manner trying to force your particular idealism on others.

While my training is Baptist

So do you agree with the baptist minister who said ******s in his congragation cannot get married like the white folks in his congregation?
Do you agree with the current head of the baptist convention that this dumb bigotry is something pastors have to deal with regularly from their "christian" flock and that they can quickly find themselves out of business if they don't play along with the bigots.
You want the government out of the equation and want bigots like those to be able to take charge

Like I said, I am surprised you willingly stepped into the snakepit you contructed for yourself, but hey thats the blindness of idealism isn't it.

Oh there may be a few - I suspect there are some we all think have one meaning but that has changed frome something else. However - there is a difference between meanings changing over time naturally and a small group tryng to use the force of government to ramrod a change in the definition to accomplish their agenda.

Can you possibly shoot yourself in the foot more effecively?
Do you need to be reminded of your "supporting" evidence for your lame claim where a small group in Italy did exactly that and you agreed with them ramrodding it ?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

My old mayor Buddy Cianci thought the same way you do but that 5 1/2 year stretch he did in the Federal pen kinda disabused him of that idea.

But he did make good pasta sauce!

(I was hanging around Providence quite a bit in the late 90s and I remember Buddy pretty well. )

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

But he did make good pasta sauce!

(I was hanging around Providence quite a bit in the late 90s and I remember Buddy pretty well. )

You know the funny thing is even with the racketeering conviction if he ran for mayor tomorrow he'd have a pretty decent shot at winning the election. That's why I don't think Mayor "Mumbles" up in Boston has to really worry about this Chik-Fil-A controversy negatively affecting his upcoming.

[mookiemookie]

I always got the impression with Buddy that everyone thought "yeah, he's a scumbag, but he's our scumbag."