Same-sex weddings not allowed, Winston-Salem venue tells couple

StoneByStone said:
Chik-Fil-A didn't refuse to serve gay people. What they're doing is terrible, but it's not as blatantly and openly homophobic.
I do think being openly homophobic would help a company in certain really conservative areas, but in those places, the gays are in the closet anyway.
Click to expand...

They were openly homophobic by donating to the LGBT hate organizations. They've since stopped doing that though.
 
AProudLefty said:
They were openly homophobic by donating to the LGBT hate organizations. They've since stopped doing that though.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and they did lose business in certain areas, but I think it would have been much worse if they refused to serve gay people. It was a matter of degree.
And the fact that now they are (at least claiming to) not donate to homophobic organizations anymore, shows that this hurt their business.
 
I was in a closet with a Lesbian once. And she wouldnt let me out! That was one strong bitch lemme tellya! :laugh:
 
StoneByStone said:
I don't think it would really make homophobia worse. The reason gay marriage became recognized in all states is because the public wanted it. It wasn't forced on us by the establishment, but rather we forced the establishment to change. So if we lifted the anti-discrimination laws, people won't suddenly start opposing gay rights again. If anything, certain companies would get boycotted for exposing themselves as homophobic.

I'd see this as a step forward for liberty.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I agree in theory. But in reality asking bigots to behave like adults does more harm than not. What do you think will happen if, for instance, we suddenly lifted the housing discrimination regulations?
 
Lots of unintended consequences can happen.........

Nazi walks into a Jewish bakery and asks for a cake made up with a big old Swastika on it to celebrate Hitlers birthday. Baker says no. Nazi says...... Why are you persecuting me and discriminating against me based solely on my ideology and beliefs?
 
Dark Soul said:
Wrong. It was done through the courts, overstepping their authority and acting as legislators.
Click to expand...

I actually do agree that marriage should be a state issue. However, the reason it was done through the courts is because the vast majority of Americans wanted it. Homophobia was no longer useful in distracting people from the real issues. That's why even Republicans don't use it anymore.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Interesting. I agree in theory. But in reality asking bigots to behave like adults does more harm than not. What do you think will happen if, for instance, we suddenly lifted the housing discrimination regulations?
Click to expand...

Well race is different. Humans will always self-segregate based on race and I think we should have the right to do so.

So yeah, if the housing discrimination laws were lifted, we'd have self-segregation on a much larger level. But that's not a bad thing, that's just freedom of association.
 
StoneByStone said:
Well race is different. Humans will always self-segregate based on race and I think we should have the right to do so.

So yeah, if the housing discrimination laws were lifted, we'd have self-segregation on a much larger level. But that's not a bad thing, that's just freedom of association.
Click to expand...

That's not what "freedom of association" means, but whatever. People have the right to live wherever they please, as long as they can afford it.
 
Stone said:
So how would they do that? Big sign out on the sidewalk that says NO FAGS ALLOWED! LESBIANS By APPOINTMENT ONLY. I guess something like that would REALLY let people know how they feel right up front? :laugh:
Click to expand...

Actually gay people typically have quite a bit of money it's the Trump supporters that are poor so it's really the Trump supporter you'd want to keep out
 
katzgar said:
Actually gay people typically have quite a bit of money it's the Trump supporters that are poor so it's really the Trump supporter you'd want to keep out
Click to expand...

Wrong u stupid fag

Data on couples suggests that same-sex couples are more vulnerable to poverty in general than are different-sex married couples.

Poverty rates for female same-sex couples and unmarried different-sex couples were higher than those of married different-sex couples.

While male same-sex couples have lower overall poverty rates than married different-sex couples, male couples were more likely to be poor than married different-sex couples after controlling for other characteristics that influence poverty.

Among women 18-44 years old, more than a quarter of bisexual women are poor (29.4%) and more than 1 in 5 lesbians are in poverty (22.7%), a rate higher than the poverty rate among heterosexual women (21.1%), but the differences were not statistically significant.

Similarly, a greater percentage of gay (20.5%) and bisexual men (25.9%) fell at or below the federal poverty line than heterosexual men (15.3%), but these differences were also not statistically significant.

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/lgb-patterns-of-poverty/
 
StoneByStone said:
But if we're not allowed to discriminate, then we're forced to interact with people we don't want to.
Click to expand...

If you want a job, you're forced to interact with people you don't want to. If you go to school, you're forced to interact with people you don't want to. If you go grocery shopping, you're forced to interact with people you don't want to. That's life. Tough, ain't it?
 
volsrock said:
Wrong u stupid fag

Data on couples suggests that same-sex couples are more vulnerable to poverty in general than are different-sex married couples.

Poverty rates for female same-sex couples and unmarried different-sex couples were higher than those of married different-sex couples.

While male same-sex couples have lower overall poverty rates than married different-sex couples, male couples were more likely to be poor than married different-sex couples after controlling for other characteristics that influence poverty.

Among women 18-44 years old, more than a quarter of bisexual women are poor (29.4%) and more than 1 in 5 lesbians are in poverty (22.7%), a rate higher than the poverty rate among heterosexual women (21.1%), but the differences were not statistically significant.

Similarly, a greater percentage of gay (20.5%) and bisexual men (25.9%) fell at or below the federal poverty line than heterosexual men (15.3%), but these differences were also not statistically significant.

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/lgb-patterns-of-poverty/
Click to expand...


you should have read your link before you made an ass out of yourself
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
If you want a job, you're forced to interact with people you don't want to. If you go to school, you're forced to interact with people you don't want to. If you go grocery shopping, you're forced to interact with people you don't want to. That's life. Tough, ain't it?
Click to expand...

Well that's always going to happen to a degree. But should we be allowed as much freedom of association as reasonably possible?
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
If you want a job, you're forced to interact with people you don't want to. If you go to school, you're forced to interact with people you don't want to. If you go grocery shopping, you're forced to interact with people you don't want to. That's life. Tough, ain't it?
Click to expand...

You are not forced to work or go shopping or attend public school!

If u went shopping in Chicago would u rather shop in West Garfield Park or Gold Coast ?



Tuskegee University, Spelman College has ZERO white students!

Can u show a college that has ZERO black students?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top