Yes on 1, Argument

343 posts / 0 new
Last post
charlotte
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 1 week ago
Joined: 04/09/2005 - 12:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

Larry, without discrimination laws...an employer can discriminate against a Christian, woman, man, gay, muslim...on and on. That is what I think we should not stand for. The constitution does not protect any minority from discrimination legally.

LMD
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 02/24/2003 - 1:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

[quote="David J. Babin"]LMD, Glad it gave you a chuckle. If this smokescreen of a law stays in place, is there anyway I can surrender my "special class minority status" ? I'd rather risk the suffering, violation and oppression at the hands of the heartless, hetero Mainers than forever be forced to wear the scarlet "V".[/quote]

DJ,
:wink: I sense a 'double-jepardy' situation for you IF this law stays in place.

Given that scenario, you might NOT be able to surrender your "scms". Others will see to it that you don't lose this special protection (that which you don't want, nor need.)
They will not LET you lose it for YOUR own good!

At the same time, you, along with the rest of us who voted "Yes on 1" will have entered yet ANOTHER "scms" subset - the minority who lost the vote. Albeit, this is a minority who will not receive special "scms" protection, nor be officially recognized as such...because we are viewed as 'the victimizers'.

And, THEN (oops, this is turning into a triple-jeopardy) you, DJ, will have entered into yet ANOTHER subset of aforementioned "Yes on 1" voters subset, the "scms protected, scms-subset unprotected" status.

Consequently, you will be forever forced to wear not only ONE scarlet "V", but TWO!
"VV", for "Victim Victimizer" - all because you voted "Yes on 1".
So, there you have it DJ!
You will now be a 'victim' defined by law, who has been afforded special protection by said law, who really does not want nor need such protection, who then voted "Yes on 1" to NOT give special protection to other victims defined by law who think they DO need and want such protection - which then actually makes you a victimzer.

:shock: :lol: :wink:

Pilgrim
Offline
Last seen: 12 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/13/2005 - 12:01am
Gay Discrimination

Charlotte,

you live in the richest, freest country on earth..

a billion people would like to come here so they can be "discriminated" against...

what you want is for people to allow same-sex marriage...

do you want same-sex marriage in Maine?

Kris Watson
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 7 months ago
Joined: 09/02/2005 - 12:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

Wouldn't make more sense to make a law that basicly says that you cannot discriminate against anybody unless they are involved in some type of illegal activity? This way you are not setting up a class of people based on an orientation that many believe is a perversion, immoral, or a sin.

charlotte
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 1 week ago
Joined: 04/09/2005 - 12:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

I believe that gays should have the opportunities to have a job, a safe place to live, and a place without harrassment. Simple.

Pilgrim
Offline
Last seen: 12 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/13/2005 - 12:01am
Irrelevancies

That's what everyone believes.

But it's not an argument for the current law.

charlotte
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 1 week ago
Joined: 04/09/2005 - 12:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

Um...yes it is! that is what this law is all about....

Pilgrim
Offline
Last seen: 12 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/13/2005 - 12:01am
Calling Evil Good and Good Evil

Wrong....the law would require people to sanction behavior which their religion says is wrong...

it would require them to rent to two gays WHICH IS EVIL STUPID AND IMMORAL

the law makes HOMOSEXUALS good and THE PERSON OF CONSCIENCE EVIL

which is why this society is so screwe-up in the first place

David J. Babin
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 7 months ago
Joined: 11/01/2005 - 9:51am
Yes on 1, Argument

[quote="LMD"][quote="David J. Babin"]LMD, Glad it gave you a chuckle. If this smokescreen of a law stays in place, is there anyway I can surrender my "special class minority status" ? I'd rather risk the suffering, violation and oppression at the hands of the heartless, hetero Mainers than forever be forced to wear the scarlet "V".[/quote]

.......Consequently, you will be forever forced to wear not only ONE scarlet "V", but TWO!
"VV", for "Victim Victimizer" - all because you voted "Yes on 1". So, there you have it DJ!
You will now be a 'victim' defined by law, who has been afforded special protection by said law, who really does not want nor need such protection, who then voted "Yes on 1" to NOT give special protection to other victims defined by law who think they DO need and want such protection - which then actually makes you a victimzer. :shock: :lol: :wink:[/quote]

LMD, I'm impressed. "VV" huh?.....I better get a bigger shirt

LMD
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 02/24/2003 - 1:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

DJ,
No need for a bigger shirt!
Just put one big [size=24][color=red]W[/color][/size] on there to save space!
(Looks like two "V's" single-spaced, doesn't it?)

Oh my Gawd :shock: ! Waidddahminute!
That looks like a "Dubya", doesn't it!?
Which will automatically place you in yet ANOTHER "scms" set, especially way down south where you hail from!

It just keeps getting better and better :lol: :wink:

Larry
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 10/31/1999 - 1:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

"Wessler said this debate is analogous to the 1964 civil rights legislation, which banned discrimination based on race, nationality and religion."

http://www.mainecampus.com/media/paper322//news/2005/11/07/News/Question...

We were told that the 1964 legislation would not lead to preferential treatment based on race.

If "sexual orientation" is analagous to race, as claimed by Wessler, it won't be long before gays and lesbians are clamoring for affirmative action, set-asides, college admission preference, etc., etc.

Wouldn't you agree, Charlotte?

Joe Redneck
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 8 months ago
Joined: 01/11/2001 - 1:01am
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/0

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/us/04iowa.html

There ya go. Only a few years late but I don't forget. The Left and the gay lovers lie, lie lie. Whatever they say won't happen today will in the future. The slippery slope is real.

Pages

Log in to post comments