Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

natty

Anti-gay marriage supporters can't be anonymous

18 posts in this topic

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Jan29/0,4670,GayMarriageFundraising,00.html

Supporters of the ban on gay marriage said public disclosure of their financial supporters had put the donors at risk of personal harassment or boycotts to their businesses.

Fred Karger, founder of gay-rights group Californians Against Hate, said the initiative's backers had threatened boycotts against businesses that failed to donate to their effort during the campaign.

Wow. Can you show me a better example of hypocrisy?

Boycotts are at the very heart of free speech - if you act like a douche and own a business, expect to have that thrown back in your face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boycotts are at the very heart of free speech - if you act like a douche and own a business, expect to have that thrown back in your face.

Not agreeing with something doesn't make you a "douche"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will also be people that seek these business out because of their support of the ban so it will probably even out, unless you happen to be the owner of a tanning salon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not agreeing with something doesn't make you a "douche"

Well technically yes, but they're still douches. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they have the nerve to tell people how to live, but not the balls to own up to the fact?

psst, hey, Allanis, this is irony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't get this whole thing.

Prop 8 was voted upon in November, but people are still upset about the outcome of that vote.

I didn't vote for Obama, but he was elected as my President. I have accepted that, and support him.

Folks just need to get over this and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-

-

-

-

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

-

-

-

-

I'm only posting in this thread to distract Natty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fred Karger, founder of gay-rights group Californians Against Hate, said the initiative's backers had threatened boycotts against businesses that failed to donate to their effort during the campaign.

Public disclosure of political donations is a hot debate. Some people think it should be 100% public. Others say 100% private. I can see both sides of the issue, honestly, especially for people in business. For me, as long as the same standard is applied to people on every side of an issue, I'm okay with it.

I do have a problem with this bit though...

Fred Karger, founder of gay-rights group Californians Against Hate, said the initiative's backers had threatened boycotts against businesses that failed to donate to their effort during the campaign.

It's one thing to boycott people who donate to the other side, but to take the stance of "give us money or we'll boycott you" is intimidation, no different in character than a schoolyard bully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the pro-prop 8 people used the same laws they're bitching about now to extort money from businesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-

-

-

-

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

-

-

-

-

I'm only posting in this thread to distract Natty.

Did someone say something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • @Panthro Proving Medical Malpractice Based on Diagnostic Errors The law does not hold doctors legally responsible for all diagnostic errors. Instead, patients usually must prove three things in order to prevail in a medical malpractice lawsuit based on a wrong diagnosis: A doctor-patient relationship existed. The doctor was negligent -- that is, did not provide treatment in a reasonably skillful and competent manner. The doctor's negligence caused actual injury to the patient. Most medical malpractice cases hinge on either the second or third element (or both) -- was the doctor negligent and did that negligence harm the patient?   Easily provable  1. ER dr saw mom and had all the records. Mom was healthy prior, no issues besides a murmur she was born with. 2. Motrin does dot fix the flu especially if you one has A and B. Greenville drs from ICU would testify against New Bern ER doc. No tamiflu prescribed nor any other treatment besides Motrin. (Anybody can take Tylenol/asprin but tamiflu is prescribed) 3. Without x raying or running further test, mom went from early caught flu to both pneumonia that now developed 3rd stage ARDS and now pulmonary fibrosis is setting in. Due this negligence, mom will live at most 5 years in poor quality will my dad ends bankrupt. I just proved how not properly treating mom has lead to a snowball effect due to incompetence which lead to where we are now. Dad was not given a course of action, he does not have a M.D. at the end of his name, and the hippocratic oath has been tarnished. I am in the settle or I will find out how he will lose his license. I will file a complaint with the hospital and board. Publish in the newspaper about his care and online. My mom will never be the same. 
    • Grigson put in a lot of effort to try and stack the receiving corps. Not all of it was smart effort, but it was effort. O-Line, on the other hand...