Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Mozilla CEO ousted for views in 2008


  • Please log in to reply
251 replies to this topic

#91 332nd

332nd

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 710 posts

Posted 05 April 2014 - 11:10 PM

Sarcasm noted however... the states where the majority of people voted to keep marriage traditional, does there pursuit of happiness not count? When a federal judge overturns their majority vote, does it violate their constitutional right to their pursuit?

 

No.

 

Oh & well played! I forgot about the old "Just ignore the fact that my snarky ass argument got destroyed & move on to something else.!



#92 332nd

332nd

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 710 posts

Posted 05 April 2014 - 11:29 PM

I thought we were arguing rights not morality?

 

We are. Only one side in this has had their rights infringed upon.



#93 heel31ok

heel31ok

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,450 posts
  • LocationEasley, SC

Posted 06 April 2014 - 12:31 AM

So the majority is always moral and just?

only in climate change.



#94 boostownsme

boostownsme

    Junior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 176 posts

Posted 06 April 2014 - 12:34 AM

Considering I'm more adult than you'll ever dream of being, don't take my contribution so sarcastically

 

Arguing ones level of adult on an internet message board does raise some questions.



#95 boostownsme

boostownsme

    Junior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 176 posts

Posted 06 April 2014 - 12:39 AM

No.

 

Oh & well played! I forgot about the old "Just ignore the fact that my snarky ass argument got destroyed & move on to something else.!

 

I chose to ignore it, just like you chose to forgo the context of that ruling. That Supreme Court of that day ruled on interracial marriage. The same ruling has now been applied to the gay marriage argument by it's proponents, mainly activist circuit court judges.
 



#96 Frash Brastard

Frash Brastard

    The Frashmaker

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,813 posts

Posted 06 April 2014 - 12:55 AM

Arguing ones level of adult on an internet message board does raise some questions.


Welp since you initiated it in the first place, I think everybody's got their answers already

#97 332nd

332nd

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 710 posts

Posted 06 April 2014 - 02:45 AM

I chose to ignore it, just like you chose to forgo the context of that ruling. That Supreme Court of that day ruled on interracial marriage. The same ruling has now been applied to the gay marriage argument by it's proponents, mainly activist circuit court judges.
 

 

1. Ruling?... No, no, no... Rulings. Plural. Yes Loving V Virginia was held up as an example. I also posted a link with 13 others.

 

2. Sorry. You don't get to move the goalposts on this. You said marriage wasn't a right. You are wrong.

 

3. Before you try to keep spinning... Lawrence v. Texas. Might wanna check that out.



#98 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 23,616 posts

Posted 06 April 2014 - 04:43 AM

I chose to ignore it, just like you chose to forgo the context of that ruling. That Supreme Court of that day ruled on interracial marriage. The same ruling has now been applied to the gay marriage argument by it's proponents, mainly activist circuit court judges.

So what is your fear?

#99 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 23,616 posts

Posted 06 April 2014 - 04:44 AM

only in climate change.

bet you didn't go to UNC

#100 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,452 posts

Posted 06 April 2014 - 05:53 AM

I am trying to talk about political retribution, no matter the issue.  Gay rights, abortion, left vs right, etc.  Just because you are on the winning/losing side of an argument, should there be this third world retribution mindset?  After Prop 8 passed in CA, did the 52% go through all the "for" contributions and publicize them for punishment of all the 48%ers?

 

I am no so caught up on the cause here, which 98% of Huddlers are hung up on, but the actual effects of winning/losing elections, especially when your political opponents pay a price with their jobs for just contributing to a cause.  With 52% of Californians voting for it, does over half the population there need to lose their job?  Why not?



#101 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,174 posts

Posted 06 April 2014 - 06:35 AM

I chose to ignore it, just like you chose to forgo the context of that ruling. That Supreme Court of that day ruled on interracial marriage. The same ruling has now been applied to the gay marriage argument by it's proponents, mainly activist circuit court judges.
 

 

It doesn't necessarily matter what the ruling was on, it matters what the ruling says because it sets precedent.

 

So when the Supreme Court ruled and said marriage is a "basic civil right" that doesn't mean that it is a basic civil right for only interracial couples.  It is a basic civil right for everyone which is why interracial couples should be allowed to marry.
 



#102 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts

Posted 06 April 2014 - 08:12 AM

I am trying to talk about political retribution, no matter the issue.  Gay rights, abortion, left vs right, etc.  Just because you are on the winning/losing side of an argument, should there be this third world retribution mindset?  After Prop 8 passed in CA, did the 52% go through all the "for" contributions and publicize them for punishment of all the 48%ers?

 

I am no so caught up on the cause here, which 98% of Huddlers are hung up on, but the actual effects of winning/losing elections, especially when your political opponents pay a price with their jobs for just contributing to a cause.  With 52% of Californians voting for it, does over half the population there need to lose their job?  Why not?

 

Here's the thing- this isnt political retribution.  These things dont happen to the same extent with other "political issues" because most people dont feel as strongly and therefore wont participate in a boycott.  This is about the government failing to do its job (protecting equal rights for all citizens), and the free market being forced to do the governments job for them.

 

The government is blocking the rights of people (mostly as a political statement to pander to their evangelical base) under the guise of majority rule.  The problem is, this is the exact sort of tyranny of the majority from which the government is supposed to protect minorities.

 

So the only recourse people have to this failure of government is a boycott. 



#103 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,483 posts

Posted 06 April 2014 - 09:35 AM

I chose to ignore it, just like you chose to forgo the context of that ruling. That Supreme Court of that day ruled on interracial marriage. The same ruling has now been applied to the gay marriage argument by it's proponents, mainly activist circuit court judges.
 

 

Sorry, you're wrong here.  Either marriage is or is not a right.  IF you want to caveat that some rights are not available to some people (e.g. right to bear arms not being available to everyone), so be it.  But marriage has been upheld as a right.

 

The only question is if marriage as a right also applies to homosexuals, or if they are excluded from it cause they're gay.



#104 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,483 posts

Posted 06 April 2014 - 09:36 AM

It doesn't necessarily matter what the ruling was on, it matters what the ruling says because it sets precedent.

 

So when the Supreme Court ruled and said marriage is a "basic civil right" that doesn't mean that it is a basic civil right for only interracial couples.  It is a basic civil right for everyone which is why interracial couples should be allowed to marry.
 

 

Well to be fair, rights can be basic civil rights and still restricted by special circumstances.  I don't think being gay is one such special circumstance, as I don't think preventing gays from marrying somehow protects the public good in a way which outweighs the restriction of individual liberties (e.g. convicts having guns)



#105 ecu88

ecu88

    Junior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,316 posts

Posted 06 April 2014 - 10:53 AM

If the owner of one of the companies I have a contract with openly opposes Interracial marriage & donates money to groups that are seeking to ban it should I have to keep working with them?


Yes because of the contract but how does one view destroy a business relationship that has nothing to do with the business itself? Read Predictabily Irrational about value. There are two values, market and social. Mixing the two can cause strain and damage to relationships. This country has grown small minded and tyrannical to force one side or another to accept a way of life.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.