Sparky wrote:

> Bill Putney wrote:
>
>> Abeness wrote:
>>
>>> vince garcia wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed that
>>>> give people the right to forbid his going into their places of business
>>>> because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being
>>>> discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I believe that business owners have the right to control the
>>> "character" (for lack of the right word at this hour) of their
>>> establishment, but I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the legal details.
>>> I wouldn't want my customers to walk in when two people were sucking
>>> on each other, for example. That's not the environment I'd want in my
>>> business. But the line is a difficult one to navigate: some might
>>> argue that "flamboyant" homosexuals would be offensive to their
>>> customers, just as white folks in times past argued that blacks in
>>> their establishments would be offensive. Times change, thankfully,
>>> and justice must prevail.
>>>
>>>> You're living in fantasy land. You do NOT have "freedom of choice".
>>>> "Freedom of choice" is nowhere in the constitution.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, reread what I wrote: I was saying that one has the personal
>>> freedom of choice to not live as a homosexual. Of course it's more
>>> complicated than that. There is clear evidence that homosexuality for
>>> many is simple the way the brain is wired, in which case legislating
>>> against homosexuality is akin to legislating against people based on
>>> their skin color--it's just the way they were born, and how could
>>> they possibly choose otherwise.
>>
>>
>>
>> My brain is wired for dogwood trees. I want you to vote to allow me
>> to marry my dogwood tree with all the rights and privileges.
>>
>>>> "If two guys and three women want to enter into one 'marriage', what
>>>> right does anyone have to tell them that they can't?! They're not
>>>> hurting anyone. We should respect their commitment to each other
>>>> even if
>>>> we, ourselves, wouldn't go the same route. No one has the right to
>>>> inflict their own morality on someone else!"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You have a point here. ;-)
>>>
>>> In truth, you are right that society determines what it will and will
>>> not allow in terms of social mores. I suspect that economic impact
>>> would be a significant guiding factor in such considerations. Just
>>> think of the health insurance lobby's reaction when confronted by
>>> your hypothesis!
>>>
>>>> Discrimination happens every day, from restricting 10 year-olds from
>>>> driving, to preventing private citizens from owning Nukes. Only people
>>>> who don't understand the law and the constitution believe
>>>> discrimination
>>>> is always unconstitutional.
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't be silly. Both of your examples are clearly a matter of public
>>> safety. As for political campaigning as a gov't employee, the issue
>>> is favoritism and corruption in public service. We're trying to
>>> prevent abuse of power with these laws.
>>>
>>>> Otherwise, yeah, it'd offend me. But that's life. That's how the system
>>>> works. Everyone doesn't have "freedom of choice" to do whatever the
>>>> hell
>>>> they want. Society---not the individual--gets to decide what is and IS
>>>> NOT acceptable behavior and practice.
>>>
>>>
>>> You are quite right. Sexuality, however, as far as I'm concerned, is
>>> (or should be in an ideal world) a private matter. I don't want to
>>> see heterosexuals OR homosexuals sucking on each other in public. I
>>> don't want to see mostly-naked people in advertising at the bus stop.
>>> And I sure don't want to see jiggling tits in cartoons on TV
>>> (couldn't believe what I saw the other day). We don't allow public
>>> "fornication" by anyone.
>>
>>
>>
>> Although that is being pushed for by some also.
>>
>>> But that has nothing to do with whether people should have a means to
>>> consecrate and/or formalize their unions when they choose to do so.
>>
>>
>>
>> I see. So you *ARE* for my right to "marry", with government
>> sanction, encouragement, and recognition, my beloved dogwood tree -
>> after all - that's the way my brain is wired, and you can't prove
>> otherwise.
>
>
> KNOTHEAD!

LOL! Nice pun. Reminds me of the time Johnny Carson said that "Ewel
(sp?) Gibbon's (environut of the 70's) idea of a good time was eating
the crotch out of a pine tree". 8^)

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---