Can you people PLEASE stop cross posting this off topic political crap in
these automotive news groups.

Linda wrote:
> I really hate that you guys have brought me down to your level... i
> am a nice person, really a very nice person.... regardless of all the
> thoughtless comments about my intelligence, regardless of all the
> comments about my lack of ability to communicate like *real men*.
> regardless of my refusing to conform to the norm and Capitalize every
> DAMN THING!!!!!!! if you ask me, you all try to out pompous each
> other... and at whose expense?... (Daniel and a few others are
> exceptions.. Ted is trying to teach me how to communicate
> effectively; Daniel is a wealth of knowledge and can see through my
> supposed lack of intelligence and see that my heart is good and he
> has an innate ability to INTERPRET to you *men* out there, what I, as
> a stupid female, am trying to say....) Do all you men treat your
> mothers, wives, sweethearts, significant others with such disdain and
> disrespect?.... i pity the poor women in your lives it you do.
>
>
> And i am still waiting on a response about the "TROUBLE" i am going
> to get into.. veiled threats?
>
> since you all have gotten rid of me one way, i will respond
> another.... thanks guys!!! just proves my point...
>
>
> "Sparky" > wrote in message
> . net...
>> 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!