Gay thread:2-15-07 Democrat Ex-NBA star Tim Hardaway says he hates gays & they should be banned from the world

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Boy these "Activist" Judges that Republicans on here and the President complains about are really approving Gay Marriages. :roll:

7-26-2006 State of Washington court latest to uphold gay marriage ban

OLYMPIA, Wash. - The state Supreme Court upheld a ban on gay marriage Wednesday, saying lawmakers have the power to restrict marriage to unions between a man and woman.

The 5-4 decision disappointed gay-marriage advocates and left Massachusetts as the only state that grants full marriage rights to gay couples.
======================================

Interesting that the state where the first Revolution started is the only state where people are truly free to love who they wish without discrimination and hate.

====================================================

Bush will get his wish shortly for the Constitutional ban on same sex marriage.

Just another step towards all out Revolution II in the U.S. coming very quickly.

Edit:7-18-2006 Bush didn't get his wish. Are Republicans actually starting to lose some of their brainwashing power?

True Americans won out over Discrimination and Hate Filled Anti-Americans.

I hope the rest of the Constitution loving American citizenry continues to beat down the Ant-Gay Hate Filled, America Hating Republicans in the Elections to come.

7-18-2006 Gay Marriage Constitutional Ban Amendment Rejected In Congress For 2006

WASHINGTON - The House on Tuesday rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, ending for another year a congressional debate that supporters of the ban hope will still reverberate in this fall's election.

The 236-187 vote for the proposal to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman was 47 short of the two-thirds majority needed to advance a constitutional amendment.

It followed six weeks after the Senate also decisively defeated the amendment, a top priority of social conservatives.

The marriage amendment is part of the "American values agenda" the House is taking up this week that includes a pledge protection bill and a vote on President Bush's expected veto of a bill promoting embryonic stem cell research. Bush has asked, and social conservatives demanded, that the gay marriage ban be considered in the run-up to the election.

The White House, in a statement Tuesday, urged passage of the measure. "When activist judges insist on redefining the fundamental institution of marriage for their states or potentially for the entire country, the only alternative left to make the people's voice heard is an amendment of the Constitution."

"Our momentum in the states is extremely strong and Washington is playing catch-up," said Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage.

Daniels, who was involved in drafting the amendment's language, said it was essential that Congress eventually set a national standard. Members of Congress are "the only hope for seeing marriage protected in this country and they should be on record."

"I do not understand what motivates you," Frank said Monday, addressing Republicans on the Rules Committee. "I don't tell you who to love."
=============================================
What motivates Republicans is Greed, Power, Control and Jealousy.


===============================================
5-19-2006 Senate to vote on Constitutional Gay Ban next week - expected to pass easily

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman"

"Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman"


Hehehehehehe :laugh:

Starting to look like the blatant discrimination by the Radical Right is starting to backfire on them. :thumbsup:

10-30-2005 Alaska High Court Backs Partner Benefits

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - The Alaska Supreme Court ruled Friday it is unconstitutional to deny benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees, a victory for gay rights advocates in one of the first states to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Overturning a lower court ruling, the state high court said barring benefits for state and city employees' same-sex partners violates the Alaska Constitution's equal protection clause.

Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski was "outraged" by the ruling and directed the attorney general's office to determine the best way to overturn it, said his spokeswoman, Becky Hultberg.

In the 2001 Superior Court ruling overturned Friday, Judge Stephanie Joannides said the state and city did not have to extend benefits to same-sex couples, equating them with unmarried heterosexual couples who also are not eligible.

The high court said that comparison failed to acknowledge the fact that heterosexual couples can choose to get married, while homosexual couples cannot.

Michael Macleod-Ball, director of the Alaska ACLU, said the Alaska Supreme Court ruling could have an effect on other states.
=======================================================

Looks like as hard as the anti-gay pro-discrimination Religious Republicans try, that this Country will not stand for it.

Anti-gay and pro-discrimination goes against the very foundation of liberty the founding fathers set forth for the Country.

It is Governments business to stay out of personal business.

It is the Governments business to uphold the Laws and Values of the foundation of this Country.

Hopefully this is the start of many defeats the radicals Republican and the religious base controlling them.


10-12-2005 Calif. Court Hears Gay Fertility Case

SAN DIEGO - A California appeals court heard arguments Tuesday in the case of a woman who sued her doctors after they refused to artificially inseminate her, allegedly because she is gay.

The physicians are appealing a ruling that prevented them from raising religious freedom as a defense in the test of whether doctors can deny treatment to gays and lesbians.

The case appears to be the first in the country in which a gay or lesbian patient was allowed to sue doctors over charges that treatment was denied based on sexual orientation, said Benitez's attorney, Jennifer Pizer of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Pizer argued that California civil rights law should have prevented the doctors from refusing treatment based on her client's sexual orientation.

"The state has a compelling interest to eradicate invidious discrimination," she told the court.

Justice Gilbert Nares predicted a long road ahead.

"As we all know, this is going to the U.S. Supreme Court," he said. "It's just a question of when."

The appeals court has 90 days to rule.

Edit: Republicans in here say to bring back Segregation signs like last Century.

Instead of signs saying "Colored" only, put signs in front of the Doctors Office and Pharmacy that say "Straights Only".



 

rickn

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
7,064
0
0
sperm is free, why should she have to pay for it? If she is attractive i've sure there is a bunch of men willing to give her 5mins
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
This will come down on whether being a "liscened doctor" means you have to treat anyone that comes to you. Sounds much like the pharmacy issue.
I personally think it should be his choice in this case, but that sets up a slippery slope. Should he deny black people, or people of middle eastern origin? Ultimately I think it will get shot down. But on the same note, I think that pharmacist should have just given the darn pill....I guess confliciting opinions

Though in an ideal situation it would be his choice~ but that means he would be forfeiting profits to other doctors, and I'm sure there are many doctors who do not care at all. Just like in any situation, the idea would be that there are enough sellers to where if one denies you, the other will profit off of it. The hard part is if that doctor or person who runs the pharmacy is the only one around...so to be denied by them effectively means denied treatment. And in some cases, that have very dangerous implicatiions
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: magomago
This will come down on whether being a "liscened doctor" means you have to treat anyone that comes to you. Sounds much like the pharmacy issue.
I personally think it should be his choice in this case, but that sets up a slippery slope. Should he deny black people, or people of middle eastern origin? Ultimately I think it will get shot down. But on the same note, I think that pharmacist should have just given the darn pill....I guess confliciting opinions

Though in an ideal situation it would be his choice~ but that means he would be forfeiting profits to other doctors, and I'm sure there are many doctors who do not care at all. Just like in any situation, the idea would be that there are enough sellers to where if one denies you, the other will profit off of it. The hard part is if that doctor or person who runs the pharmacy is the only one around...so to be denied by them effectively means denied treatment. And in some cases, that have very dangerous implicatiions

Bejesus, hope you are not in a decision making position.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: magomago
This will come down on whether being a "liscened doctor" means you have to treat anyone that comes to you. Sounds much like the pharmacy issue.
I personally think it should be his choice in this case, but that sets up a slippery slope. Should he deny black people, or people of middle eastern origin? Ultimately I think it will get shot down. But on the same note, I think that pharmacist should have just given the darn pill....I guess confliciting opinions

Though in an ideal situation it would be his choice~ but that means he would be forfeiting profits to other doctors, and I'm sure there are many doctors who do not care at all. Just like in any situation, the idea would be that there are enough sellers to where if one denies you, the other will profit off of it. The hard part is if that doctor or person who runs the pharmacy is the only one around...so to be denied by them effectively means denied treatment. And in some cases, that have very dangerous implicatiions

Bejesus, hope you are not in a decision making position.

There's thing little thing called the Hyppocratic Oath... i thought doctors are obligated to help *people*. Not "white christian people"...
 

Zysoclaplem

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2003
8,803
0
0
Unless the treatment would have been harmful in some way to Guadalupe Benitez, I don't respect or agree with the doctor's decision to refuse the treatment. It is a form of discrimination.
But I don't believe much will come of this, for the time being.
What is the greater moral wrong?
Refusing to help someone based on their sexual orientation, something that cannot be controlled?
Or helping someone, who in your faith's opinion is a deviant and should not be allowed to bear children?
 

catnap1972

Platinum Member
Aug 10, 2000
2,607
0
76
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: magomago
This will come down on whether being a "liscened doctor" means you have to treat anyone that comes to you. Sounds much like the pharmacy issue.
I personally think it should be his choice in this case, but that sets up a slippery slope. Should he deny black people, or people of middle eastern origin? Ultimately I think it will get shot down. But on the same note, I think that pharmacist should have just given the darn pill....I guess confliciting opinions

Though in an ideal situation it would be his choice~ but that means he would be forfeiting profits to other doctors, and I'm sure there are many doctors who do not care at all. Just like in any situation, the idea would be that there are enough sellers to where if one denies you, the other will profit off of it. The hard part is if that doctor or person who runs the pharmacy is the only one around...so to be denied by them effectively means denied treatment. And in some cases, that have very dangerous implicatiions

Bejesus, hope you are not in a decision making position.

There's thing little thing called the Hyppocratic Oath... i thought doctors are obligated to help *people*. Not "white christian people"...

The right changed that back in 2001 to the "Hypocritic Oath"
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
How ridiculous. These women are in no 'need' of medical attention. The doctors should be allowed to choose whatever kind of 'treatments' they want to give to a patient.
 

dirtboy

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,745
1
81
Treatment? She's not even sick! This is just more liberal garbage being spewed in hopes to ruin our society... good thing there are people with morals out there that aren't putting up with crap. Hopefully it will get tossed out of court.
 

ExpertNovice

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
939
0
0
Sounds to me like she is trying to force her viewpoint on a Doctor. Afterall, there are many other Doctors that she can go to. Probably the Doctor even recommended another.

I thought the reason liberals hated religion was not because they hate religion but because they said religion was being forced down their throat.

If she were not a hypocrit she would exercise her right to chose and chose a Doctor that will impregnate her.
 

Zysoclaplem

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2003
8,803
0
0
Originally posted by: Dissipate
How ridiculous. These women are in no 'need' of medical attention. The doctors should be allowed to choose whatever kind of 'treatments' they want to give to a patient.

The question is, would the doctor have refused to give treatment to a heterosexual woman?
Probably not. Why? Because she is heterosexual. That's discrimination.
 

Zysoclaplem

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2003
8,803
0
0
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Treatment? She's not even sick! This is just more liberal garbage being spewed in hopes to ruin our society... good thing there are people with morals out there that aren't putting up with crap. Hopefully it will get tossed out of court.

No one said she was sick?
How is it ruining our society? What crap?
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
You can't force some one to do something that goes against their deeply held religous beliefs. You can't force a doctor to do an abortion, there are laws protecting doctors on this. The despute with the pharmacey workers is if those same laws can be applied to them.

If this is the same case, which i'm pretty sure it is, the doctor told the patient that she did not want to do the procedure and then gave her referrals to other doctors that would. This was not medical nessacary procedure, nor was the patient ever in danger or going to be put in danger.

I'm quite surprised that people here don't believe in individual freedom, but i guess people's "freedom" where it conflicts with your ideas.
 

Zysoclaplem

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2003
8,803
0
0
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Sounds to me like she is trying to force her viewpoint on a Doctor. Afterall, there are many other Doctors that she can go to. Probably the Doctor even recommended another.

I thought the reason liberals hated religion was not because they hate religion but because they said religion was being forced down their throat.

If she were not a hypocrit she would exercise her right to chose and chose a Doctor that will impregnate her.

No, she requested a treatment for fertilization. She was refused due to discrimination about her sexual orientation.
 

Zysoclaplem

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2003
8,803
0
0
Originally posted by: shrumpage
You can't force some one to do something that goes against their deeply held religous beliefs. You can't force a doctor to do an abortion, there are laws protecting doctors on this. The despute with the pharmacey workers is if those same laws can be applied to them.

If this is the same case, which i'm pretty sure it is, the doctor told the patient that she did not want to do the procedure and then gave her referrals to other doctors that would. This was not medical nessacary procedure, nor was the patient ever in danger or going to be put in danger.

I'm quite surprised that people here don't believe in individual freedom, but i guess people's "freedom" where it conflicts with your ideas.

And abortion is something that can be equally performed on either straight, gay, black, white, deaf, and blind women, and every woman in between. There is no discrimination there. Just an unwillingness to suck out an unborn fetus.
This is something specific to one orientation. She is refusing to give treatment to one woman based on sexual orientation, but would give that same treatment to another woman if she were heterosexual. That's it.

 

ExpertNovice

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
939
0
0
Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Sounds to me like she is trying to force her viewpoint on a Doctor. Afterall, there are many other Doctors that she can go to. Probably the Doctor even recommended another.

I thought the reason liberals hated religion was not because they hate religion but because they said religion was being forced down their throat.

If she were not a hypocrit she would exercise her right to chose and chose a Doctor that will impregnate her.

No, she requested a treatment for fertilization. She was refused due to discrimination about her sexual orientation.


Exactly. Why does her rights superseded the Doctors rights?

If forcing someone to hear the word God is bad then forcing someone to do something they find immoral is worse.

Why doesn't she go to another Doctor? I know the answer. She wants to force her religion on to everyone else.
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Originally posted by: shrumpage
You can't force some one to do something that goes against their deeply held religous beliefs. You can't force a doctor to do an abortion, there are laws protecting doctors on this. The despute with the pharmacey workers is if those same laws can be applied to them.

If this is the same case, which i'm pretty sure it is, the doctor told the patient that she did not want to do the procedure and then gave her referrals to other doctors that would. This was not medical nessacary procedure, nor was the patient ever in danger or going to be put in danger.

I'm quite surprised that people here don't believe in individual freedom, but i guess people's "freedom" where it conflicts with your ideas.

And abortion is something that can be equally performed on either straight, gay, black, white, deaf, and blind women, and every woman in between. There is no discrimination there. Just an unwillingness to suck out an unborn fetus.
This is something specific to one orientation. She is refusing to give treatment to one woman based on sexual orientation, but would give that same treatment to another woman if she were heterosexual. That's it.


It is possible that she did not want to be responible for breing another fatherless child in the world. I could understand someone would be morally opposed to that. It is speculation, but i wonder if the doctor would not inseminate single people, or couples who were not married.
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Originally posted by: Dissipate
How ridiculous. These women are in no 'need' of medical attention. The doctors should be allowed to choose whatever kind of 'treatments' they want to give to a patient.

The question is, would the doctor have refused to give treatment to a heterosexual woman?
Probably not. Why? Because she is heterosexual. That's discrimination.

Discrimination is a fact of life. It is necessary for our freedoms. Do we not discriminate against who we marry? Do we not discriminate against who we hang out with and associate with?

Why can't we discriminate against who we do business with? Suddenly if we are doing business our doors have to be open to everyone? This is ridiculous. If doctor's don't want to do business with lesbians, they shouldn't have to do business with lesbians. Discrimination is necessary for a free society. Everyone should be allowed to choose who they enter in a transaction with, and who they are associated with. If someone doesn't want to associate with you and you don't think that is 'fair,' tough luck. Their decision is their own to make.

If you don't want to marry a 400 pound black woman, is that 'discrimination?'

The fact of the matter is that those who cry afoul about discrimination, are themselves discriminators on a daily basis.
 

Cooler

Diamond Member
Mar 31, 2005
3,835
0
0
If the New And "Improved" Supream Court rule against this women then my faith in american justice is gone and i might just move to canada.
 

dirtboy

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,745
1
81
Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Originally posted by: zendari
Go to another doctor.

I agree but it's still discrimination.

It is not. Doctors have the right to refuse service, but not to people who need it. This is purely a case where she didn't need "treatment," because there's nothing wrong with her.

According you do you, you're discriminating against all the people who have an opposing view.
 

Zysoclaplem

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2003
8,803
0
0
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Sounds to me like she is trying to force her viewpoint on a Doctor. Afterall, there are many other Doctors that she can go to. Probably the Doctor even recommended another.

I thought the reason liberals hated religion was not because they hate religion but because they said religion was being forced down their throat.

If she were not a hypocrit she would exercise her right to chose and chose a Doctor that will impregnate her.

No, she requested a treatment for fertilization. She was refused due to discrimination about her sexual orientation.


Exactly. Why does her rights superseded the Doctors rights?

If forcing someone to hear the word God is bad then forcing someone to do something they find immoral is worse.

Why doesn't she go to another Doctor? I know the answer. She wants to force her religion on to everyone else.

She probably did go to another doctor. Who knows.
But that's irrelevant.
It's discrimination. Based solely on sexual orientation.
It's sort of like saying you won't give fertilization treatments to a black woman because you are racist. I bet that wouldn't fly to well with anyone. Why should it be any different with homosexuals?

 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |