Boy Scouts Tp (Possibly) End Homosexual Ban - Page 45
+ Reply to Thread
Page 45 of 53 FirstFirst ... 35414243444546474849 ... LastLast
Results 441 to 450 of 522
Like Tree272Likes

Thread: Boy Scouts Tp (Possibly) End Homosexual Ban

  1. #441
    Posting Addict ClairesMommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    12,517

    Default

    Best thing I read all day :

    The CEO of coffee chain Starbucks is earning praise from same sex marriage advocates for the company's staunch support of gay rights, including urging a group of activist shareholders to sell their shares if they don't like the company's policies.
    At the Starbucks annual general meeting on Friday, chief executive Howard Schultz was accosted by Tom Strobhar, the head of a group called the National Organization for Marriage, an activist group that has lobbied hard against recent legislative moves to legalize same sex marriage and other contentious gay rights issues.
    The NOM had called for a boycott of Starbucks locations after it emerged in 2012 that the ubiquitous chain of coffee restaurants was outspoken in favour of gay rights in its internal diversity policies.
    At the annual meeting, Strobhar suggested the company's support of gay rights was bad for business, as it was costing the company sales it might otherwise have had.
    "If you feel, respectfully, that you can get a higher return than the 38 per cent you got last year, it’s a free country," Schultz said. "You can sell your shares of Starbucks and buy shares in another company. Thank you very much." His reaction drew loud applause from the audience.
    Starbucks has come out as one of the more forceful corporate defenders of gay rights, a battle that will be top of mind in the U.S. Tuesday as the Supreme Court hears arguments in two major gay rights cases — one about the legality of California's Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that questioned the legality of same sex marriages, and the other the Federal Defence of Marriage Act, a 1996 law on the same topic.
    The issue has moved from being a rights issue to a corporate one in recent weeks, as a number of business titans have made statements.
    Earlier this month, Starbucks was one of dozens of companies that urged lawmakers to legalize same-sex marriage across America, saying it would save them billions in human resources costs by being able to streamline benefits plans
    Starbucks CEO tells anti-gay investor: 'sell your shares' - Business - CBC News

  2. #442
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,597

    Default

    Love the point Justice Roberts makes here:

    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So it's just about -- it's just about the label in this case.

    MR. OLSON: The label is --

    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Same-sex couples have every other right, it's just about the label.

    MR. OLSON: The label "marriage" means something. Even our opponents --

    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Sure. If you tell -- if you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, this is my friend, but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend.
    And that's it seems to me what the -- what supporters of Proposition 8 are saying here. You're -all you're interested in is the label and you insist on changing the definition of the label.
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...ts/12-144a.pdf
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  3. #443
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,465

    Default

    So...."marriage" doesn't really mean anything. I ask again -- why can't YOU give up marriage and let us and the gays have it? It's just a label, Gloria. Give it up! Stop clinging to it and let everyone else have it, what do you care? Labels don't matter.
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 10 ) and Juliet ( 7 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  4. #444
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    Right. You already changed it as sacred and holy and only forever between one woman and one man and GOd when you broke those bonds and made it between two men and God, why can't other people change it as they see fit? If you can change it willy nilly so can others.

  5. #445
    Prolific Poster ftmom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,378

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    Love the point Justice Roberts makes here:



    http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...ts/12-144a.pdf
    My response to this is that it only changes the definition if you let it. If the child gives the other person a chance maybe they will become friends. To the person being called a friend the definition doesnt change, and to every other person in the world the definition doesnt change. It is the act of resisting and protesting calling someone a friend that changes the definition of the word, not the use.

    I would also say, that you dont need to call anyone's marriage a marriage if you dont want to, no body is forcing you to acknowledge that their marriage is the same as yours.
    Kyla
    Mom to Arianna (5), Conner (3) and Trent (my baby)

  6. #446
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,119

    Default

    <sarcasm> Yeah surely there has been no precedent for changing the definition of legal marriage. We've never done that before in the history of this country. </sarcasm>

    I don't remember anything saying we can't ever change the definition of legal marriage. Imagine that, change *gasp*
    Emma 08/31/01
    Aodhan 07/24/03
    Lillian 03/04/05
    Nathalie 07/01/07
    Cecilia Marie 1/10/10


    Photo By Anne Schmidt Photography

  7. #447
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,597

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by freddieflounder101 View Post
    So...."marriage" doesn't really mean anything. I ask again -- why can't YOU give up marriage and let us and the gays have it? It's just a label, Gloria. Give it up! Stop clinging to it and let everyone else have it, what do you care? Labels don't matter.
    It does mean something to me. It can't mean that much to you if you don't care if the definition is changed to something else. Why should we be the ones who have to change the meaning of what has been in place already? Justice Roberts says it very well:

    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I'm not sure, counsel, that it makes -- I'm not sure that it's right to view this as excluding a particular group. When the institution of marriage developed historically, people didn't get around and say let's have this institution, but let's keep out homosexuals. The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn't include homosexual couples.
    It is -- yes, you can say that it serves some of the other interests where it makes sense to include them, but not all the interests. And it seems to me, your friend argues on the other side, if you have an institution that pursues additional interests, you don't have to include everybody just because some other aspects of it can be applied to them.
    MR. OLSON: Well, there's a couple of answers to that, it seems to me, Mr. Chief Justice. In this case, that decision to exclude gays and lesbians was made by the State of California.
    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Oh, that's only because Proposition 8 came 140 days after the California Supreme Court issued its decision.
    MR. OLSON: That's right.
    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: And don't you think it's more reasonable to view it as a change by the California Supreme Court of this institution that's been around since time immemorial?
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  8. #448
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,597

    Default

    Justice Sotomayor makes my other point.

    JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked -- and -- and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what State restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to -- that could get married -- the incest laws, the mother and child, assuming that they are the age -- I can -- I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest on -- on protecting a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left?
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  9. #449
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    "Little America"
    Posts
    5,569

    Default

    Anyways Gloria, when can we vote on your marriage?
    Spacers likes this.

  10. #450
    Posting Addict ClairesMommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    12,517

    Default

    Gloria, definitions change all.the.time to accommodate social progress. Why can't you? Websters, Oxford, whatever - if the authorities on definitions can adapt and change through the years, why are you so stuck on this antiquated definition?

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions