LGBT extremists shamelessly cause a scene at a Target store.

[Sagatagan]

Then they can enter a civil union which does not tarnish the Christian traditions associated with marriage.

What of Christian gay marriages?

Homosexuality goes against the Christian teachings demonstrated in the Bible, so there should not be such a thing.

You can't dictate that for all religious organizations.

Watch me, who are you to say I can't. That is my belief and I'm going to stick with that. If a Christian denomination wants to allow gay marriages they can, but they are wrong, it is simple as that.

To you. But its still not in good taste to think that something can be dictated to all Christianity.

Well, all of Christianity should be based around the teachings in the Bible, which clearly states its opposition to homosexuality. Thus, this stance can be dictated to all of Christianity and those who oppose it are not true Christians.

Again, got no problem with that. I ain't in the business of telling people what they should or shouldn't believe. My only question is: Do you have a problem with two non-christians entering into a same-sex marriage?

Not at all, as I stated in my first post in this thread, welcome to the realm of the civil union. This is no longer marriage as you have stripped away the Christian theme.

Then the government should stop calling it marriage, and only offer civil unions, while only religious institutions can offer marriages.

[Zephie]

They were still filming when they were requested to stop filming and proceeded to post the video on the internet. They should have blurred out the faces of the employees, but they are driven by hate.

Um... people film things all the time and don't blur out the faces of the people in the background.

That doesn't make it right...

No, but all groups that do not proceed to blur faces are not all "motivated by hate".

It is motivated by hate, these kind of liberals love to hate. When they are preaching against hate and discrimination, many times, like in this one, they are causing even more of the "hate" they are trying to get rid of. They didn't blur the faces most likely because they want those people to be "shamed."

That is speculation and fearmongering. Liberals protesting is not of hate, but of motivation. Too often, motivation can indeed incurr questionable actions, but questionable actions occur around the table, so pointing fingers and fearmongering about liberal hypocrisy gets you nowhere.

Many liberals are hateful, like the ones that call anyone who disagrees with them a hateful bigot, or a racist. The race card is their most overused. Hell, people have gotten beaten for speaking out against Obama.

Hmm you seek to discriminate against a class of people but your are not a bigot? You say things like "legitimate" marriages while gays can't be legitimate and you are not hateful?

Source the people being assaulted claim for people speaking against the President.....

It may help to remember that Zephie is one of the people here who think that anti-discrimination laws are discriminatory because they discriminate against people who want to discriminate against other people.

Slander if I ever knew it. I've been discriminated against simply because I wasn't "black" or "hispanic" because those groups of people are apparently more deserving of government aid than I am, because statistically, there are more white people that are wealthy than blacks and hispanics.

If you consider me thinking no groups deserves preferential treatment equates to discriminating against people, then I am guilty.

What? Please stop connecting what you feel is "special treatment" and using it to fearmonger and speculate. Is it not ludicrous to say you are equally fueling hype?

No I'm not, it's truth. Affirmative action is discriminatory legislation. Why should one person be treated special because of the color of their skin? That is counter-productive.

The real bigots and racists are the liberals supporting legislation like this.

[Farnhamia]

And then all of the single people should protest, because they are being discriminated against because they aren't getting tax breaks for being single!

The rights of marriage don't make any sense when applied to single people. Including the alleged "tax breaks", which are not a marriage subsidy but rather an alleviation of the tax burden on families where one adult is the primary income-earner.

Then there shouldn't be marriage, because it discriminates against all who are married!

I would like to see marriage outlawed for all as well.
It is a backwards relic from the past.

When you get out of law school, knock yourself out.

[Sagatagan]

Red herring.

(As a matter of fact I do, as well as polyandry and group marriages.)

No, no it's not. Group marriages just make marriage a joke, where would it stop?

With the right of any number of consenting human adults to enter into a legal union of marriage? Sounds alright to me.

there are practical issues to consider.
A group marriage say one of the people wants to leave one person, does she divorce the whole group or does she divorce just the one person. Divorces would take decades to finalize rather then the 1.5 years currently.

Yes and how is the wealth split? If a group of 3 divorce does each get 1/3 of the property? Oh lawd.

Well, that would make sense, yes. Imagine that, changing a denominator! God forbid!

[Haiz]

The AFA does the same thing.

So? Does that justify the LGBT people being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination?

No, the first Amendment does that.

Maybe on public property, but Target is private property.

Which is open to public access. They can withdraw your right to be there, but they can't force you to shut up.

Target's solicitation policy is very easy to find on the internet, and it clearly says that Target does not allow solicitation or petitioning at their stores (this group was engaging in both). This group planned this out, and intentionally broke Target's policies. They weren't justified in being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, and/or saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination.

Target's policies are irrelevant. Justification is irrelevant. What they did remains legal, and that's the only important aspect. Well, that and whether they got their point across.

Target's policies are NOT irrelevant, since the store is private property. It's not legal to create a disturbance, harass people, film/photograph people against their stated wishes, or solicit in a place where solicitation isn't allowed.

The public disturbance is refusing to leave when asked or when in violation of said company policies. Thats when it becomes such.

Exactly. The protesters were in violation of Target's solicitation policy (which is easily accessible on the internet), so can we finally agree that they created a disturbance in the store?

That was the point. It's a protest. And a legal one.

Creating a disturbance on private property is now legal?

Its not. I guess you are now against company owners setting their own policies, and dealing with them by asking them, and if refusal ensues, then thereby constituting a public disturbance?

[Dododecapod]

The AFA does the same thing.

So? Does that justify the LGBT people being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination?

No, the first Amendment does that.

Maybe on public property, but Target is private property.

Which is open to public access. They can withdraw your right to be there, but they can't force you to shut up.

Target's solicitation policy is very easy to find on the internet, and it clearly says that Target does not allow solicitation or petitioning at their stores (this group was engaging in both). This group planned this out, and intentionally broke Target's policies. They weren't justified in being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, and/or saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination.

Target's policies are irrelevant. Justification is irrelevant. What they did remains legal, and that's the only important aspect. Well, that and whether they got their point across.

Target's policies are NOT irrelevant, since the store is private property. It's not legal to create a disturbance, harass people, film/photograph people against their stated wishes, or solicit in a place where solicitation isn't allowed.

The public disturbance is refusing to leave when asked or when in violation of said company policies. Thats when it becomes such.

Exactly. The protesters were in violation of Target's solicitation policy (which is easily accessible on the internet), so can we finally agree that they created a disturbance in the store?

That was the point. It's a protest. And a legal one.

It was a protest, yes. It was also legal, yet it was in poor taste and Target should have asked them to leave immediately.

And I'd have no problem with that.

Then what is this argument about?

Gun Manufacturer's attempt to portray the protest as being illegal.

Oh, obviously I didn't read the OP closely enough. As far as I can tell, the protest was fully legal, yet in poor taste, as I stated before.

No prob, you came in half way through an argument. Anybody gets confused by that.

[Ryadn]

The AFA does the same thing.

So? Does that justify the LGBT people being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination?

No, the first Amendment does that.

Maybe on public property, but Target is private property.

Which is open to public access. They can withdraw your right to be there, but they can't force you to shut up.

Target's solicitation policy is very easy to find on the internet, and it clearly says that Target does not allow solicitation or petitioning at their stores (this group was engaging in both). This group planned this out, and intentionally broke Target's policies. They weren't justified in being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, and/or saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination.

Target's policies are irrelevant. Justification is irrelevant. What they did remains legal, and that's the only important aspect. Well, that and whether they got their point across.

Target's policies are NOT irrelevant, since the store is private property. It's not legal to create a disturbance, harass people, film/photograph people against their stated wishes, or solicit in a place where solicitation isn't allowed.

The public disturbance is refusing to leave when asked or when in violation of said company policies. Thats when it becomes such.

Exactly. The protesters were in violation of Target's solicitation policy (which is easily accessible on the internet), so can we finally agree that they created a disturbance in the store?

That was the point. It's a protest. And a legal one.

Creating a disturbance on private property is now legal?

Yes. With the proviso that it must be publically accessible private property, such as a store or other freely available area. The only time the law gets involved is if the creators of the disturbance are asked to leave, and refuse.

But but but---PRIVATE PROPERTY! Don't you understand the sacred significance of those words? This nation wasn't built on ideas of equity under the law, it was built on PRIVATE PROPERTY! No-holds-barred if you own the land! A = A! What don't you get??

[Blouman Empire]

"Uppity Negroes shamelessly cause scene at Walgreens lunch counter."

http://21.media.tumblr.com/XRqXsNVzGfw5 ... o1_500.jpg

Pretty sure Target don't have a policy that gays can't enter their store and make purchases.

So doesn't compare

[Daistallia 2104]

No, no it's not.

Yes it is. Using a diversion into an unrelated topic to avoid loosing an argument is the very definition of a red herring.

there are practical issues to consider.
A group marriage say one of the people wants to leave one person, does she divorce the whole group or does she divorce just the one person. Divorces would take decades to finalize rather then the 1.5 years currently.

That ought to get the lawyers behind it for sure.

[Zephie]

And then all of the single people should protest, because they are being discriminated against because they aren't getting tax breaks for being single!

The rights of marriage don't make any sense when applied to single people. Including the alleged "tax breaks", which are not a marriage subsidy but rather an alleviation of the tax burden on families where one adult is the primary income-earner.

Then there shouldn't be marriage, because it discriminates against all who are married!

I would like to see marriage outlawed for all as well.
It is a backwards relic from the past.

Which also puzzles me because LGBT attack religion when it comes to marriage, but marriage is a religious institution, so in reality they should be fighting for the destruction of marriage.

[Tergnitz]

Not at all, as I stated in my first post in this thread, welcome to the realm of the civil union. This is no longer marriage as you have stripped away the Christian theme.

Hence, Jews, atheists, Muslims, etc. don't actually get married. And marriage isn't actually a civil institution in the US, rather than a religious one. This is all in our imagination.

Marriage is obviously a religious institution in the US, rather than a civil one. The state should not be involved in the matter of determining what 'marriage' constitutes at all (Sep. of Church and State) it should be left entirely to religious organizations.

[Haiz]

They were still filming when they were requested to stop filming and proceeded to post the video on the internet. They should have blurred out the faces of the employees, but they are driven by hate.

Um... people film things all the time and don't blur out the faces of the people in the background.

That doesn't make it right...

No, but all groups that do not proceed to blur faces are not all "motivated by hate".

It is motivated by hate, these kind of liberals love to hate. When they are preaching against hate and discrimination, many times, like in this one, they are causing even more of the "hate" they are trying to get rid of. They didn't blur the faces most likely because they want those people to be "shamed."

That is speculation and fearmongering. Liberals protesting is not of hate, but of motivation. Too often, motivation can indeed incurr questionable actions, but questionable actions occur around the table, so pointing fingers and fearmongering about liberal hypocrisy gets you nowhere.

Many liberals are hateful, like the ones that call anyone who disagrees with them a hateful bigot, or a racist. The race card is their most overused. Hell, people have gotten beaten for speaking out against Obama.

Hmm you seek to discriminate against a class of people but your are not a bigot? You say things like "legitimate" marriages while gays can't be legitimate and you are not hateful?

Source the people being assaulted claim for people speaking against the President.....

It may help to remember that Zephie is one of the people here who think that anti-discrimination laws are discriminatory because they discriminate against people who want to discriminate against other people.

Slander if I ever knew it. I've been discriminated against simply because I wasn't "black" or "hispanic" because those groups of people are apparently more deserving of government aid than I am, because statistically, there are more white people that are wealthy than blacks and hispanics.

If you consider me thinking no groups deserves preferential treatment equates to discriminating against people, then I am guilty.

What? Please stop connecting what you feel is "special treatment" and using it to fearmonger and speculate. Is it not ludicrous to say you are equally fueling hype?

No I'm not, it's truth. Affirmative action is discriminatory legislation. Why should one person be treated special because of the color of their skin? That is counter-productive.

The real bigots and racists are the liberals supporting legislation like this.

You have failed ultimately to answer the question. I can make connections based on Republican candidates spending that they are the most evil capitalist pigs in the world. Is it true? Not very likely. Just as you can look at some connections and make the generalization that it means this, whilst it not necessarily being something that is true. Is this ludicrous to think that doing it bothways can be equally hypocritical and mislead?

[Greed and Death]

Red herring.

(As a matter of fact I do, as well as polyandry and group marriages.)

No, no it's not. Group marriages just make marriage a joke, where would it stop?

With the right of any number of consenting human adults to enter into a legal union of marriage? Sounds alright to me.

there are practical issues to consider.
A group marriage say one of the people wants to leave one person, does she divorce the whole group or does she divorce just the one person. Divorces would take decades to finalize rather then the 1.5 years currently.

Yes and how is the wealth split? If a group of 3 divorce does each get 1/3 of the property? Oh lawd.

Well, that would make sense, yes. Imagine that, changing a denominator! God forbid!

And alimony, child support ?
and if there is a group of 6 and person A wants a divorce from B, but still wants to be married to CDEF, while CDEF want to remained married to person b and person A.

[Zephie]

No, no it's not.

Yes it is. Using a diversion into an unrelated topic to avoid loosing an argument is the very definition of a red herring.

No, it's not. I find it cute how you trying to call it a red herring is somehow supposed to discredit my argument. Reminds me of many on NSG that try to discredit other peoples arguments by calling it a straw man and etc. It's related because there are people who want to practice polygamy, but I don't see these LGBT supporting the right for them to marry as many people as they want. They only care about their own selfish cause.

[Sagatagan]

And then all of the single people should protest, because they are being discriminated against because they aren't getting tax breaks for being single!

The rights of marriage don't make any sense when applied to single people. Including the alleged "tax breaks", which are not a marriage subsidy but rather an alleviation of the tax burden on families where one adult is the primary income-earner.

Then there shouldn't be marriage, because it discriminates against all who are married!

I would like to see marriage outlawed for all as well.
It is a backwards relic from the past.

Which also puzzles me because LGBT attack religion when it comes to marriage, but marriage is a religious institution, so in reality they should be fighting for the destruction of marriage.

Marriage is a legal and civil institution, and they're fighting for government recognition of the validity of their couples. They're pissed at some religions, because some religions want to have religion dictating government policy on the issue.

[Dododecapod]

Then they can enter a civil union which does not tarnish the Christian traditions associated with marriage.

What of Christian gay marriages?

Homosexuality goes against the Christian teachings demonstrated in the Bible, so there should not be such a thing.

You can't dictate that for all religious organizations.

Watch me, who are you to say I can't. That is my belief and I'm going to stick with that. If a Christian denomination wants to allow gay marriages they can, but they are wrong, it is simple as that.

To you. But its still not in good taste to think that something can be dictated to all Christianity.

Well, all of Christianity should be based around the teachings in the Bible, which clearly states its opposition to homosexuality. Thus, this stance can be dictated to all of Christianity and those who oppose it are not true Christians.

Again, got no problem with that. I ain't in the business of telling people what they should or shouldn't believe. My only question is: Do you have a problem with two non-christians entering into a same-sex marriage?

Not at all, as I stated in my first post in this thread, welcome to the realm of the civil union. This is no longer marriage as you have stripped away the Christian theme.

Then the government should stop calling it marriage, and only offer civil unions, while only religious institutions can offer marriages.

I could live with that. The problem with having SOME people having marriages and the others civil unions is primarily a social one, provided they're equal under the law.

[Haiz]

Then they can enter a civil union which does not tarnish the Christian traditions associated with marriage.

What of Christian gay marriages?

Homosexuality goes against the Christian teachings demonstrated in the Bible, so there should not be such a thing.

You can't dictate that for all religious organizations.

Watch me, who are you to say I can't. That is my belief and I'm going to stick with that. If a Christian denomination wants to allow gay marriages they can, but they are wrong, it is simple as that.

To you. But its still not in good taste to think that something can be dictated to all Christianity.

Well, all of Christianity should be based around the teachings in the Bible, which clearly states its opposition to homosexuality. Thus, this stance can be dictated to all of Christianity and those who oppose it are not true Christians.

Again, got no problem with that. I ain't in the business of telling people what they should or shouldn't believe. My only question is: Do you have a problem with two non-christians entering into a same-sex marriage?

Not at all, as I stated in my first post in this thread, welcome to the realm of the civil union. This is no longer marriage as you have stripped away the Christian theme.

Then the government should stop calling it marriage, and only offer civil unions, while only religious institutions can offer marriages.

I could live with that. The problem with having SOME people having marriages and the others civil unions is primarily a social one, provided they're equal under the law.

Equal Protection Clause for ya.

[The Norwegian Blue]

if i acted like a douchebag while promoting my cause, would you support it?

You acting or not acting like a douchebag wouldn't have anything to do with it. I mean, that's almost a paradigmatic case of an ad hominem fallacy.

i guess you're the only one to think that

No, I agree. I'd support your cause if I agreed with it, despite your actions. The fact that you wouldn't seems, to me, to imply moral laziness on your part.

i guess you guys didnt read the thread and notice the large number of people who think otherwise

The fact that lots of people are lazy doesn't change the fact that that's a fucking stupid way to make a decision. There was one girl in the Queer Student Union at my college who tended to go on inane shrieking rants about "breeders" and insisted to me once that all straight people were bigots because they discriminated against their own gender when deciding whom to sleep with. She was a moron. Amazingly, I am capable of thinking she was a moron without deciding that that one particular gay person being a moron should change my opinion on the validity of gay rights. The fact that some people are apparently so incapable of critical thought that "I don't like so-and-so, therefore, I will oppose everything so-and-so supports" somehow passes for a reasonable judgment in their minds does not change the fact that making decisions on such a basis is painfully stupid.

[Tergnitz]

Then they can enter a civil union which does not tarnish the Christian traditions associated with marriage.

What of Christian gay marriages?

Homosexuality goes against the Christian teachings demonstrated in the Bible, so there should not be such a thing.

You can't dictate that for all religious organizations.

Watch me, who are you to say I can't. That is my belief and I'm going to stick with that. If a Christian denomination wants to allow gay marriages they can, but they are wrong, it is simple as that.

To you. But its still not in good taste to think that something can be dictated to all Christianity.

Well, all of Christianity should be based around the teachings in the Bible, which clearly states its opposition to homosexuality. Thus, this stance can be dictated to all of Christianity and those who oppose it are not true Christians.

Again, got no problem with that. I ain't in the business of telling people what they should or shouldn't believe. My only question is: Do you have a problem with two non-christians entering into a same-sex marriage?

Not at all, as I stated in my first post in this thread, welcome to the realm of the civil union. This is no longer marriage as you have stripped away the Christian theme.

Then the government should stop calling it marriage, and only offer civil unions, while only religious institutions can offer marriages.

I agree.

[Sagatagan]

Red herring.

(As a matter of fact I do, as well as polyandry and group marriages.)

No, no it's not. Group marriages just make marriage a joke, where would it stop?

With the right of any number of consenting human adults to enter into a legal union of marriage? Sounds alright to me.

there are practical issues to consider.
A group marriage say one of the people wants to leave one person, does she divorce the whole group or does she divorce just the one person. Divorces would take decades to finalize rather then the 1.5 years currently.

Yes and how is the wealth split? If a group of 3 divorce does each get 1/3 of the property? Oh lawd.

Well, that would make sense, yes. Imagine that, changing a denominator! God forbid!

And alimony, child support ?
and if there is a group of 6 and person A wants a divorce from B, but still wants to be married to CDEF, while CDEF want to remained married to person b and person A.

Well, you COULD just find out how polygamous societies already deal with this. Or the group could collectively pay child support. They're married, they presumably have some sort of common wealth pool. If not, they all pay equally, unless they, in divorce proceedings, decide otherwise or are so ordered by a lawful court.

[Zephie]

Then they can enter a civil union which does not tarnish the Christian traditions associated with marriage.

What of Christian gay marriages?

Homosexuality goes against the Christian teachings demonstrated in the Bible, so there should not be such a thing.

You can't dictate that for all religious organizations.

Watch me, who are you to say I can't. That is my belief and I'm going to stick with that. If a Christian denomination wants to allow gay marriages they can, but they are wrong, it is simple as that.

To you. But its still not in good taste to think that something can be dictated to all Christianity.

Well, all of Christianity should be based around the teachings in the Bible, which clearly states its opposition to homosexuality. Thus, this stance can be dictated to all of Christianity and those who oppose it are not true Christians.

Again, got no problem with that. I ain't in the business of telling people what they should or shouldn't believe. My only question is: Do you have a problem with two non-christians entering into a same-sex marriage?

Not at all, as I stated in my first post in this thread, welcome to the realm of the civil union. This is no longer marriage as you have stripped away the Christian theme.

Then the government should stop calling it marriage, and only offer civil unions, while only religious institutions can offer marriages.

I could live with that. The problem with having SOME people having marriages and the others civil unions is primarily a social one, provided they're equal under the law.

Equal Protection Clause for ya.

Gays have equal rights, what don't you understand about that? Because a gay wants to "marry" another gay and can't, does not mean they are being discriminated against. I want to marry my pet hamster, but I can't, and I have accepted that.

[Soheran]

Marriage is obviously a religious institution in the US, rather than a civil one.

...

So, non-religious people are barred from marriage? Marriage licenses are issued by religious figures rather than by public officials? The extensive treatment of marriage in the law is actually... what?

The state should not be involved in the matter of determining what 'marriage' constitutes at all (Sep. of Church and State) it should be left entirely to religious organizations.

This stems from your false premise that marriage is a religious institution. It is not. It is a social institution in which both religions and the state are involved. It is the state's side of it, however, that concerns the same-sex marriage debate: civil marriage, which is already extended to the marriages of people who belong to no religion and people who don't meet certain religions' standards.

[Sagatagan]

I agree.

I hate it when this happens.

[The Black Forrest]

Slander if I ever knew it. I've been discriminated against simply because I wasn't "black" or "hispanic" because those groups of people are apparently more deserving of government aid than I am, because statistically, there are more white people that are wealthy than blacks and hispanics.

So you were picked on because you were white? So what? Racism exists everywhere. Even I faced it when a racist father yelled at his daughter because whitey wanted to go out with his daughter. It's a shame and it was her loss(mine to a degree as well) but it didn't tell me all all blacks hated white people.

Income levels decide aid. Not because there are more wealthy whites.

If you consider me thinking no groups deserves preferential treatment equates to discriminating against people, then I am guilty.

Wanting equality means getting preferential treatment? Uhm ok?..........

[The Norwegian Blue]

The biggest thing I have with this is the hypocrisy. If they donated to a Democrat politician with a liberal agenda, there would not of been a peep, but since it is to a Republican candidate with a conservative agenda, they have caused a shitstorm.

I do not really agree that corporations should be able to donate to political campaigns, but this is so such a hypocrisy, that it isn't even funny.

The hell?

It's "hypocrisy" when someone protests things they oppose while not protesting things they don't oppose? I don't think that word means what you think it means...

It is a hypocrisy, liberals have been attacking America and its culture for decades.

Please, explain how on earth this is a "hypocrisy." I suggest consulting a dictionary first, though, because you and Wa seem to be very, very confused about what "hypocrisy" entails.