Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help



Go Back   PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Discussions > Off-Topic Discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #256  
Old 08-09-2010, 12:52 PM
JollyRoger's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerry View Post
Quite frankly, I don't believe a word of that story. Some evidence supporting it might convince me to change my opinion. The simple fact that they were asking their employees to reveal their sexual orientation is a red flag in and of itself.
I think the lawyers would have gotten rich on that policy.
First off, it would have been so played up by The Right Wing Media Machine, we all would have heard of it. Second, what he is describing is a bank engaging in illegal activities, it is illegal to require a bank employee to fraudulently do anything, nevermind fraudulently describe their sexual orientation, it wouldn't just be lawyers all over it, it would be the cops. It is a false story meant to incite bigotry and hatred of homosexuals. I am disgusted and revolted by it.

Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old 08-09-2010, 12:53 PM
JollyRoger's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTUpower View Post
Society is better off when offspring have a family- and that means a mother and a father who stick together and raise the offspring to become productive, educated, responsible adults. Since gays cannot have offspring they should not be allowed to have the advantages that those who "sacrifice" and do marry and stick together and have offspring is the thinking and view for most.
This is changed by allowing adoption by gays who otherwise fit the criteria for responsible adults wanting offspring.
As an adopted child myself I'm glad I was not raised by a gay couple, but I'd have rather been raised by a gay couple than live in foster homes. I could care less if a person is gay, straight or bi as an adult. I rather like gays in that they seem to have a personality trait that appeals to me, and I've been mistaken by straight folks as gay many times. I think if I was raised by a gay couple the mannerisms and habits that most can detect with "gaydar" would have been passed/taught to me- and in the current world we live in it would be a disadvantage. Again, I have no desire to have be anything but straight, but do not care what anyone does sexually with willing partners.
I'm not sure where this leads me to, but I think "marriage" should be for heterosexual couples. Let gays have civil unions with all the same benefits as marriage but do not call it marriage. Married couples without kids should not have the benefits as those married with offspring IMHO.
So, old people and childless people should not be allowed to marry, then? I would suggest you read up on the 14th Amendment and it's little "we are all equal before the law part".
Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 08-09-2010, 12:55 PM
JollyRoger's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by retmil46 View Post
Your choice. The person that related that "story" to me is a close personal friend, and over the years I've never had reason to doubt his word.

My friend didn't leave solely due to this announced policy - in his own words, this was the last straw after a string of questionable business and personnel decisions by the same firm - that this last announced change confirmed in his mind he was working for "a bunch of half-baked morons that sooner or later would drive the company into bankruptcy".

I will give you one clue - his bankruptcy prediction proved correct.

They weren't asking them to reveal their sexual orientation per se - only stating that those who were self-proclaimed homosexuals would be given preference, and strongly "suggesting" that if anyone else wanted to better their chances of being promoted, letting the company know of their homosexual orientation on their own recognizance would be one way to do so.

As I stated, my friend left the firm immediately thereafter - it could have been that afterwards there were enough howls of protest, and as you said enough potential for several lawyer's paydays and threatened legal action, that wiser heads prevailed and the proposed promotion policy arrived stillborn.
You insult our intelligence with such a preposterous story. You are also now giving us two different versions - in one they are supposed to lie that they are homosexuals, and here merely state something if they are homosexual. Preposterous.

Last edited by JollyRoger; 08-09-2010 at 01:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 08-09-2010, 01:15 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 7,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by JollyRoger View Post
So, old people and childless people should not be allowed to marry, then? I would suggest you read up on the 14th Amendment and it's little "we are all equal before the law part".
Take your words out of my mouth- they stink.

Take and pass a reading comprehension course and get back to us before you ever post again, please.

When you pass it then tell us why single folks do not meet your standard of your interpretation of the 14th.
Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old 08-09-2010, 01:21 PM
JollyRoger's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 48
If marriage is only for those who can procreate, well then, according to the 14th, if homosexuals cannot marry on those grounds, then the old and the childless, well, they are just out of luck, ain't they?
Reply With Quote
  #261  
Old 08-09-2010, 02:02 PM
aklim's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Location: Greenfield WI, USA
Posts: 8,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by JollyRoger View Post
If marriage is only for those who can procreate, well then, according to the 14th, if homosexuals cannot marry on those grounds, then the old and the childless, well, they are just out of luck, ain't they?
You forgot about the sterile and childless by choice. Under this thought, you'd probably have to sign a contract that has you procreating by X number of years. Failure to do so could result in you two being separated and redistributed to others who are able and willing to procreate.
__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 08-12-2010, 11:59 PM
davidmash's Avatar
Supercalifragilisticexpia
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 53,034
Prop 8 stay ends next week, setting stage for California gay marriage.

Prop 8 ban set to end

About bloody time.
__________________
Sent from an agnostic abacus

2014 C250 21,XXX my new DD ** 2013 GLK 350 18,000 Wife's new DD**

- With out god, life is everything.
- God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on..." Neil DeGrasse Tyson
- You can pray for me, I'll think for you.
- When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 08-16-2010, 09:19 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Cape Cod Massachusetts
Posts: 1,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidmash View Post
Prop 8 stay ends next week, setting stage for California gay marriage.

Prop 8 ban set to end

About bloody time.
Premature Nuptulator!

Not so fast boys and boys or girls and girls or whatever and whatever!

Court halts Calif. gay marriages pending appeal


SAN FRANCISCO – A federal appeals court put same-sex weddings in California on hold indefinitely Monday while it considers the constitutionality of the state's gay marriage ban.
The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, trumped a lower court judge's order that would have allowed county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Wednesday.


Lawyers for the two gay couples that challenged the ban said Monday they would not appeal the panel's decision on the stay to the U.S. Supreme Court. They said they were satisfied the appeals court had agreed to expedite its consideration of the Proposition 8 case by scheduling oral arguments for the week of Dec. 6.
"We are very gratified that the 9th Circuit has recognized the importance and the pressing nature of this case by issuing this extremely expedited briefing schedule," said Ted Boutrous, a member of the plaintiffs' legal team. "Proposition 8 harms gay and lesbian citizens every day it remains on the books."
Attorneys for sponsors of the voter-approved measure applauded the decision. In seeking the emergency stay, they had argued that sanctioning same-sex unions while the case was on appeal would create legal chaos if the ban is eventually upheld.
"I think the basic notion that this case is not final until it's gone through the complete appellate process really prevailed," said Douglas Napier, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal firm.
"Rather than have this kind of pingpong effect of having the decision overturned, appealed and then overturned again, it's better to have this kind of decision," he said.
Under the timetable laid out Monday, it was doubtful a decision would come down from the 9th Circuit before next year.
A different three-judge panel than the one that issued Monday's decision will be assigned to decide the constitutional question that many believe will eventually end up before the Supreme Court and further delay a final outcome.
County clerks throughout the state had been preparing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples for the first time since Proposition 8 passed in November 2008. The measure amended the California Constitution to overrule a state Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex unions earlier that year.
"I'm sad, but I'm also glad that I didn't pay the $100 to reserve an appointment at the clerk's office," said Thea Lavin, 31, of San Francisco, who had planned to wed her partner, Jess Gabbert, 30, if the stay were denied. "This has happened so many times before where we take two steps forward, one step back."
Chief U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker had ordered state officials to stop enforcing Proposition 8 beginning late Wednesday afternoon after ruling Aug. 4 that the ban violated the equal protection and due process rights of gays and lesbians guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.
The ban's backers appealed that ruling and also asked the 9th Circuit to block same-sex weddings in the meantime. They claimed in papers filed with the 9th Circuit that gay marriages would harm the state's interest in promoting responsible procreation through heterosexual marriage.
Lawyers for two same-sex couples had joined with California Attorney General Jerry Brown in urging the appeals court to allow the weddings this week, arguing that keeping the ban in place any longer would harm the civil rights of gays and lesbians.
In a two-page order granting the stay, the appeals court panel did not indicate why it was keeping Proposition 8 in effect until it could consider the appeal of Walker's verdict.
But it ordered Proposition 8 sponsors to address in their opening brief due Sept. 17 whether they even have the legal right to try to have the trial judge's ruling overturned. Both California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Attorney General Jerry Brown, the original defendants in the case, have said they support same-sex marriage and refused to defend Proposition 8 in court.
Walker presided over a 13-day trial earlier this year that was the first in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married without violating the constitutional guarantee of equality.
Currently, same-sex couples can legally wed only in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 08-16-2010, 11:52 PM
davidmash's Avatar
Supercalifragilisticexpia
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 53,034
I saw that. Very disappointing but at least the court set an expedited time table for the the case. With any luck the the circuit will uphold the decision by Jan and we can move on to the SCOTUS.
__________________
Sent from an agnostic abacus

2014 C250 21,XXX my new DD ** 2013 GLK 350 18,000 Wife's new DD**

- With out god, life is everything.
- God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on..." Neil DeGrasse Tyson
- You can pray for me, I'll think for you.
- When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 08-17-2010, 12:12 AM
MTI's Avatar
MTI MTI is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Posts: 10,626
It ain't over till it's over
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 08-17-2010, 08:27 PM
davidmash's Avatar
Supercalifragilisticexpia
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 53,034
Looks like there might not even be decision on the merits of the case. The 9th said they need for the proponents of Prop 8 to prove they have standing to appeal the case. If the court determines that the proponents have no standing, then the court will not even look at the appeal.
__________________
Sent from an agnostic abacus

2014 C250 21,XXX my new DD ** 2013 GLK 350 18,000 Wife's new DD**

- With out god, life is everything.
- God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on..." Neil DeGrasse Tyson
- You can pray for me, I'll think for you.
- When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 08-17-2010, 08:44 PM
MTI's Avatar
MTI MTI is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Posts: 10,626
The briefs on the issue of standing may be interesting; the original action was brought against the State of California, so unless the state files the appeal, or allows the pro-Prop 8 folks to appear as intervenors . . . they might not be the proper parties to file any appeal to the 9th Cir.
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 08-18-2010, 01:00 AM
davidmash's Avatar
Supercalifragilisticexpia
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 53,034
I love the fact that neither Schwarzenegger nor Brown are willing to represent Prop 8.

I'm read that the opponents of Prop 8 are hoping that standing is not granted to the proponents of Prop 8. If standing is not granted, the case dies, marriage is allowed in CA and could spread to the rest of the country and they avoid the risk of loosing at the SCOUS.
__________________
Sent from an agnostic abacus

2014 C250 21,XXX my new DD ** 2013 GLK 350 18,000 Wife's new DD**

- With out god, life is everything.
- God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on..." Neil DeGrasse Tyson
- You can pray for me, I'll think for you.
- When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 08-18-2010, 01:04 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Cape Cod Massachusetts
Posts: 1,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidmash View Post
I love the fact that neither Schwarzenegger nor Brown are willing to represent Prop 8.

I'm read that the opponents of Prop 8 are hoping that standing is not granted to the proponents of Prop 8. If standing is not granted, the case dies, marriage is allowed in CA and could spread to the rest of the country and they avoid the risk of loosing at the SCOUS.
Both will be gone come January!
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 08-18-2010, 10:40 AM
MTI's Avatar
MTI MTI is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Posts: 10,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybob View Post
Both will be gone come January!
Not really germane to the thread, the appeal documents are due in September, elections are in November.

Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2024 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page