Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Polite Political Discussion- is it Possible? An Experiment. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (52)	7/28/2006 8:52:08 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1695

I'm talking about giving state facilities to people who discriminate against protected classes. I don't agree with state support of organizations like that- and giving facilities is support, imo. Some states and localities have actually written this sort of thing in to their laws, as they should. Who here would favor a club for the junior KKK that would not admit black members, having a schoolroom to hold it's meetings? The public streets, where the KKK may march, are a different "type" of facility in the eyes of the law, and that too I agree with. When the court is less conservative, as it will be one day, the laws against gay marriage will be seen differently. I am fairly sure in time they will be viewed with the same distaste as miscegenation laws are now.

To: Ilaine who wrote (52)	7/28/2006 9:50:17 AM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1695

Seems to me that if it's legal for governments to discriminate against homosexuals, it's even more legal for non-governments to discriminate against homosexuals, except in places like San Francisco, where the law prohibits such discrimination. If you don't mind, I'd like to take issue with your statement. In the highest-court state decisions that have effectively ruled against gay marriage (including N.Y.), the whole core of the reasoning is that this does not constitute discrimination. In the N.Y. ruling it was pointed out that same-sex marriage is neither a long-standing tradition nor a fundamental right. It is perfectly fine for you to hold the opinion that it is discrimination, but that does put you at odds with some of the best legal minds in the nation. Most (probably all) of these rulings have not been unanimous. That includes Massachusetts where the vote was 3-2 in favor of gay marriage. I guess I am just saying that one should not say, in such a declaratory manner, that governments are discriminating against gays.