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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (848980)	4/10/2015 11:20:33 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571616

>> I find nothing wrong with the government putting my right to be free above somebody else's religious right to own me (or anybody else) as a slave. I don't, either, and the Court didn't, either. That was a highly egregious situation the only treatment for which was to escalate the rights of blacks as much as possible. However, AFAIK, no one ever made the religious argument that is applicable with gays. The religious argument in the case of blacks would have extremely difficult, likely impossible, to make. With gays, it isn't: There are some religious sects that do have strong opposition to homosexuality. And gays are not a protected class under federal law which it relates to a proprietary right to refuse service. It just isn't the same thing, legally, and I think that's where a lot of your confusion comes from.