1 hour ago, proton said:

Might be legal and quite just, but who can honestly say that the sight of two blokes kissing is not stomach churning? unless you are gay of course.

Thanks for the predictable dose of unabashed homophobia. Feel better?

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

Careful what you wish for, as the decision could go against you, as hopefully it would.   Marrying who you want may be equality, as it should be, and I agree with that. 

 

But forcing others to participate, nah, can't agree to that, as has nothing to do with the safety and well being of the masses, just catering to a couple.

What if it's a small town with one judge?

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

What if it's a small town with one judge?

Highly doubtful if it's the only person in the whole state that can officiate a wedding.  Pretty silly what if.

 

Personally, I'd like to see marriages no longer being a thing.  Really is a stupid concept.  Would put an end to divorces 

13 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Thanks for the predictable dose of unabashed homophobia. Feel better?

 

Disgust is not an unjustified fear

8 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Highly doubtful if it's the only person in the whole state that can officiate a wedding.  Pretty silly what if.

 

Personally, I'd like to see marriages no longer being a thing.  Really is a stupid concept.  Would put an end to divorces 

It's not silly at all for a small town! But I see you think a cheap deflection serves. Waste of time. 

5 minutes ago, proton said:

 

Disgust is not an unjustified fear

Homophobia is about hate.

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Homophobia is about hate.

 

Revulsion is not hate

3 minutes ago, proton said:

 

Revulsion is not hate

It's used an an excuse by bigots to discriminate.

8 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Homophobia is about hate.

well not according to dictionaries its not  

 

"A phobia is an intense, irrational, and persistent fear of a specific object, situation, or activity that is out of proportion to the actual danger. This type of anxiety disorder can cause a person to go to great lengths to avoid the source of their fear, which can lead to panic attacks, physical symptoms like sweating or trembling, and a significant disruption to their daily life. While anyone can have a fear, a phobia is considered a medical condition that can be debilitating. 

 

I looked at many and none mentioned hate, 

homophobia /hō″mə-fō′bē-ə/

noun

Fear, hatred, or mistrust of lesbians and gay men.

A strong dislike or fear of homosexuals, especially to an unreasonable degree.

Fear, dislike, or hate of homosexuals.

26 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

It's not silly at all for a small town! But I see you think a cheap deflection serves. Waste of time. 

No deflection, it is a silly and unrealistic scenario.

 

OK, if the "what if judge" is the only one to officiate a wedding, and they can't leave town, I guess they are ....

1. screwed, not in a good way

2. lucky they'll never know the hassle of divorce

 

Pick one, as you only allow 2 choices with your what if scenario.

 

I won't be a "Beautiful Thing" as no "Shelter" to the "Big Eden" in "God's Own Country" flying the "Red, White & Blue"

 

More like 'Dog Day Afternoon' ... 

3 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Just find someone who will, instead of suing someone who thinks differently.

That would make it impossible 

 A)  for them to cry about being a victim , and B) label somebody a bigot for daring not to like them.

     They are the only things they can moan about these days  Just like feminists, once they achieved full equality they ran out of things to whinge about. 

     They have the same rights as the rest of us now ,  but just like the rest of us , nobody should be "obliged"  to like them, or indeed like  anything else on the planet

22 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

homophobia /hō″mə-fō′bē-ə/

noun

Fear, hatred, or mistrust of lesbians and gay men.

A strong dislike or fear of homosexuals, especially to an unreasonable degree.

Fear, dislike, or hate of homosexuals.

Is there a "phobia" label to attach to those who don't like straight people ?

33 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

It's used an an excuse by bigots to discriminate.

 

Dislike is not discrimination

2 hours ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Only with farm animals.

Is this known from experience?  You seem to have alot of details about the subject.

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Take your moronic personal insults elsewhere. 

That's why I browse AN.  For me it's therapy.  

12 minutes ago, proton said:

 

Dislike is not discrimination

 

 

Dislike inevitably leads to discrimination....that's why DEI is so important in a country like the US with heavily institutionalised racism embedded in it is every fibre.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

Would put an end to divorces 

Marriage is the leading cause of divorce 🤣

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

It's not silly at all for a small town! But I see you think a cheap deflection serves. Waste of time. 

Another "agree with me or you're a bigot, maga fascist".  Your post are so predictable.

Frankly, debating with homophobes is boring and tedious as it's the same offensive trying to rationalize discrimination garbage from them for decades.

Right now the US is experiencing a wave of backtracking on gay rights.

I will post this about the politics of disgust because perhaps the idea might be new to some. 

 

How Opponents of LGBT Rights Are Exploiting the Politics of Disgust | The New Republic

www.newrepublic.com/article/123356/how-opponents-lgbt-rights-are-exploiting-politics-disgust

 

The gay marriage movement succeeded by convincing people that gay men and women just wanted to be normal. Having lost that battle, the opponents of LGBT rights have made a partial comeback by turning their focus to transgender discrimination, bringing old fears of the abnormal and the deviant back to the forefront.  

 

--

 

Beyond that, I've said what I want to say about this stupid hateful Texas ruling so I will now exit the topic.

 

Ba-bye.

 

51 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Frankly, debating with homophobes is boring and tedious as it's the same offensive trying to rationalize discrimination garbage from them for decades.

Right now the US is experiencing a wave of backtracking on gay rights.

I will post this about the politics of disgust because perhaps the idea might be new to some. 

 

How Opponents of LGBT Rights Are Exploiting the Politics of Disgust | The New Republic

www.newrepublic.com/article/123356/how-opponents-lgbt-rights-are-exploiting-politics-disgust

 

The gay marriage movement succeeded by convincing people that gay men and women just wanted to be normal. Having lost that battle, the opponents of LGBT rights have made a partial comeback by turning their focus to transgender discrimination, bringing old fears of the abnormal and the deviant back to the forefront.  

 

--

 

Beyond that, I've said what I want to say about this stupid hateful Texas ruling so I will now exit the topic.

 

Ba-bye.

 

Whoa whoa whoa, hold on, not yet ...

 

Where have y'all lost gay rights, what rights ?   You still have all of the same rights as everyone else.  Point out what rights you don't have, please.

 

What are 'gay rights' ?    You're entitled to all the rights of all men or women.  You don't get any special rights just because you're gay, bi, straight or what ever sexual preferences you have.

 

The transgender thingy is completely different.   Men are men, women are women.   There is no trans-whatever sex.  There are 2;  male & female.  And they should remain separated, in sport, and the rest rooms, showers, prisons.

2 hours ago, howlee101 said:

Is this known from experience?  You seem to have alot of details about the subject.

I have a lot of MAGA friends. Incels need love too.

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Frankly, debating with homophobes is boring and tedious as it's the same offensive trying to rationalize discrimination garbage from them for decades.

Right now the US is experiencing a wave of backtracking on gay rights.

I will post this about the politics of disgust because perhaps the idea might be new to some. 

 

How Opponents of LGBT Rights Are Exploiting the Politics of Disgust | The New Republic

www.newrepublic.com/article/123356/how-opponents-lgbt-rights-are-exploiting-politics-disgust

 

The gay marriage movement succeeded by convincing people that gay men and women just wanted to be normal. Having lost that battle, the opponents of LGBT rights have made a partial comeback by turning their focus to transgender discrimination, bringing old fears of the abnormal and the deviant back to the forefront.  

 

--

 

Beyond that, I've said what I want to say about this stupid hateful Texas ruling so I will now exit the topic.

 

Ba-bye.

 

 

Bye then

 

 

5 hours ago, connda said:

There are plenty of liberal bakers and judges and priests who would be fine with doing so. 

Exactly. So it's not about religious belief but about one person's interpretation of the bible which should never trump the law. 

 

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Very bad ruling.

Judges are there to uphold the law.

Current law (although the maga fascists are actively working to overturn that now) says same sex marriage is legal.

Judges should have no leeway on the matter.

 

Judges are not being "given leeway" on the law, they're being excused from performing marriage ceremonies on religious grounds for homosexuals.

8 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

One needs to leave their believes out of the job. If you don't want to do your job, quit. 

Perhaps they took the career before the law was introduced?

7 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

A judge has to act according to the law, if he can't do that because of his believes he needs to quit.

Electing not to "marry" a couple of homosexuals is not breaking the law.

7 hours ago, Jingthing said:

It's clearly an unconstitional ruling

No, it is, clearly, not unconstitutional; no one is preventing the homosexuals from marrying.

5 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Homophobia is about hate.

No, it is not, it is about a fear.

7 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Not necessarily.

A better analogy is would you "force" a Muslim judge to rule over a case involving pork products and expect him to be competent and objective. Yes, and if he refused he should lose his job.

 

In which case, just the appearance of impartiality should cause the judge to at least consider recusing him/her/they/themself, as there could be grounds to appeal If the porkphobic plaintiff were to win the case.