StrangeSox Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 surrogate mothers are just like puppy mills? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 21, 2014 -> 07:15 AM) surrogate mothers are just like puppy mills? No. Surrogate mothers of humans are far more important of a subject. Which is why it is odd that puppy mills would be more regulated than surrogate mothers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 And Surrogacy Makes 3 In New York, a Push for Compensated Surrogacy Tex, I think your claims that puppy mills are "more regulated" than human babies or surrogacy is pretty dubious. I'm also unsure as to what you'd like to see regulated that currently isn't, or how that relates to the pretty clear anti-LGBT intentions of the proposed Kansas bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Of course puppy mills are more regulated. Last time I checked you cant ask a female/male dog if they are okay with the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Tex, you don't have a hoo-ha and are not liberal ENOUGH to have a valid opinion about anything relating to women (birth control, abortion, motherhood, etc.) so give it up now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Great post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Congrats to Kansas on making up ground. The Tea Party challenger to Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) in Kansas posted on Facebook graphic x-ray images of deceased patients who suffered serious injuries and poked fun at the images, the Topeka Capital-Journal reported on Saturday. Dr. Milton Wolf, a radiologist, told the Capital-Journal that the images were uploaded legally. Wolf's personal Facebook account, where he published the x-rays, was disabled when he launched his bid for Senate. Wolf would not say whether he continued to post such images to social media sites. "I'm not going to play these kinds of gotcha games," he told the Capital-Journal. Wolf posted a 3D image of a gunshot wound to a victim's head according to excerpts published by the Capital-Journal. When one commenter asked why the head wasn't straight on the image, Wolf wrote, "it's not like the patient was going to complain." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted February 24, 2014 Author Share Posted February 24, 2014 (edited) I was reading in our Catholic diocese newspaper a column on the weird law they were trying to pass that would allow businesses to not serve gays in bars, restaurants, movie theatres etc., on religious grounds. Our bishop, who wrote the column, said the law was getting a bad rap and it only had to do with businesses having the right to refuse service at the actual gay persons' wedding and wedding reception. Like you had the right to refuse to be their provider of flowers. Or you could decline renting them your restaurant for the rehearsal dinner. Now if this is the law, I think I'd still be against it. But the bishop's point was that if a flower provider is all worked up against gay marriage he/she shouldn't have to provide the flowers. As the bishop wrote, it's not like there aren't plenty of flower shops willing to provide. At any rate, somebody is wrong here. The bishop maintains this law is only about actual gay marriage ceremonies and the wedding receptions and refusal of service. He stated the Catholic position on gay relations is that it is not right; he didn't call it a sin, but I think it is classified as a sin. He said that all Catholics should treat gays with respect and allow them the same amenities in life as heteros (except for flowers and food at weddings if there are businesses refusing to provide under religious objections). Edited February 24, 2014 by greg775 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I was reading in our Catholic diocese newspaper a column on the weird law they were trying to pass that would allow businesses to not serve gays in bars, restaurants, movie theatres etc., on religious grounds. Our bishop, who wrote the column, said the law was getting a bad rap and it only had to do with businesses having the right to refuse service at the actual gay persons' wedding and wedding reception. Like you had the right to refuse to be their provider of flowers. Or you could decline renting them your restaurant for the rehearsal dinner. Now if this is the law, I think I'd still be against it. But the bishop's point was that if a flower provider is all worked up against gay marriage he/she shouldn't have to provide the flowers. As the bishop wrote, it's not like there aren't plenty of flower shops willing to provide. At any rate, somebody is wrong here. The bishop maintains this law is only about actual gay marriage ceremonies and the wedding receptions and refusal of service. He stated the Catholic position on gay relations is that it is not right; he didn't call it a sin, but I think it is classified as a sin. He said that all Catholics should treat gays with respect and allow them the same amenities in life as heteros (except for flowers and food at weddings if there are businesses refusing to provide under religious objections). What do you think Pope Francis would advise a Catholic florist to do if (s)he was asked to provide flowers for a gay wedding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted February 24, 2014 Author Share Posted February 24, 2014 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Feb 24, 2014 -> 01:49 PM) What do you think Pope Francis would advise a Catholic florist to do if (s)he was asked to provide flowers for a gay wedding? To go ahead and provide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 23, 2014 -> 03:05 PM) Congrats to Kansas on making up ground. "I'm not going to play these kinds of gotcha games," haha, what a dumbass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 21, 2014 -> 01:54 PM) And Surrogacy Makes 3 In New York, a Push for Compensated Surrogacy Tex, I think your claims that puppy mills are "more regulated" than human babies or surrogacy is pretty dubious. I'm also unsure as to what you'd like to see regulated that currently isn't, or how that relates to the pretty clear anti-LGBT intentions of the proposed Kansas bill. If I didn't state it earlier, I was not in favor or against the Kansas bill, I have not read it. My specific comment was the industry needs to be reviewed for possible regulations to avoid problems. The point I was raising is that the surrogate mother industry is growing and it would be a good idea now, rather than later, to look at the many implications it has. Last year there was a sperm donor who did not go through a medical doctor who was sued by the state for child support. After all it is his child. The current laws did not seem to cover this disagreement. So if you decide to hire a surrogate on the cheap and not go through a medical doctor, perhaps just have the client have sex with the surrogate, can they be arrested for prostitution? If a gay couple decides to use a surrogate, can the non sperm donor avoid child support later? There will be many more issues in the coming years and I believe we should try to be ahead of these issues not reacting as situations happen. If a surrogate mother involves herself in a legal activity that could potentially harm the baby, could the surrogate be sued and for what? Alpha, you make a great point, but as you know, we do request that male lawmakers vote on these issues. I believe my examples have concerns for both men and women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Feb 24, 2014 -> 06:49 AM) What do you think Pope Francis would advise a Catholic florist to do if (s)he was asked to provide flowers for a gay wedding? What should Hobby Lobby do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Georgia and Arizona are getting in on the fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted February 26, 2014 Author Share Posted February 26, 2014 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 05:03 AM) Georgia and Arizona are getting in on the fun! If our bishop is right, the journalists are wrong. Like I said, he said this only applies to actual wedding ceremonies, not going to the movies, dining out, etc. I hate reading legalese in bills so I haven't scoured the Kansas law to see if our bishop is right or the appalled newspaper writers. Wonder if the Georgia and Arizona laws are also only about wedding ceremonies/receptions. Edited February 26, 2014 by greg775 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 (edited) QUOTE (greg775 @ Feb 25, 2014 -> 11:32 PM) If our bishop is right, the journalists are wrong. Like I said, he said this only applies to actual wedding ceremonies, not going to the movies, dining out, etc. I hate reading legalese in bills so I haven't scoured the Kansas law to see if our bishop is right or the appalled newspaper writers. Wonder if the Georgia and Arizona laws are also only about wedding ceremonies/receptions. Your bishop is lying. Weddings are a part of the bill. General discrimination is the rest. This makes it so that even if a couple gets married in another state, businesses need not recognize them as married in Kansas. http://kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measu...453_01_0000.pdf Edited February 26, 2014 by Quinarvy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 What should Hobby Lobby do? Hobby Lobby is a private, for-profit company. I don't support their right to refuse to serve certain customers or refuse to provide health care plans that cover contraception for religious reasons. On the other hand, if you are an actual religiously-affiliated non-profit organization, such as a church/university/charity, I 100% support your right to do either of those things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 07:01 AM) Hobby Lobby is a private, for-profit company. I don't support their right to refuse to serve certain customers or refuse to provide health care plans that cover contraception for religious reasons. On the other hand, if you are an actual religiously-affiliated non-profit organization, such as a church/university/charity, I 100% support your right to do either of those things. If they do not refuse should they lose their exemption from the health care provisions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 If they do not refuse should they lose their exemption from the health care provisions? Not sure I understand the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I was just thinking if Hobby Lobby doesn't refuse service to gay people, should they be allowed to keep their religious based exemption from offering birth control? Isn't that having it both ways? It's easy to take a stance that will cut costs and increase profits, giving you an edge against the competition. It's another thing to take a stance that will hurt sales, lowering profits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I was just thinking if Hobby Lobby doesn't refuse service to gay people, should they be allowed to keep their religious based exemption from offering birth control? Isn't that having it both ways? It's easy to take a stance that will cut costs and increase profits, giving you an edge against the competition. It's another thing to take a stance that will hurt sales, lowering profits. I don't think Hobby Lobby should get the exemption in the first place, unless they've reorganized as a non-profit and I missed it. However, I don't necessarily find it hypocritical that they asked for the religious exemption yet don't refuse to serve gay people. They are a big box retailer--it's not like they are being solicited to create specific items for a gay wedding in the way that florists, bakeries, etc., are. They just have customers walking into stores and buying things, and it's not practical to ask every customer whether or not they are gay, using birth control, or whatever other things their particular religion is against. Not that it matters a lot, but just to clarify, the only thing that comes under the government's definition of "birth control" that Hobby Lobby and many others object to is the morning after pill, which actually works post-conception. Most protestant churches have no objection to pre-conception birth control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Would we be having this conversation if a Jewish baker refused to bake a cake for Hitler's birthday for a group of skinheads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 10:15 AM) Would we be having this conversation if a Jewish baker refused to bake a cake for Hitler's birthday for a group of skinheads? The better question is would we draft a law that specifically states Jews dont have to provide services for Skinheads? The answer is no. This law is unnecessary. You can already deny service to anyone for any reason provided that they are not a protected class. Last I checked gay people are not a protected class, so the question is, why is Kansas wasting their tax payer money on this bill? The law is nothing but hate, its to make people feel unwelcome. Its classic tyranny of the majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 10:29 AM) The better question is would we draft a law that specifically states Jews dont have to provide services for Skinheads? The answer is no. This law is unnecessary. You can already deny service to anyone for any reason provided that they are not a protected class. Last I checked gay people are not a protected class, so the question is, why is Kansas wasting their tax payer money on this bill? The law is nothing but hate, its to make people feel unwelcome. Its classic tyranny of the majority. Is it under their state law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 26, 2014 -> 12:24 PM) Is it under their state law? LOL, you're kidding right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts