California bill would shield churches from performing gay marriage ceremonies

Judged:

6

5

5

Unalinea wrote:

I propose stricter disclosure laws, including disclosure of a candidates sexual orientation.

Judged:

6

5

5

dances with weebles wrote:

<quoted text>
i have to chuckle every time i hear that term used in relation to that particular political arm of the right.*grin*

Judged:

6

6

6

WasteWater wrote:

<quoted text>
OMG. You must really hate freedom. Why not move to a more oppressive country? How about Iran?

Judged:

6

6

5

Unalinea wrote:

<quoted text>
Has NOTHING to do with freedom; it is every voters right to know certain things about the candidates one has to chose between.

Judged:

6

5

5

Unalinea wrote:

<quoted text>
Has NOTHING to do with freedom; it is every voters right to know certain things about the candidates one has to chose between.

Judged:

6

6

6

WasteWater wrote:

<quoted text>
Sexual orientation is a personal matter. You advocate infringing on the freedom to enjoy privacy.

Judged:

6

6

6

snyper wrote:

There is NO legal requirement for ANY church to perform it's ceremonies for non-members.
Anyone who says differently is blatantly lying.
This Law is completely unnecessary AND unconstitutional.

Judged:

6

6

5

WasteWater wrote:

<quoted text>
OMG. You must really hate freedom. Why not move to a more oppressive country? How about Iran?

Judged:

7

6

6

luv Sarah Palin wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh but you want to change all that because your war against the church of God will never end and knows no limits.
Any law that protects us is needed and we must ready ourselves for a long legal and political battle which we are more than ready for and will win.

Judged:

7

6

6

Unalinea wrote:

<quoted text>
If sexual orientation were such a deeply personal matter you would not be on this forum discussing and promoting it.
Any political candidate that does not disclose his homosexuality, and is voted into office, and then votes in favor of laws that promote homosexuality that are detrimental to the good of society, is guilty of being a deceitful trojan horse.

Judged:

7

6

6

Unalinea wrote:

<quoted text>
If sexual orientation were such a deeply personal matter you would not be on this forum discussing and promoting it.
Any political candidate that does not disclose his homosexuality, and is voted into office, and then votes in favor of laws that promote homosexuality that are detrimental to the good of society, is guilty of being a deceitful trojan horse.

Judged:

7

6

6

dances with weebles wrote:

<quoted text>
um... what about homosexuality is 'detrimental to the good of society'?
what about a person's sexual orientation is anybody else's business.
what about anybody else's sex life is anyone else's business.
do you really think that it was worth destroying the international reputation of the united states because bill clinton got a blowjob and lewinsky couldn't bring herself to swallow? do you honestly believe that was anybody else's business? if you do, then you're a complete dimwit.
the only time bringing up someone's sexual orientation is when they make themselves a public nuisance by promoting the orientation which is exactly the opposite of what they are... you know... like ted haggard did.

Judged:

8

7

7

Unalinea wrote:

<quoted text>
If sexual orientation were such a deeply personal matter you would not be on this forum discussing and promoting it.
Any political candidate that does not disclose his homosexuality, and is voted into office, and then votes in favor of laws that promote homosexuality that are detrimental to the good of society, is guilty of being a deceitful trojan horse.

Judged:

6

5

5

RnL2008 wrote:

No matter how much protection is given to Religious organizations(i.e. The Church and the Clergy) with regard to this subject......IT WILL NEVER BE GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE ANTI-GAY FOLKS because they will NEVER see it protecting the florist, or the photographer or the county clerk who AREN'T A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION!!!!
However, if a Gay or Lesbian business owner was to discriminate against these anti-gay folks based on the religious beliefs of the Business Owner.......these same folks would be screaming bloody murder and suing.
It's like screaming ACTIVIST JUDGES when the Judge doesn't rule their way.....but praising the Judge for doing his/her job if they rule in their favor!!!

Judged:

6

6

6

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
Correct.

Judged:

6

5

5

dances with weebles wrote:

<quoted text>
in brasil medical and dental procedures cost about 1/6 of what they do in the u.s. and in many cases are highly superior in quality. i was talking to a dear friend who is a dentist and asked her the reason for this phenomenon and she replied that one major reason is that doctors of any kind don't have to carry mal-practice insurance as nobody in their right mind would ever sue someone who was protecting their health, or attempting to save their life. they also realise that medical professionals are humans, also... not gods.

Judged:

2

2

1

RnL2008 wrote:

No matter how much protection is given to Religious organizations(i.e. The Church and the Clergy) with regard to this subject......IT WILL NEVER BE GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE ANTI-GAY FOLKS because they will NEVER see it protecting the florist, or the photographer or the county clerk who AREN'T A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION!!!!
However, if a Gay or Lesbian business owner was to discriminate against these anti-gay folks based on the religious beliefs of the Business Owner.......these same folks would be screaming bloody murder and suing.
It's like screaming ACTIVIST JUDGES when the Judge doesn't rule their way.....but praising the Judge for doing his/her job if they rule in their favor!!!

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes I definitely agree that Congress-care has serious deficiencies, mostly through "too many cooks spoil the broth".
When I think of the possible shape of national healthcare, I am reminded of something that I heard on the show "The West Wing" (Season7 Episode7), and that no one has seen fit to upload to YouTube. I remember it because it seemed incredible to me, but it seems that the writers had done their homework.
During the Santos/Vinick debate the issue came up, and Santos commented that national healthcare could be immediately established by simple removing "65 and over" from the medicare law. He further goes on to compare the average overhead cost percentage of every dollar spent by the insurance companies, with that spent by the Medicare branch of the Social Security Administration. The difference was astonishing.
Of course, he didn't address the economic and social impact of the instantaneous destruction of an entire insurance industry and it's global investments. All those employees, those local brokers and adjustors, secretaries and it personnel, suddenly thrown out of work; only a few of which would ever be absorbed into the enlarged medicare administration. The banks' investment and fund managers suddenly without all those transactions to "dip their beaks" into. All those grannies whose private pensions depending on stock in all those companies.
Also of course, nobody addressed the essentially same concerns as Republican and republican-type business executives shipped millions of jobs overseas. Nobody discussed who would have any money to buy their products when nobody had any employment anymore.
How many would lose their employment and ability to care for their families ... for themselves? How many would be left with no way to buy insurance for themselves and their children and their parents ... AND no employers to buy it for them?
I hear the rightwingers and their teabagger puppets complaining about Government caring for general welfare of it's people, when they have created a situation in which it has no other moral choice.
I hear them ranting against people coming together in collective associations (unions) to argue for the ability to care for themselves and their families, all the while they in THEIR collective associations (corporations), have worked assiduously to disassemble the means of those families for self-support ... and even the freedom to bargain collectively. Apparently no one has such rights to association but themselves.
We've built a real pickle for ourselves.
Polarization isn't always the best course.
Still ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Judged:

1

Unalinea wrote:

<quoted text>
If sexual orientation were such a deeply personal matter you would not be on this forum discussing and promoting it.
Any political candidate that does not disclose his homosexuality, and is voted into office, and then votes in favor of laws that promote homosexuality that are detrimental to the good of society, is guilty of being a deceitful trojan horse.