The Post Your Thoughts of the Moment Thread 2

[mikey]

Let's all just get our thoughts straight and anticipate potential reactions to them before putting them down on paper shall we?
If everyone thinks a little before deciding to post something, we could have less clashing. It only takes one person that disagrees, and things can potentially get out of control. On the other hand, you can just not post it to begin with(if you think it might cause some conflict), or not post a disagreement and open the doors for other people to chime in.
Just please think twice is all I'm saying. Like how I had to revise this reply like four times. Words are a powerful tool and you should consider them before putting them out for everyone to read and interpret.

before you edited it I was gonna say it takes 2 people to disagree

[braix]

That made it five revisions.

[Dude]

You're all idiots.

[SlowPokemon]

this isn't even a debate.  Nobody's trying to argue a point (except for pianist, but he already retracted his stupidity, so we're good).  This should just be a friendly discussion relating to the interpretation of the constitution's first amendment

If that's what this was, I'd let this go by without commenting. But nope, this is you sharing your opinion via a clearly conservative-leaning article in a non-political thread about what you believe is an injustice to religious citizens. News flash: whether you like it or not, the decision made by the Supreme Court in June allows marriage, to a person of whatever sex, as a basic human right. Two people who decide that even though it's the law they should be able to deny people that right do not deserve to slip by. It's basic discrimination laws -- it's no different from a situation where a person's religion does not let them believe in marriage between a black person and a white person. But you wouldn't apply the same logic to that situation, would you? Pianist da Sootopolis was right to say those things, so don't try to embarrass him into shutting up.

You're all idiots.

I agree with Dude. NSM is just regressing again and I really thought everything was getting to a better place. Not even regressing -- it's stayed the same. We've just been hiding it better. Beneath the friendly exterior, it seems like there's always people who need to start drama and push their political and religious beliefs. It's not a good time for anybody.

[Dude]

So we should get rid of the toxic people?

I'm cool with that.

[mikey]

There ARE people out there who believe that marriage between a black person and white person is wrong though.  I think in THIS particular instance, the deal here is that the same sex couple does have the right to get married, but the owners of the ranch have the right to uphold their religious beliefs.  The same sex couple can still get married.  The ranch isn't saying they can't.  What they're saying, is "We can't marry you because we personally don't believe in it."  They're not being condemned for getting married.  The question here is how far religious protection goes in the eyes of the law.  To me, this instance is more similar to the muslim woman who got fired for not serving alcohol on a plane because islamic religion forbids serving of intoxicants.  And again, it's not their JOB to marry people, they just own a ranch and people ask to get married.  They're not required by law to marry anybody that asks.  I don't think it qualifies as discrimination- the reason they won't marry the couple is because it's against their beliefs, not because they hate homosexuals or are prejudiced against them.

[Olimar12345]

Slow, you're clashing law with religion.

[MaestroUGC]

Slow, you're also ignoring the fact that the Ranch owners are not obligated to host any events if they don't want to. Is it unfortunate that the couple are not going to be able to have their ceremony be hosted at their first choice, but they can't force the Ranch owners to do it. If you were having a birthday party and wanted to have it at the Library, they have every right to say no.

The reason why they said no is irrelevant, it's a private business that can refuse whatever they want to the public.

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

They can, but not on the basis of certain things outlined in anti discrimination laws, which protect against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The exception in this case is only because hosting marriages isn't a service typically provided by ranches. If the couple wanted to buy a cow or something and they said "No, you're gay and I don't want gay people buying from me", it would be a case of discrimination.

[MaestroUGC]

Secondly:

Slow, I don't appreciate the fact that you're trying to rekindle an argument that was already settled, especially one that did not concern you in the first place. You're being blatantly inflammatory and have effectively become part of the problem you described. There was no reason for you go launch into this tirade in a public manner; if you had an issue with Nocturne you should've handled it privately. This is an effective warning for intentional flame baiting and "disturbing the peace".

[K-NiGhT]

you could cut the tension on NSM with a knife

[Zunawe]

You mean an HM01.

[Dude]

Secondly:

Slow, I don't appreciate the fact that you're trying to rekindle an argument that was already settled, especially one that did not concern you in the first place. You're being blatantly inflammatory and have effectively become part of the problem you described. There was no reason for you go launch into this tirade in a public manner; if you had an issue with Nocturne you should've handled it privately. This is an effective warning for intentional flame baiting and "disturbing the peace".

lol, and nocturne wasn't?

In other words, stop being a biased mod.

And also stop doing things without consulting the other mods, ffs. I've been a victim of that way too many times.

[FireArrow]

I think the issue itself has some value in discussing, but the article used to cover it was terrible. Not only was it biased, but it didn't even explain the issue or why it's controversial - it just showed a misunderstanding of the second amendment and framed gays as some kind of evil political monster (hint: they just want to be treated like any other straight couple, not some degenerate form of love.)

Just phrase it as a discussion question instead of linking an incredibly degrading and bigoted article: Should private institutions be able to choose not to marry same sex couples?

[BlackDragonSlayer]

current thought : this forum confuses the living shit out of me

you could cut the tension on NSM with a knife

what did i miss