'Gayby boom': Children of gay couples speak out

There is no ignoring to it. As I said my property, my rules. If you want to change my rules then buy my property. Until then my proeprty, my rules.

So you believe segregation should never have been banned, willy? That is what you are saying - that the creation of forced ghettos is OK.

The soviets and the nazis agree.

TerryRC wrote:If you work for me at my private company Hacker, I can restrict many of your freedom's, including speech, search and seizure, religion and others.

Search and seizure and free speech don't apply. The property is yours. As long as YOU OK the search or don't want the speech the employee has no right (and never did). You can't make me practice your religion or fire me if I refuse, however.

Poor analogies.

There's nothing poor about them. Not all constitutional gurantees stretch into all aspects of life, including Cato's right to rent to whom he wishes as long as he takes no government money, and that was my point.

You must get lonesome up on your high horse.

that the creation of forced ghettos is OK.

Those must be OK because the Democrats sure like to keep funding them.

TerryRC wrote:There is no ignoring to it. As I said my property, my rules. If you want to change my rules then buy my property. Until then my proeprty, my rules.

So you believe segregation should never have been banned, willy? That is what you are saying - that the creation of forced ghettos is OK.

The soviets and the nazis agree.

I happen to believe that if I buy property, make that payments for it, pay the taxes on it, and pay the insurance and upkeep on it, neither you nor the politicians have the right to tall me how to use it. As I said, my property, my rules. If you don't like my rules, I'll be more than happy to sell you my property, then it will be your property, your rules.

For someone that talks about liberty, you certainly have a poor understanding of what liberty is.

For someone that talks about liberty, you certainly have a poor understanding of what liberty is.\\Sez you.

You believe that individuals should be able to get together and deny goods, services and housing to groups of their fellow citizens.

That was called Jim Crow, Willy.

You are the one that has no understanding of liberty.

In addition to the LAW (which forbids discrimination because of religious beliefs), there is a basic human right for you to have access to some of the fruits of my labor when you need it and vice versa.

It is called civilization and we have been doing it that way for better than 6000 years. If you feel that is wrong or immoral, go build a cabin in the woods with no public roads, internet, cable TV, electricity or other public utilities.

Then you can keep those gays away from the fruit of your labors and keep your moral high ground.

Good luck.

There's nothing poor about them. Not all constitutional gurantees stretch into all aspects of life, including Cato's right to rent to whom he wishes as long as he takes no government money, and that was my point.

And you missed my point.

I have no right to free speech or protection from search and seizure in a work place YOU OWN. I do in a place I RENT.

That is one way your analogy falls flat. There are others.

TerryRC wrote:For someone that talks about liberty, you certainly have a poor understanding of what liberty is.\\Sez you.

You believe that individuals should be able to get together and deny goods, services and housing to groups of their fellow citizens.

Yep Sez me. I underlined, made bold, and enlarged your assumption of what I am saying. First, you've made an assumption I have never ever even remotely stated. I guess when you have no real tangable arguement and are desperate that's as close to an arguement as you can get.

Secondly, I don't much care what anyone else does. The only property I'm concerned with is my own. I don't care what my neighbors do or who they sell or rent to. If they want to rent to a homosexual couple, it's their property and their business, not mine. If they want to rent or sell to an adulterous couple that also fine, again it's their property to do with as they please, just as my property is mine to do with as I please.

You may call the Jim Crowe, but in reality it is called liberty.

Yep Sez me. I underlined, made bold, and enlarged your assumption of what I am saying. First, you've made an assumption I have never ever even remotely stated. I guess when you have no real tangable arguement and are desperate that's as close to an arguement as you can get.

It is a straight line fact. If individuals can do it, groups of people can do it.

Even if you wouldn't, you support those that would.

I understand that liberty comes with swallowing things you may find disagreeable.

That what us grown-ups have realized.

You haven't.

...just as my property is mine to do with as I please.

Except it isn't, and I have pointed out ways that is so. Try and open a strip joint on it. Put a sign on the door that says "will rent to white christians only".

We will see about "doing as you please".

TerryRC wrote:Yep Sez me. I underlined, made bold, and enlarged your assumption of what I am saying. First, you've made an assumption I have never ever even remotely stated. I guess when you have no real tangable arguement and are desperate that's as close to an arguement as you can get.

It is a straight line fact. If individuals can do it, groups of people can do it.

Even if you wouldn't, you support those that would.

I understand that liberty comes with swallowing things you may find disagreeable.

That what us grown-ups have realized.

You haven't.

...just as my property is mine to do with as I please.

Except it isn't, and I have pointed out ways that is so. Try and open a strip joint on it. Put a sign on the door that says "will rent to white christians only".

We will see about "doing as you please".

I don't care what the law says or what you think, I won't rent or sell to an adulterous couple, homosexual couple, or unmarried couple. and that is that. I'm man enough to face the consequences for my choices, thank you very much.

Additionally, while the law, thanks to people like you, really strips me of my rights to the quiet enjoyment of my property, I happen to believe my property is mine to do with as I please.

TerryRC wrote:
I have no right to free speech or protection from search and seizure in a work place YOU OWN. I do in a place I RENT.

But the ONLY way you have that protection is AFTER you rent the place. Unless the owner accepts government money, he can refuse to rent to any person for any reason he chooses. Put your cart back behind your horse.

Terry,

Your insistance that others provide goods and services to everyone doesn't sound much like liberty to me. What I can't understand is why anyone would insist on living amoung, renting from, or working for a group or individual that dislikes them, or disapproves of them, or perhaps even hates them.

Why is it minority groups can move en masse to a location and push the majority out and that is acceptable? This has happened time and time again. Why is it OK for Bill Cosby to DEMAND a minority limo driver when he performs at Foxwoods but it wouldn't be OK for David Duke to demand a white driver?

There is a double standard in this nation.

And that double standard has created an air of entitlement in the minority community. They went from being discriminated against to having everything handed to them and if someone speaks out, they have to be a racist.

But the ONLY way you have that protection is AFTER you rent the place. Unless the owner accepts government money, he can refuse to rent to any person for any reason he chooses. Put your cart back behind your horse.

Wrong. Try and say you won't rent to somebody because they are black. Try and say you won't rent to somebody because they are a jew. See if that will fly.

The fact that you all think it would be alright to do so makes me slightly nauseous.

Take some Pepto and join the real world. If you don't take government money then you don't have to give a reason.

TerryRC wrote:But the ONLY way you have that protection is AFTER you rent the place. Unless the owner accepts government money, he can refuse to rent to any person for any reason he chooses. Put your cart back behind your horse.

Wrong. Try and say you won't rent to somebody because they are black. Try and say you won't rent to somebody because they are a jew. See if that will fly.

The fact that you all think it would be alright to do so makes me slightly nauseous.

The fact the people have the gall to use the government to force me to use my property in a manner I do not condone, makes me very angry.

The fact the people have the gall to use the government to force me to use my property in a manner I do not condone, makes me very angry.

Blame civil rights legislation.

You aren't allowed to run people that you don't like out of town any more by denying them a place to live.

Sorry. You are going to have to rub elbows with papists, jews and queers.

Don't worry. You can't catch the gay.

TerryRC wrote:The fact the people have the gall to use the government to force me to use my property in a manner I do not condone, makes me very angry.

Blame civil rights legislation.

Nope, I blame idiots like you that whine the second that pee and moan about the government being used to force religion on them and then turn have the guts to turn around and supprot laws that force me to use my property in a manner to which I choose not to. That makes you and your ilk hypocritical.

TerryRC wrote:You aren't allowed to run people that you don't like out of town any more by denying them a place to live.

Sorry. You are going to have to rub elbows with papists, jews and queers.

Is that the best you can come up with?

TerryRC wrote:[Don't worry. You can't catch the gay.

Just so you know, you can't catch religion either.

Nope, I blame idiots like you that whine the second that pee and moan about the government being used to force religion on them and then turn have the guts to turn around and supprot laws that force me to use my property in a manner to which I choose not to. That makes you and your ilk hypocritical.

Don't bring candy to class unless you bring enough for everyone. Didn't you learn that in primer school?

If you are going to rent, you must rent to ALL QUALIFIED PEOPLE THAT APPLY. You can't refuse to do surgery on blacks if you are a doctor, you can't refuse to rent a room to a gay if you are a landlord.

If you have a problem with that, find a new line of work as obviously you are more interested in being a martyr than renting rooms.

Is that the best you can come up with?

I can do way better. I'm just trying to keep it simple.

Just so you know, you can't catch religion either.

Sure you can. Many people become afraid and need someone or something to console them and hold their hand.

I prefer to turn to people for that. My cat will console me, in a pinch.

TerryRC wrote:Nope, I blame idiots like you that whine the second that pee and moan about the government being used to force religion on them and then turn have the guts to turn around and supprot laws that force me to use my property in a manner to which I choose not to. That makes you and your ilk hypocritical.

Don't bring candy to class unless you bring enough for everyone. Didn't you learn that in primer school?

If you are going to rent, you must rent to ALL QUALIFIED PEOPLE THAT APPLY. You can't refuse to do surgery on blacks if you are a doctor, you can't refuse to rent a room to a gay if you are a landlord.

If you have a problem with that, find a new line of work as obviously you are more interested in being a martyr than renting rooms.

Is that the best you can come up with?

I can do way better. I'm just trying to keep it simple.

Just so you know, you can't catch religion either.

Sure you can. Many people become afraid and need someone or something to console them and hold their hand.

I prefer to turn to people for that. My cat will console me, in a pinch.

I still ain't going to rent to a homosexual couple. And I do have a question, why have you focused on just my desire not to be forced to rent to homosexual couples. You have never said a word about the fact I choose not to rent to unmarried couples, and adulterous couples.

I still ain't going to rent to a homosexual couple. And I do have a question, why have you focused on just my desire not to be forced to rent to homosexual couples. You have never said a word about the fact I choose not to rent to unmarried couples, and adulterous couples.

Those groups aren't protected under discrimination laws. It is still stupid.

TerryRC wrote:I still ain't going to rent to a homosexual couple. And I do have a question, why have you focused on just my desire not to be forced to rent to homosexual couples. You have never said a word about the fact I choose not to rent to unmarried couples, and adulterous couples.

Those groups aren't protected under discrimination laws. It is still stupid.

So according to the politicans and you it's alright to discriminate against an adulterous couple or unmarried couple, but quite another matter to descriminate against a homosexual couple. Boy that makes world of sence.

Tell me, why should a homosexual couple be of any more value than an unmarried couple when it comes to descrimination.

So according to the politicans and you it's alright to discriminate against an adulterous couple or unmarried couple, but quite another matter to descriminate against a homosexual couple. Boy that makes world of sence.

Tell me, why should a homosexual couple be of any more value than an unmarried couple when it comes to descrimination.

I don't think "descrimination" against an unmarried couple is OK. I don't think it makes "sence".

I think it small-minded. Some people don't believe in marriage. They should still be able to find a place to live. At this point in time, however, the law doesn't recognize this.

That doesn't mean that bigots and religious crusaders are morally right, it just means that we, the people, haven't got around to dealing with you yet.

TerryRC wrote:So according to the politicans and you it's alright to discriminate against an adulterous couple or unmarried couple, but quite another matter to descriminate against a homosexual couple. Boy that makes world of sence.

Tell me, why should a homosexual couple be of any more value than an unmarried couple when it comes to descrimination.

I don't think "descrimination" against an unmarried couple is OK. I don't think it makes "sence".

I think it small-minded. Some people don't believe in marriage. They should still be able to find a place to live. At this point in time, however, the law doesn't recognize this.

That doesn't mean that bigots and religious crusaders are morally right, it just means that we, the people, haven't got around to dealing with you yet.

To borrow from Ronald Reagan, There you go again, with it's alright for you to use the force of government to make me bend to your will. Well, law or no law I won't rent to homosexual couples, adulterous couple, or unmarried couples. Additionally, I won't support any politician who votes in favor of antidiscrimiation laws. Finally, I will defend my beliefs.

...There you go again, with it's alright for you to use the force of government to make me bend to your will.

Slave owners and, later, bigots that opposed mixed marriages bitched in EXACTLY the same way...

TerryRC wrote:...There you go again, with it's alright for you to use the force of government to make me bend to your will.

Slave owners and, later, bigots that opposed mixed marriages bitched in EXACTLY the same way...