Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About eym_sirius

  • Rank
    Super Icon

Previous Fields

  • Place of Residence
    East Paulding

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. eym_sirius


    What could that possibly have to do with anything that has to do with discrimination against people, on the basis of race, age, gender, or sexual identification?
  2. eym_sirius


    Actually, you're way off target. A business does not have, as evidenced by legal precedents, the right to discriminate, to deny equal treatment to customers. The racial makeup, the social profile, the age - none of these things may be used to deny services or products. You KNOW the stories from several years ago about diners who discriminated and got sued! Refusing equal treatment based on prejudice isn't just a bad business practice - it's illegal. If you know a law that allows age, color, racial, or sexual discrimination as (what you call) a "right of business", then state it! I'm betting that you can't!
  3. eym_sirius


    A company that makes wedding cakes does not have to put two guys on the top of the cake. They can say that they don't do that, because they don't have guy-couple figures to put there. There's no discrimination if the cake company doesn't make a special accomodation that's outside of their usual offerings. However, if they refuse service to a gay couple who will put their own 2 guys on the top of the cake - That's discrimination because they offer cakes for sale to everyone but gay couples. The example of a muslim being required to prepare pork is inappropriate, since the muslim individual would not be discriminating - He doesn't offer pork to anyone! Ditto for any company's offerings. What discrimination is, is providing a product or service to one customer and refusing to provide an identical product or service to another customer, due to a prejudice against that customer. Whether an individual or couple would want to continue to seek the services of a company with bigoted, prejudicial views becomes moot after the discrimination. Just as people have been successful in bringing discrimination suits against dining establishments when the eatery refused to serve them due to their racial appearance, gay couples will be able to AND SHOULD sue the bakery that discriminated against them because of their legal union!
  4. For those who are familiar with the "Dual Survival" series: I received a note recently from Cody Lundin that said that he was separated from the Dual Survival show over safety concerns and other differences.
  5. I've always had the same name, but the avatar has changed from time to time. I saw the "escape key" pic and thought that it suited "eym_sirius" because of the break-out spirit of nonconformity. I've made some great friends, including LPPT, but I rarely get to see her or any of them anymore. It's a comfort to come back here and see that some things are still the same.
  6. If it were truly a non-issue, then the media reports would generate no conversation. The fact that we are having a discussion, and especially since the discussion includes those who say, "who cares?", indicates that it is a matter of interest. Taking a position contrary to those of your sex who do not share your sexual interests sometimes takes the form of a declaration of separation. In other words, in a multitude of ways,and for a variety of reasons, people proclaim their sexual interests by indicating that they have a difference with, in this case, gay individuals. They're not really seeking to understand gays, you see. If they were, then they would just have discussions with gay people about coming out. They'd at least do some research on the topic. To be sure, it's an insecurity, at best. At worst, the fact that they can't come to accept gay people "coming out" has to do with their own bigotry and prejudice.
  7. In the same way that some people put their sexuality on display, others put their sexual hangups/fears and perverse fantasies out there for everyone to see. Speculation about what goes on in showers, locker rooms, and behind closed doors is for those with prurient interests and related fantasies. Maybe the reason they are so quick to make jokes and disparage others is because they have unresolved issues of their own and this is the dysfunctional way they are dealing with them!
  8. What I'm wondering is "Why do you spend time thinking about other people showering in a locker room?" I think that it's not necessary to further characterize people who need to visualize such things!
  9. If your attitude is that it doesn't matter about a person's sexual orientation, because it's that person's business and nobody else's, then why do you have difficulty with the individual no longer living a lie and "coming out"? How, when, or if they choose to disclose this information should be their personal business. Let's remember, too, that this is about the information getting out on a person's own terms, instead of it being spread by the tabloids. Think that nobody cares about who is gay in sports? If nobody cared, then this would not be an issue. It is an issue, because there are people starving to get into other people's business. Some people are pervs who spend way too much time imagining the sex that other people are having. Growing up, we all saw gay people teased and picked on and snickered-about. They had a rough time of it, even those who were popular. It can't be easy. I'm willing to cut them a little slack when it comes to dealing with their sexuality. I understand that there will be people who won't cut them any slack, just like there will always be bullies and haters. But if a celebrity wants to come out instead of a tabloid press breaking a story to make millions from the disclosure, I'm fine with the individual telling his/her own story.
  10. Feelip - Did you see Tebow play? He didn't start the faux-praying thing in the pros! Praying needn't include prayer-posing. The prayer-pose was Tebow's "signature move" and it was something, from all accounts, that he did during the games, but not during practice! He didn't throw a TD pass in practice and prayer-pose! He did it for the cameras, as a way of promoting his brand!
  11. Feelip - "....his own shower and locker room"? What are you talking about? You DO know that there have always been gay football players, right? And that they've always shared locker rooms and showers? In this context can you see how your comment was nonsensical?
  12. champsbbcoach - How utterly ridiculous to compare the Tebow situation to Michael Sam being gay. Tebow made a SHOW of his christianity on the field and it's for his on the field histrionics that he was rightfully ridiculed. Sam has made NO such on-the-field dramatic show of his sexuality. It occurs to me that their situations were done for OPPOSITE reasons. Tebow made his show a DISTRACTION from what should have been his focus. Sam only made the disclosure to KEEP from it being a distraction if the issue came up during the season. One person was making an on-the-field spectacle of himself and was promoting his brand in that way. The other was simply being honest and upfront about who he was OFF the field. It was the only fair thing to do, given the circumstances.
  13. ["99% of the world COULD care less"] feelip - So only ONE percent doesn't care about this at all? Speculative opinion-percentages aside, how could you possibly know anything about the social dynamics of being gay? Have you discussed with ACTUAL gay people why they need to come out? Wouldn't that be the proper place to begin, rather to engage in speculation based on ignorance? (like this: "It appears that in the gay world...") I think that the answer lies in "intolerance". You can't just allow them to express their lives in their own terms. You have to know why they do what they do? Why can't you just accept people for who they are? This would be a bit like questioning why truckers have to have those mud-flaps with a sexy female silhouette on them. Likely, this is an expression of THEIR sexuality, but do you ever ask about THEM and why they have to display THEIR sexuality in this way? <===== Rhetorical question, because you have an intolerance for gays and an acceptance of heterosexuals who flaunt their brand.
  14. Again -- Anyone opposed to the government helping people is opposed to helping people. If people, for whatever reason, require transportation to get their kid to school - then that transportation needs to be provided or else some of our young people will not have an education and then will be a bigger burden on society, due to lost potential and higher crime rates.
  15. Are there alternatives? If the roads are driveable, then how about taking a taxi to pick up your kid? Not sure why anyone would need for their kids to be at home, as long as they're safe. But for those who think that government shouldn't be the answer - utilize private enterprise solutions, walk to the school and walk back with your child -- or wait for the government school bus to bring your child home, whenever that is.
  • Create New...