zoocrew

Well said.

What started out as a report on the very rich turned into a remarkable insight into the very real dangers of a plutocracy, a situation we are nearing. My link

I've never voted Labor Party either. Gay marriage is a human rights issue, neither liberal nor conservative. It's about doing the right thing.

I'm as much a part of the conservative party as most Yanks and yet I somehow wouldn't be allowed a Maggie Thatcher's table?

How is that a personal attack? Doesn't everyone have the right to believe as they want? Or is it only your interpretation that gets official approval? How is your view any different than that of the Taliban?

I think you will like what he has to say.

"Your laws" in the sense that they are based on your religious view and you refuse to work to make the laws reflective of the entire demographic. Would you vote to make homosexuality a crime? No? But you won't give them the right to marry as they wish? Why is that?

I think we all know Guard Dad would not hire a gay person if he were an employer. He won't even answer the question that gives ONE single compelling reason the state has to prevent gay couples from entering a contract.

The court struck down DOMA because it was unfair to gay couples. Are you saying the court was wrong? Are you saying DOMA was fair to gay couples? Why won't you answer the question? Do you think homosexuality should be a crime? Do you think gays should not be allowed to vote? Would you hire a gay person if you were an employer? Would you offer a gay person spousal benefits like a married straight couple?

The court disagrees with your idea. So would you hire a gay person if you were an employer? Would you fire someone if you found out they were gay?

The Lemon Test says otherwise. Please answer your objection to the Lemon Test. The Lemon Test says there must be a compelling secular interest for a law and not primarily a religious reason or it is unconstituitional.

Again you did not answer the question. Why? What compelling reason does the state have to stop gay couples from marrying. Give one. Just one. If you cannot, why not? Do you have an answer for the Lemon Test? Why is it I have know more about your laws than you do?

The court agrees it is discrimination. Are you disagreeing with the court? Why is it you say it is not discrimination when sane and reasonable people can plainly see that treating gay couples differently is discrimination? Why won't you answer the questions? Why do object to Muslim laws in place but not your own religious views in the laws? Don't you see why many people would say that is hypocritical?

According to Guard Dad, gay couples should be discriminated against and the courts were wrong about these rulings. Segregation was wrong. Slavery was wrong. Trail by fire was wrong. One day discrimination against gay people will go the same way as these.

Not at all. Murder is not allowed in any culture. Why are you saying Christianity is The Superior Religion? I'm sorry but you are very bigoted. You still have not given a single compelling reason why government shouldn't allow gay people to marry. I didn't expect you would. You also know (or should know) that the Lemon Test demands a law not have as its primary focus a religious reason. Since the Lemon Test destroys your argument, you have lost the discussion. As usual. Other groups interpret that much differently. Why are you so insistent on your view being the one governmen

Would you say that a local ordinance that required all women to wear the veil as Allah commanded is a valid law? Would you support a local ordinance that forbids girls from being educated because some Christian groups say women shouldn't be educated? Would you support a state law that says no blacks may join a white congregation of any faith? Why not? The same argument you're giving to oppose gay rights is the same one others would use in these examples. Again, I ask AGAIN, give ONE REASON that is not religious based for the state to prohibit gays from entering the marriage contract. I've

But the Constitution prohibits religious laws from being implemented. That is EXACTLY what the pastor was talking about. The Bible was used to support segregation and is now being used to support disrimination against gays. For a state law to be valid, it must be in accord witht he US Constitution regarding equal protection. That is secondary school civics and everyone knows that and it has taken along time for enough people to finally challenge the discrimination practise. I ask you again: give one reason that would be compelling enough for the state to prohibit gays from equal protection

Then give ONE REASON why the government should NOT allow gays the right to marry? Just one compelling reason? Other than your religious reasons, why? And you're wrong about what we're discussing. The very first post was about the pastor position on the proposal for gay spousal benefits. This is not spin. The same religious arguments used to support segregation are being used to support discrimination against homosexuals. The crown has no place in that whatsoever.

The chef at Hot Hot Fish Club My link in Birmingham was on Iron Chef and beat Bobby Flay in head-to-head competition. If you've ever had the pleasure of eating there, you will understand the honor given to him.

That's YOUR interpretation. Why do you want YOUR interpretation to be used in government but not Muslim faith that sees some matters differently? Why is YOUR interpretation about those things cited valid and not another's interpretation?

Who is being ugly to Christians? I'm only asking, like the pastor in the video, why some people use the exact same arguments about the government sponsoring segregation as they use to have the government sponsor discrimination against gays. And it is not Christianity but SOME VERSIONS of Christianity. Not all Christians believe in that form of discrimination just like many Christians fought said the Bible condemned slavery while others said God was all for it; while some Christians said the Bible supported segregation, other Christians said it did not; and likewise, today, many Christians see

You need to try it. Just once. Try Empire State South. My link Or Woodfire Grille. My link Babette's Cafe has a low priced fixed menu. VERY good. My link

Capital Grille is very good. I'm not taking anything away from such a fine establishment. However, I would encourage you to indulge just once and get the Tastings Menu at a place like Aria, or Eugene's, or even Babette's Cafe. You will not, not, not be disappointed.