It is currently Mon Jun 25, 2018 12:24 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2645 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 129, 130, 131, 132, 133
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 1:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:37 am
Posts: 4784
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Yes, it was a remarkable sight. It wouldn't have been seen without the plebiscite, which turned out to be a remarkable own goal by the No campaign in retrospect.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 6:11 pm 
Offline
Feeling grateful
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 33401
This is so awesome I had to post it here. Of course, there is no reason why this couldn't happen with an opposite-sex couple, but it almost never would (but it should).

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2018/05/3 ... rig-js.cnn

_________________
Woods is most felt. Nice! it's gentle on your mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 6:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:07 am
Posts: 1064
Location: North Shire
Awww. That was so sweet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 10:37 pm 
Online
not something I would recommend
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:13 pm
Posts: 13149
Location: Florida
:love:

_________________
everything happens so much

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 8:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 6:01 pm
Posts: 1011
Voronwë the Faithful wrote:
Meanwhile in the U.S. the Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in a case that could legalize discrimination against gays based on "religious freedom". As usual, it will come down to what Justice Kennedy says, and he had harsh questioning for both sides (this is a case in which a baker in Colorado refused to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple).


The ruling was very carefully worded and very carefully framed. The exact ruling of the majority boils down to "The Colorado Civil Rights Commission erred by showing religious bias against the beliefs of the baker." They didn't say the baker was definitively right and they didn't say the baker was definitively wrong.

Two justices had a separate concurrence making the ruling 7-2, although the reasoning behind their separate concurrence makes me think it is 2-5-2. They actually supported the right of a baker to deny service. The two remaining in the opposition believed that the CCRC was right and have no problem with saying the baker doesn't have any religious-based right to deny service.

_________________
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
-- Samuel Adams


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2645 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 129, 130, 131, 132, 133

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group