It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: nixie_nox
So using procreation to deny homosexuality being a natural phenomenon because they can't procreate is extremely ignorant.
originally posted by: nixie_nox
Businesses, even Texan ones, do not have the right to discriminate against clientele that are a protected class.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
Unless you want tax breaks or have joint ownership and transfer of property after death to your spouse.
My mother is recently widowed and I filled out the homestead exemption for their home to which it is lowered by $500 because of widow status.
If their marriage wasn't legally recognized by the state then she wouldn't get that. On a federal level my father was a veteran so she qualifies for what is called aid and attendance she also now receives his SS checks because his was a larger sum.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
So let me ask you how do you propose to eliminate government from marriage in those instances? Maybe I am not understanding your meaning when you say govt has no business dealing with marriage. Are you saying the govt should recognize any person or couple who says they are married or were married on their word?
originally posted by: alienjuggalo
'Big Earls" restaurant in Pittsburgh Texas banned a gay couple from ever returning to eat there because they "only serve men who act like men".
The server "Big Earls daughter" cited a sign on the door saying that the establishment reserves “the right to refuse service to anyone,” prohibits “baggy pants,” and requires that “men act like men and women act like ladies.
she also told them "we don't like fags"
Big Earl says blacks, hispanics and homosexuals are all welcome to eat there saying the public display of affection "rubbing legs together" got them banned.
After their facebook page blew up with people expressing their outrage big Earls had to post this
My goodness, does anyone read or study? Big Earl has spent his life in the military to defend this country and will be happy to explain the constitution to you. Earl is well versed in the Bible and Christianity, has travelled the world and is well educated. It would have been nice for the full interview to have played in order to explain the background to what caused the incidence. The quote “we don’t serve fags here” was never said, instead, after being badgered, the young lady said “We do not like fags”. The behavior portrayed by the young couple was simply inappropriate and would have been considered so no matter what sexual orientation.
link
Personally I don't get it, I know you can reserve the right to serve whoever you want but being a business owner myself I feel like gay peoples money is just as good as anyone else's.
And anyone that spends money in your establishment is a good customer and should be treated with respect.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
So when you say "remove the govt benefits" Does that mean you want to do away with my mothers SS, the ability for people to file joint taxes, Homestead exemptions, the ability to transfer property and pensions after death to your spouse, and the such?
originally posted by: Grimpachi
I asked what solution you have. It seems you are creating more problems.
originally posted by: nixie_nox
Anybody who thinks that government shouldn't be involved in marriage are sorely delusional and naïve.
Marriage is a contract. And like many contracts, disputes often end up in courts. Guess what courts are?
it is not just about a man and woman saying yes to each other. it is about inheritance, property, benefits, medical benefits, assets, businesses, taxes, and parenting.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: iosolomon
And I don't like ugly bigots who make rude comments on ATS. So, no restaurant food for you - get out.
originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: iosolomon
There was nothing to misconstrue....
You said what you said and you meant it. You assumed that you knew what this couple was like in there.
You say they were not discriminating when clearly the daughters comment shows that they were.
If you think your words were just misconstrued then leave them up so we don't have to take your word for it.
Not very tolerant of you IMO, tolerance must not be in the religion you preach all the time
Flamboyance is rude and obnoxious. You cannot argue that otherwise.
,no where does it say they were being flamboyant about it except in your pre conceived notion of the couple.
originally posted by: nixie_nox
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
You are awfully narcisstic to think that you can tell the entire planet's ecology what is normal and what isn't. And sex is NOT the only thing that determines procreation and advancement of a species. There is far more to it than that.
originally posted by: nixie_nox
So using procreation to deny homosexuality being a natural phenomenon because they can't procreate is extremely ignorant.
originally posted by: nixie_nox
One of the reason's that the human race has been so successful is due to middle age. We are the only species that has a middle age. What is middle age?
It is a period in a human's lifetime that is still productive, but they DON"T procreate.
originally posted by: nixie_nox
Since we are social creatures, it means we have a segment in our human lives where we work to benefit our tribe, clan,. etc, WITHOUT having to take resources to procreate. In other words, it is a totally give situation that benefits everyone, including helping out those that have procreated, to be successful.
originally posted by: macman
originally posted by: Grimpachi
So when you say "remove the govt benefits" Does that mean you want to do away with my mothers SS, the ability for people to file joint taxes, Homestead exemptions, the ability to transfer property and pensions after death to your spouse, and the such?
Simply put, yes.
The Federal Govt was not created to have such authority of life.
Taxes?? Abolish the IRS, institute a flat tax and there is no need to file separate or jointly.
Transferring of property is a legal action between private people.
Pensions?? A business to person transaction.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
I asked what solution you have. It seems you are creating more problems.
Seems that the Govt has created the larger problem. Undoing it may cause headache, but it certainly does not create original problems.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
I don't consider it being the govt problem as you.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
SS saves many people and they worked for it. My father passed away sonow my mother collects what hewas getting but hers went away.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
You propose eliminating the 1700 a month she requires to live on. Right now she requires assistance so she lives in an ALF. If you have never seen pricing of an ALF then you are in for a treat. When I say treat I mean shock. When I was searching I looked at over 70 ALFs even the worst ones were 3K or more when everything was totaled and that was at the basic level of care prices go significantly up as the level of care does. Some places were over $5500 a month. Most are private pay which means no medicaid. Thank goodness my father was a veteran because that qualified her for aid and attendance otherwise her SS and pension wouldn't have afforded much of anything.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
Your ideal would mean many elderly would be out on the street or rotting in their homes with little or no help.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
I am sure it sounded good in your head, but I don't think you really thought it through well. Now if companies were not out to rob the elderly of ever cent of their earnings by charging outrageous prices then maybe your scenario would work however this is America where healthcare is for profit and the only thing they care about is their bottom line.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
So I can't agree with you on this as I have seen how each side works already. A living wage no longer exists for the children to make up the difference in healthcare for their families and there is strong opposition by some to ever change that.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
So I guess we are at an impasse. I appreciate the civil conversation though.
originally posted by: nixie_nox
Anybody who thinks that government shouldn't be involved in marriage are sorely delusional and naïve.
Marriage is a contract. And like many contracts, disputes often end up in courts. Guess what courts are?
it is not just about a man and woman saying yes to each other. it is about inheritance, property, benefits, medical benefits, assets, businesses, taxes, and parenting.
So, because they didn't save and invest, and relied on Govt, we are all now forced to accept this???
No, sorry, I don't buy it.
It is sad that your father passed, but this is not something that was a surprise. Everyone dies. Planning for this is what being responsible means. I should not be carrying the burden for your mother. That is YOUR issue to deal with.
Ever stop and think that maybe you and your family should be taking care of your mother? Or is it that I, and the other tax payers, should be footing this bill?
Oh come on. Now you blame companies??