JJM wants a lively board so here it goes...

[oaknightshockey1]

ESPN will be on this in about ten minutes...

 

[oaknightshockey1]

"a female is a male that carries a fetus...a fe-male"

 

[oaknightshockey1]

i know i have been posting in this thread a lot...but seriously these people are hilarious. there is a guy speaking now that says that God told him how to dress for this event. I am a Christian, but these people are making us as a whole look terrible.

"Omaha is already under judgement"

 

[Driaz]

I think people need to think about what this ordinance actual entails.

It is an existing ordinance that says you can not do certain things to certain groups. These include
deny an individual access to public accommodation (this water fountain is for whites only)
segregate an individual in a place of public accommodation (blacks must sit at the back of the bus)
directly refuse an individual the services, facilities or advantages of a public place of accommodation (blacks not served here)
To advertise that said services, facilities or advantages will be withheld from one based on.....

Amendment included that religious organizations are exempted if the place of public accommodation is owned by a religious organization and is for the use of its members the practices that relate gender identity and sexual orientation do not apply.

So by adding "Sexual orientation and gender identity" to the existing list of groups just what is going to happen that is so harmful to our culture?

Just what is Ron Brown so adamantly objecting to?

So you are saying that because a person is homosexual that people should be able to refuse service to them in a restaurant, be refused a cab, be refused a hotel room?

This is all that the ordinance says. That if you offer these to the general public you cannot refuse them simply because some one is gay.

It is no different then the days when blacks were refused service in restaurants, required to drink from different sources than whites and delegated to the back of a bus. These are not special rights. These are rights that are guaranteed to every human being and ironically endowed by our creator yet it is his self-proclaimed followers that want to limit them.

And while I agree with you that RB would probably oppose an ordinance stating these rights could not be taken from those who engage in extra-marital sex it makes it no less extreme and no less harmful to the university's image. You can not separate his words or actions from the university. this is the stand Pelini would take with a player. He needs to take it with his staff also.

Thx Jed and you said it well. Just the other night I was telling my wife that it blows my mind that a man who 50 years ago would of been delegated to the back of the bus and the kitchen of a restaurant is now telling a city council that they should allow others to do this same thing to another human being.

Rep

Driaz I will approach this as if you misunderstood me. I did not mean to appear as if I was saying gays are required to drink from a different fountain or ride in the back of the bus. These were discrimination's directed at blacks in a different time. My point though this ordinance is directed at stopping similar discrimination. And I do know gays who have been refused service because they are gay.
I can almost except the argument that their religion prevents them from serving them until you consider these same people will serve people who lie, get drunk, have sex outside of marriage and even have different faiths. So it is not a matter of it being sin. It is a matter of one class of people being discriminated against.

So instead of reading my entire posts that formulate my position you take the one most extreme comment out of everything I posted, disregard everything else and consider me a throwback hippy. Yeah I was a kid in those days and missed out on the civil rights movement but my earliest political views were that of a fundamentalist christian. Sorry no psychosis here because I am not complete without my hippy experience.

Instead of looking for that one post you can use to argue your position why not just post your opinion without the attack. Then people can read the entirety or your posts and the entirety of my posts and agree or disagree. I think we can disagree and still respect each other for having a we thought out position.

You have posted things I can agree with and things I definitely do not agree with but I would never take one post of yours, isolate it and accuse you of being some backwoods hick in overalls and a chain you use to drag fags behind your pick up truck. Please don't take one comment of mine and accuse me of being a throwback hippy who needs something to protest.

Sorry I took your one post out of context...



I don't know how I could of misunderstood what you were saying that you were trying to say the current situation of gay "rights" is the same thing as African Americans seeking actual equal rights. I totally had to just twist a singular post of yours around to suit my own agenda....

My rant was originally in general hence why I didn't quote you directly.....then Brasky acts like I'm some right wing idiot, so I quote without name your post, then you act like I'm some idiot taking offense to your singular post of indiscretion when the thread is replete with your direct inferences to draw an equation to truly civil rights issues.

The inference is, if you don't support gay "rights", you're a dumb fuck hick that would also think a black man should sit in the back of the bus. I don't think of the issue as that. My contention, AND THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF MY ORIGINAL RANT is that you lefties do equate the two ALL THE FUCKING TIME. You made 3 posts demonstrating that you think they are they same. I don't think I'm taking your posts out of context....

 

[HuskerInSecLand]

Sorry I took your one post out of context..

Apology excepted in the same manner apology was given.

I don't know how I could of misunderstood what you were saying that you were trying to say the current situation of gay "rights" is the same thing as African Americans seeking actual equal rights. I totally had to just twist a singular post of yours around to suit my own agenda....

The previous posts were analogous comparisons. This does not mean I am saying they are the same thing. It means I am making a comparison of similarities in some respect.
The final post was to point out the irony of a person from one class that was discriminated against endorsing discrimination against another class of persons.
And yes they are "actual equal rights" grievances. You do not get to choose what a civil right is. The courts have already done this.

My rant was originally in general hence why I didn't quote you directly.....then Brasky acts like I'm some right wing idiot, so I quote without name your post,

But you did quote my words directly and I responded directly. You do not get to say it is a general statement and at the same time quote one specific person.

then you act like I'm some idiot taking offense to your singular post of indiscretion when the thread is replete with your direct inferences to draw an equation to truly civil rights issues.

The inference is, if you don't support gay "rights", you're a dumb fuck hick that would also think a black man should sit in the back of the bus. I don't think of the issue as that.

No I said I could call you a hick, as you were calling me a "hippy who missed out" I did not call you this but stated that I could take the same route you were and resort to name calling.
I will do that some times but usually when it is quite evident that there will be no more discussion of issues and I have a thorn up my ass enough to try to piss someone off. In this case I did not. I simply tried to show you what you were doing was not beneficial to any discussion by saying I could do as you were doing.

My contention, AND THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF MY ORIGINAL RANT is that you lefties do equate the two ALL THE FUCKING TIME. You made 3 posts demonstrating that you think they are they same. I don't think I'm taking your posts out of context....

If you mean by "equate the two" "compare the two", which it appears you do then yes you are right. This is because of the similarities that do exist make them comparable. That is why the ordinance does no more than add a class of people to an already existing anti-discrimination ordinance.

To further explain,
a gay person being denied a taxi cab because they are gay is analogous to a black having to ride in the back of the bus.

A gay person being refused a drink in a bar, analogous to whites only fountain.

A gay person being refused service in a restaurant, analogous to blacks eat in the kitchen.

 

[Driaz]

But you did quote my words directly and I responded directly. You do not get to say it is a general statement and at the same time quote one specific person.

No I did not. My very first rant about why you're pissed at me does not have any quote from any poster on the thread, or any quote from anywhere, just my own thoughts and opinions on why folks that try to make the comparison do so. Only after Brasky gave me the WTF? did I actually quote anything you had posted.

If you mean by "equate the two" "compare the two", which it appears you do then yes you are right. This is because of the similarities that do exist make them comparable. That is why the ordinance does no more than add a class of people to an already existing anti-discrimination ordinance.

To further explain,
a gay person being denied a taxi cab because they are gay is analogous to a black having to ride in the back of the bus.

A gay person being refused a drink in a bar, analogous to whites only fountain.

A gay person being refused service in a restaurant, analogous to blacks eat in the kitchen.

Sorry, but I think your analogies are a bunch of crap. If I may, can I ask you to use the common sense portion of your brain for just a bit? Unless you have this....


....it's impossible to tell if someone is homosexual by looking at them. So there can be no discrimination solely on sexual orientation because it is impossible to determine unless they are publicly behaving in a homosexual manner.

You're talking about radical homosexuals that are trying to get themselves thrown out of places. If you think it's a civil right for a homosexual couple to be checking each others tonsils out why I'm trying to eat lunch, then you sir are a fucking idiot. If you think it's appropriate to be checking out your wifes tonsils while I'm trying to eat lunch, you sir are a fucking idiot. They weren't discriminated against, they were kicked out because they wanted to shock and awe with their sexuality and were simply in violation of public decency standards.

Since gaydar doesn't work, 99% of "discrimination" against homosexuals is in fact a response to inappropriate public behavior. It's impossible to know a person is homosexual unless they are behaving in public in a sexual manner to someone of the same gender.

I still think it's deplorable to compare, equate, use analogies, whatever semantics you want to use to describe what you're trying to do; people that want to overtly demonstrate sexual behavior in public in any way to a black man/woman struggling to be treated as a fellow human being.

The other "discrimination" would be those that dress like fucking clowns and act like they are refused service because they are identity challenged or some shit. If you are wearing a cowboy hat, boots, chaps, and nothing else, you aren't going to be permitted service anywhere other then San Francisco. Ever heard of no shirt, no shoes, no service. Again, it isn't discrimination to refuse service to someone that isn't appropriately dressed for the owners liking.

I still can't believe you honestly think these are in anyway comparable......

Yeah, two homosexuals getting kicked out of a cab for trying to smoke pole in the back seat is just like Rosa Parks courageous stand for human rights.......oh, I'm sorry, that's unfair.....it's only an anologous thing....

 

[Red_Alert]

No I did not. My very first rant about why you're pissed at me does not have any quote from any poster on the thread, or any quote from anywhere, just my own thoughts and opinions on why folks that try to make the comparison do so. Only after Brasky gave me the WTF? did I actually quote anything you had posted.



Sorry, but I think your analogies are a bunch of crap. If I may, can I ask you to use the common sense portion of your brain for just a bit? Unless you have this....


....it's impossible to tell if someone is homosexual by looking at them. So there can be no discrimination solely on sexual orientation because it is impossible to determine unless they are publicly behaving in a homosexual manner.

You're talking about radical homosexuals that are trying to get themselves thrown out of places. If you think it's a civil right for a homosexual couple to be checking each others tonsils out why I'm trying to eat lunch, then you sir are a fucking idiot. If you think it's appropriate to be checking out your wifes tonsils while I'm trying to eat lunch, you sir are a fucking idiot. They weren't discriminated against, they were kicked out because they wanted to shock and awe with their sexuality and were simply in violation of public decency standards.

Since gaydar doesn't work, 99% of "discrimination" against homosexuals is in fact a response to inappropriate public behavior. It's impossible to know a person is homosexual unless they are behaving in public in a sexual manner to someone of the same gender.

I still think it's deplorable to compare, equate, use analogies, whatever semantics you want to use to describe what you're trying to do; people that want to overtly demonstrate sexual behavior in public in any way to a black man/woman struggling to be treated as a fellow human being.

The other "discrimination" would be those that dress like fucking clowns and act like they are refused service because they are identity challenged or some shit. If you are wearing a cowboy hat, boots, chaps, and nothing else, you aren't going to be permitted service anywhere other then San Francisco. Ever heard of no shirt, no shoes, no service. Again, it isn't discrimination to refuse service to someone that isn't appropriately dressed for the owners liking.

I still can't believe you honestly think these are in anyway comparable......

Yeah, two homosexuals getting kicked out of a cab for trying to smoke pole in the back seat is just like Rosa Parks courageous stand for human rights.......oh, I'm sorry, that's unfair.....it's only an anologous thing....

Well they could just be holding hands...That would be a give-away..to me anyway

 

[Driaz]

Well they could just be holding hands...That would be a give-away..to me anyway

Do you seriously believe there is any significant amount of people that were refused service for holding hands? I don't know many men, but I can think of non-homosexual women that would hold hands in public.

 

[Red_Alert]

Do you seriously believe there is any significant amount of people that were refused service for holding hands? I don't know many men, but I can think of non-homosexual women that would hold hands in public.

My response doesn't apply to your first sentence. It was aimed at this statement.

Since gaydar doesn't work, 99% of "discrimination" against homosexuals is in fact a response to inappropriate public behavior. It's impossible to know a person is homosexual unless they are behaving in public in a sexual manner to someone of the same gender.

Is two dudes holding hands "inappropriate public behavior" and "behaving in public in a sexual manner"?

Just sayin'.... It would set off my gaydar.

Point being, they don't have to be sucking face to be detected..

 

[Driaz]

My response doesn't apply to your first sentence. It was aimed at this statement.



Is two dudes holding hands "inappropriate public behavior" and "behaving in public in a sexual manner"?

Just sayin'.... It would set off my gaydar.

Point being, they don't have to be sucking face to be detected..

So you're just playing devil's advocate.

 

[Red_Alert]

So you're just playing devil's advocate.

Pretty much yeah.

And stop winking at me you freak...

 

[Driaz]

Pretty much yeah.

And stop winking at me you freak...

LOL.....fuck you, I'll wink at whoever I want to.....


Unless of course, someone comes along to tell me I'm not allowed to explain or try to clarify the meaning of one of my posts because someone knows me better then I know myself......

 

[HawkeyeHater]

@ this whole thread.......

 

[HuskerInSecLand]

Wow. I deleted my post but I thought that when you deleted it showed that you deleted it still.
Did someone else delete my deleted post? irule?

Just makes no sense. oh that's right I can't use that part.

 

[huskers1217]

Tl;dr

 

[Big Red Said]

Tl;dr

didn't miss anything that matters on a sportsboard... ... or should matter on a sports board...

 

[iruletheskool]

normally, i'd probly lock this here thread.. but meh.. i don't feel like reading to know if i should er not

 

[Big Red Said]

normally, i'd probly lock this here thread.. but meh.. i don't feel like reading to know if i should er not

Nah... nothing said in this thread to get worked up about....:dizzy: