Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 80
  1. #41
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Discriminating against homosexual behavior is discriminating against homosexual behavior, not discriminating against orientation. Your argument is rebutted.
    That's ********. Its like saying that discriminating against praying is not discriminating against people for their religious beliefs.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  2. #42
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    That's ********. Its like saying that discriminating against praying is not discriminating against people for their religious beliefs.
    It wouldn't be discriminating against religious beliefs, but against the act of praying. That's what courts have ruled about student prayers at graduation ceremonies.

    If a mosque prohibits Jews to enter based on their religion, that is discrimination on the basis of religion. Allowing Jews in and prohibiting them from praying to Jehova, would be discrimination against prayer to Jehova, not discrimination against Jews by their religion. I'm sure you don't agree, and I'll admit it is a fine line. But fine lines are common to legal arguments.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  3. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  4. #43
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    It wouldn't be discriminating against religious beliefs, but against the act of praying. That's what courts have ruled about student prayers at graduation ceremonies.
    You are just wrong about this. Courts have ruled against student led prayers at official public school events not because its OK to discriminate against prayer but because such prayer violates the establishment clause of the constitution and represents the state advocating a religion or religious viewpoint. In cases where a student is not representing the school, say a valedictorian at a graduation ceremony, they can offer a prayer themselves so long as the school is not approving or dictating the content of that speech. AKA if its just the student doing whatever they want, they can pray, but if they represent the school as an officiant in some way they can't.

    Reading for you here
    http://www.firstamendmentschools.org....aspx?id=12811

    f a mosque prohibits Jews to enter based on their religion, that is discrimination on the basis of religion. Allowing Jews in and prohibiting them from praying to Jehova, would be discrimination against prayer to Jehova, not discrimination against Jews by their religion. I'm sure you don't agree, and I'll admit it is a fine line. But fine lines are common to legal arguments.
    It doesn't matter. The establishment clause trumps anti-discrimination laws when it comes to churches, their members, and employees unless the activities are outside the scope of religious practice or the rule has no baring on their faith (say like minimum wage). Churches can exclude non members from employment or from membership or access to the grounds. It is perfectly legal for a Mosque to prohibit Jews from attending service of from offering prayers to Jehova during service.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  5. #44
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    All of those are cases of legal discrimination, despite your refusal to use that word in your descriptions. Discrimination is not inherently bad, and is only illegal where legislation or courts have made it so. Thus far, that hasn't happened regarding homosexual acts, except those occurring in private under protection of the First Amendment. A taxi is hardly private and behavior there wouldn't receive such protection.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  6. #45
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    St. Petersburg, FL
    Posts
    73
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Justice Kennedy, in his majority opinion for the case Lawrence V Texas said:

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../558/case.html
    When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.
    It seems that the law does agree with mican. To discriminate against the behavior/conduct of one group of people and not another, equals discrimination against that group, not just the behavior.

  7. Thanks Sigfried, evensaul thanked for this post
  8. #46
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Justice Kennedy, in his majority opinion for the case Lawrence V Texas said:
    It seems that the law does agree with mican. To discriminate against the behavior/conduct of one group of people and not another, equals discrimination against that group, not just the behavior.
    You didn't include the preceding sentence. Let's add it: "If protected conduct is made criminal and the law which does so remains unexamined for its substantive validity, its stigma might remain even if it were not enforceable as drawn for equal protection reasons. When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres."

    The "protected conduct" was private sexual relations, protected by the First Amendment. This is another case of an understood fundamental right, as was Mican's analogy of marriage. And because it was a case of a fundamental right protected by the Bill of Rights, using it here creates a faulty analogy, because there is no fundamental right to kiss in a taxi-cab, for anyone, regardless of their sexual orientation.

    It is also a faulty analogy because you are comparing discrimination by the state with discrimination by an individual. They are simply not the same. (For example, the state cannot tell a women standing on a soap box in the public square to sit down and shut up because she's just a woman, but any citizen could.)
    Last edited by evensaul; April 22nd, 2015 at 07:10 PM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  9. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  10. #47
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,700
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    The "protected conduct" was private sexual relations, protected by the First Amendment. This is another case of an understood fundamental right, as was Mican's analogy of marriage.
    That is NOT my analogy. My argument in no way addressed a fundamental right to marriage (or a fundamental right to any particular activity) and therefore all of your criticisms of my analogy are straw-men arguments.

    The point of the analogy is to show that it is discrimination against a sexual orientation to allow one orientation to engage in a certain behavior and not allow another orientation to do the same.

    So it IS discrimination to allow straights to marry but not gays and it likewise IS discriminate to allow straights to kiss in a taxi but not allow gays to kiss in a taxi.

  11. #48
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    No, not really Gree. your example is of a judge lecturing someone they found guilty of a crime. That indeed they do. In this case here you would have him lecture someone innocent while letting someone guilty go. That they are not supposed to do.



    Likely because it was not frivolous. You were not there and did not hear the case so its pretty hard for you to seriously make such a judgement in any kind of informed way. All you have to judge is your own assumptions and one brief article which is hardly a good basis for making such a decision. I will instead rely on the judgement of a professional who was there and listened to the entire case.
    And yet you are not actually making a case that it is not frivolous. You were not there either brother, but I am a human being, and if someone told me to stop kissing my wife - I might get peeved, maybe, in a weaker moment tell him or her to shove it, but filing a law suit? That pretty much defines petty. And when the defendant in question, as listed above by My Hyde, points out what is speculated, that the cabbie does the same thing to heterosexual couples, any basis of discrimination is eliminated.

    The legal premise here is unsupportable, and while judges may be human, this seems like a rather egregious penalty for ... nothing. Worse, it sends a message that is bad for the homosexual community, which, if our hero lesbians stopped long enough to think about, essentially says, "We'll sue you for crossing us in even the most minor ways!"

    It creates the perception of bullying, not victimhood, and although you might drive away some criticism, what you will succeed in doing is breeding resistance. That cabbie is not a alone, he has friends, and now that its in the papers ... there are thousands, if not millions, of people asking WTF?

    No one seems to be able to make an actual case of discrimination here, and that, I think, says a great deal about the strength of the case. "Just trust the judge," is not much of a defense.

    Again, I have some sympathy for the homosexual community, but I would remind them of Lincoln in their moment of victory. Its entirely possible to over reach and in doing so, undo a great many gains the community has made. Today's media darling, is tomorrow's poster child for smut.

    ---------- Post added at 08:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:32 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That is NOT my analogy. My argument in no way addressed a fundamental right to marriage (or a fundamental right to any particular activity) and therefore all of your criticisms of my analogy are straw-men arguments.

    The point of the analogy is to show that it is discrimination against a sexual orientation to allow one orientation to engage in a certain behavior and not allow another orientation to do the same.

    So it IS discrimination to allow straights to marry but not gays and it likewise IS discriminate to allow straights to kiss in a taxi but not allow gays to kiss in a taxi.
    Unfortunately Mican, as is directly cited by Mr Hyde above, the taxi driver routinely tells heterosexual couples to stop kissing too. That pointedly eliminates the basis of 'discrimination' you sight.

    I'd be very interested in seeing what course in 'human rights' will fix the logic loop that educates us to tolerate kissing in the back seat of a cab, especially for homosexual couples? In fact, as more ... ahem facts, become known about this incident, I would certainly appreciate being educated about how telling anyone to stop kissing is discrimination?
    Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.

    Albert Einstein

  12. #49
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    And yet you are not actually making a case that it is not frivolous. You were not there either brother, but I am a human being, and if someone told me to stop kissing my wife - I might get peeved, maybe, in a weaker moment tell him or her to shove it, but filing a law suit? That pretty much defines petty. And when the defendant in question, as listed above by My Hyde, points out what is speculated, that the cabbie does the same thing to heterosexual couples, any basis of discrimination is eliminated.
    If he broke the law then justice would be that he pays the penalty of breaking the law. That will not happen unless someone files suit. If no one files suit then he can simply continue to break the law all he likes which would circumvent the entire intent of the law. In this sense it is not frivolous, it is simply just in the eyes of the law.

    Furthermore, while the impact of this trial is indeed trivial, the law is designed to protect against wide range discrimination. One could say it was trivial for blacks to have to sit in the back of the buss on any given occasion, but the overall effect of being second class citizens for millions was not. Many gay people have long been persecuted in america and any individual may well feel that upholding a law designed to end that discrimination is a piece of a much larger effort to win equal treatment and that is hardly petty or frivolous.

    The legal premise here is unsupportable, and while judges may be human, this seems like a rather egregious penalty for ... nothing. Worse, it sends a message that is bad for the homosexual community, which, if our hero lesbians stopped long enough to think about, essentially says, "We'll sue you for crossing us in even the most minor ways!"
    It is hardly unsupportable. There is a law that clearly states a public business cannot discriminate in various respects. Civil rights legislation of this kind has repeatedly held up in courts as valid law. I'm pretty sure the message which you think is harmful is exactly the intent. Don't treat us like **** or you will pay for it. That is pretty much the very nature of deterrent strategy, to make someone suffer for their actions against you.

    It creates the perception of bullying, not victimhood, and although you might drive away some criticism, what you will succeed in doing is breeding resistance. That cabbie is not a alone, he has friends, and now that its in the papers ... there are thousands, if not millions, of people asking WTF?
    Clue for you my friend, gay people don't want to be victims. They want to be treated with respect. Sometimes that requires you stand up for your rights and demand those who trespass on them pay for their deeds. I understand that if you seem unjust in these demands it can work against you, but clearly from our debate not everyone feels that this has happened.

    No one seems to be able to make an actual case of discrimination here, and that, I think, says a great deal about the strength of the case. "Just trust the judge," is not much of a defense.
    It certainly appears the young couple made a case for discrimination and the Judge in the case found it convincing. They don't need us to make the case for them and without having the evidence from the case none of us can.

    Again, I have some sympathy for the homosexual community, but I would remind them of Lincoln in their moment of victory. Its entirely possible to over reach and in doing so, undo a great many gains the community has made.
    Fair advice, but you will find that people who have been treated poorly for a great long time are often not in an especially consolatory mood.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  13. #50
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,626
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Discriminating against homosexual behavior is discriminating against homosexual behavior, not discriminating against orientation. Your argument is rebutted.
    Nope. This is entirely wrong, please try again.


    The Supreme Court holds that "A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews", which is an analogy that has been used in both Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic and Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. This means that if you create laws against what a protected class of people do or are, then you're instituting a law that illegally discriminates against that protected class of people. Fact.


    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul
    It wouldn't be discriminating against religious beliefs, but against the act of praying. That's what courts have ruled about student prayers at graduation ceremonies.
    Nope. Wrong again.

    The Supreme Court rendered the practice of school prayer unconstitutional after Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp, with previous work being laid by Lemon v. Kurtzman. The reasoning was based on the fact that it violates the First Amendment, which prevents government institutions from promoting or establishing a religion. The separation of church and state is compromised if any individual acting on behalf or representing the state gives prayer, thus school prayer violates the First Amendment. Religious discrimination has nothing to do with this case, it's a question of what someone can do whilst acting on behalf of the state.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

  14. Thanks evensaul thanked for this post
  15. #51
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Soooo....I'll just repost some of the things no one is addressing here when they get brought up:

    "My client never once mentioned anything about their sexuality and never threw them out of the taxi," he said. "In fact, the complaint doesn't even allege that he used any derogatory language about their sexuality and the two women testified that they are the ones who decided to exit the taxi. He wanted to take them to their final destination."

    ....

    "Mr. Dahbi has a standard of decency that he asks all riders in his cab to follow," Najmi said. "He has asked straight couples to stop engaging in similar behavior. It can be very distracting for a driver if people are getting hot and heavy in the taxi."

    .....

    Thornton told the judge that after that comment she didn't feel comfortable, so she got out of the cab, grabbed her luggage and left. Spitzer followed shortly after with her dog, according to the decision.

    When the women refused to pay him the fare to that point, he hurled expletives at them and sped away.


    https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/201...m-stop-kissing

    To recap:

    • Both sides agree that Dhabi never mentioned their orientation.
    • Both sides agree the women voluntarily got out of the cab.
    • Both sides agree Dhabi's outburst occurred only AFTER they refused to pay him for having driven them.
    • Both sides agree they were kissing and were asked to stop or get out.



    So, in the absence of the Judge's own specific words, can anyone offer any reason to believe that Dhabi, in light of what both sides agree on, was acting in a discriminatory fashion?
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  16. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
    Likes evensaul liked this post
  17. #52
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,700
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    Unfortunately Mican, as is directly cited by Mr Hyde above, the taxi driver routinely tells heterosexual couples to stop kissing too.
    Is that an established fact or is that just what the defendant and his lawyer claimed?

    But either way, that is not relevant to my rebuttal to Evensaul. I'm saying that IF the cab driver treated a kissing gay couple differently than a kissing straight couple, then it is discrimination based on sexual orientation and the fact that there is no actual right to kiss in a taxi is completely irrelevant to the issue.

    As far as how correct the judge's determination is, I think one does need to see all of the information that the judge saw before they can determine that. What's been presented on this site seems to be more of what the cab driver's side said and not so much what the couple said.


    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    I'd be very interested in seeing what course in 'human rights' will fix the logic loop that educates us to tolerate kissing in the back seat of a cab, especially for homosexual couples? In fact, as more ... ahem facts, become known about this incident, I would certainly appreciate being educated about how telling anyone to stop kissing is discrimination?
    You see, if a cabbie tells a gay couple they cannot kiss but would not do the same to a straight couple, then it's discrimination against the gay couple.

    You can argue that this particular cabbie never did such a thing but you can't say that you weren't educated on how telling a couple to stop kissing can be discrimination. So consider yourself educated

  18. #53
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    [*]Both sides agree that Dhabi never mentioned their orientation.[*]Both sides agree the women voluntarily got out of the cab.[*]Both sides agree Dhabi's outburst occurred only AFTER they refused to pay him for having driven them.[*]Both sides agree they were kissing and were asked to stop or get out.
    But in the article I only see statements from one side, not both sides. There are no statements from the couple indicating one way or the other what Dhabi said or why.

    I understand, based on the article why you come to this conclusion, but either the Judge has really gone off the deep end or there is more to the case than the article highlights. I tend to suspect the latter rather than the former but both are possible. The Times article is the best of those presented but its still a bit shy of examining why the decision was made the way it was.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  19. #54
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post

    But either way, that is not relevant to my rebuttal to Evensaul. I'm saying that IF the cab driver treated a kissing gay couple differently than a kissing straight couple, then it is discrimination based on sexual orientation and the fact that there is no actual right to kiss in a taxi is completely irrelevant to the issue.
    The problem is, he did not.

    Its entirely probable that we just have an activist judge on our hands.

    And we still have the issue of gross over reach here on the part of the lesbians. On what planet does, "Stop kissing," equate to a law suit because you are so wronged? The lesbians do not come across as the victims in the piece, quite the opposite - and when examined the ludicrous claim of discrimination here falls apart. The fault here clearly lies with the lesbian couple who simply assumed that a man telling them to stop kissing was doing it because they are gay, were they even slightly better educated they would have realized that 'Mohammed' was Muslim, and any kind of 'sexualized' display in his back seat would be considered offensive. (But heh, cultural sensitivity is apparently a one way street?) Indeed, as Mr. Hyde's sources make clear, that is EXACTLY what the driver says.

    Maybe the judge was just corrupt and on the take, because on the merits of the case here the lesbians are victim of nothing more substantial than their own pique.
    Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.

    Albert Einstein

  20. #55
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by GoldPhoenix View Post
    The Supreme Court holds that "A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews", which is an analogy that has been used in both Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic and Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. This means that if you create laws against what a protected class of people do or are, then you're instituting a law that illegally discriminates against that protected class of people. Fact.
    It is far muddier than what you present as "fact".

    Yarmulkes are considered integral to Jewish religious practice. Kissing in a taxi-cab isn't integral to homosexual orientation. And our Supreme Court never ruled on such a case. It was a reference to actions by a Russian Tsar.

    Perhaps more supportive of your position is a supposed "time-bomb" by Justice Ginsler in her majority opinion for the second case, in which she noted that the Supreme Court has previously "declined to distinguish between status and conduct". Gay rights advocates can point to that as supposed evidence that there is no difference between conduct and sexual orientation. But someone reading the same ruling and that sentence can respond that the Court has had the opportunity to equate status and conduct, and has declined to do so.


    Quote Originally Posted by GoldPhoenix View Post
    The Supreme Court rendered the practice of school prayer unconstitutional after Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp, with previous work being laid by Lemon v. Kurtzman. The reasoning was based on the fact that it violates the First Amendment, which prevents government institutions from promoting or establishing a religion. The separation of church and state is compromised if any individual acting on behalf or representing the state gives prayer, thus school prayer violates the First Amendment. Religious discrimination has nothing to do with this case, it's a question of what someone can do whilst acting on behalf of the state.
    I didn't call it religious discrimination, GP. It is legal discrimination against the act of praying. It is okay for students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, throw their caps in the air, or even sing "God Bless America", but group prayer is discriminated against. The First Amendment is invoked as the reason for the discrimination, but it is still discrimination against a behavior of those in a protected class.
    Last edited by evensaul; April 24th, 2015 at 02:57 PM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  21. #56
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,700
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    The problem is, he did not.

    Its entirely probable that we just have an activist judge on our hands.

    And we still have the issue of gross over reach here on the part of the lesbians. On what planet does, "Stop kissing," equate to a law suit because you are so wronged?
    When you are singled out for being a same-sex couple.

    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    The lesbians do not come across as the victims in the piece, quite the opposite - and when examined the ludicrous claim of discrimination here falls apart.
    When you've completed a thorough examination and fully heard BOTH SIDES of the case in their entirety is when you can accurately judge the veracity of their claims.

    I assume your current source of information is nothing more than a newspaper article or two. That's hardly enough information to accurately determine whether the judge's ruling was accurate or not.


    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    The fault here clearly lies with the lesbian couple who simply assumed that a man telling them to stop kissing was doing it because they are gay, were they even slightly better educated they would have realized that 'Mohammed' was Muslim, and any kind of 'sexualized' display in his back seat would be considered offensive.
    But it was apparently a brief kiss, not a "sexualized display".


    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    Maybe the judge was just corrupt and on the take, because on the merits of the case here the lesbians are victim of nothing more substantial than their own pique.
    And maybe you are jumping to conclusions based on limited knowledge of the case.
    Last edited by mican333; April 24th, 2015 at 01:59 PM.

  22. #57
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    When you are singled out for being a same-sex couple.



    When you've completed a thorough examination and fully heard BOTH SIDES of the case in their entirety is when you can accurately judge the veracity of their claims.

    I assume your current source of information is nothing more than a newspaper article or two. That's hardly enough information to accurately determine whether the judge's ruling was accurate or not.




    But it was apparently a brief kiss, not a "sexualized display".




    And maybe you are jumping to conclusions based on limited knowledge of the case.
    When you examine the facts, as known, this is a case of utter frivolity. It's not like the teachings of Islam about sexuality are some deeply hidden culture secret revealed to only a select few. Indeed, this is backed up by comments from the driver himself, that, shockingly, support what Islam teaches on the subject and clearly indicate that the driver tells both homo and heterosexual couples to knock it off.

    As the case is about some kind of discrimination, that homosexuals were being 'unfairly' singled out here, that case falls apart upon inspection. Handily.

    What is not OK, is to allow speculation about what the judge might be thinking in support of his decision, but not what he might be thinking that runs counter to his decision. What is clear, is that the case is petty, frivolous, and punishes a guy for cultural evil while running rough shod over his culture.

    I don't see any actual case here for discrimination, only the claim that 'IF' he did just because they were gay ... well, by everything we can examine that is not the case. Ergo, using Sherlock logic, when we eliminate whatever is impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the cause.

    As there is no singling out of homosexuals here, the claim of discrimination rings hallow and false. And frankly, even if this were a case of valid discrimination, being told to stop kissing? Law suit? Really? This pretty much defines petty.
    Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.

    Albert Einstein

  23. #58
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,700
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    When you examine the facts, as known, this is a case of utter frivolity.
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that once one has examined ALL OF THE FACTS of the case they will determine that the case is frivolous. Again, I am under the impression that the only facts you know is what was presented in a newspaper article or two.

    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    It's not like the teachings of Islam about sexuality are some deeply hidden culture secret revealed to only a select few. Indeed, this is backed up by comments from the driver himself, that, shockingly, support what Islam teaches on the subject and clearly indicate that the driver tells both homo and heterosexual couples to knock it off.
    Support or retract that he EVER told a heterosexual couple who did the exact same thing that the lesbians did to knock it off.



    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    As the case is about some kind of discrimination, that homosexuals were being 'unfairly' singled out here, that case falls apart upon inspection. Handily.
    If you can support this, please do.


    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    What is not OK, is to allow speculation about what the judge might be thinking in support of his decision, but not what he might be thinking that runs counter to his decision.
    Actually I'm not speculating at all. I admit don't know enough about the case to say with any accuracy at all if the judge's ruling was valid or not. But unlike you, I'm willing to admit that I don't know enough to say for sure.


    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    What is clear, is that the case is petty, frivolous, and punishes a guy for cultural evil while running rough shod over his culture.
    If you can support that this is the case, please do. Otherwise I dismiss that claim for lack of support.



    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    I don't see any actual case here for discrimination, only the claim that 'IF' he did just because they were gay ... well, by everything we can examine that is not the case. Ergo, using Sherlock logic, when we eliminate whatever is impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the cause.
    Sherlock Holmes looks over all of the evidence before reaching a conclusion. You seem to be jumping to a conclusion based on partial information.

    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    As there is no singling out of homosexuals here, the claim of discrimination rings hallow and false.
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that they were not singled out based on their sexual orientation.

    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    And frankly, even if this were a case of valid discrimination, being told to stop kissing? Law suit? Really? This pretty much defines petty.
    You apparently aren't even fully aware of what the newspaper articles say. It's not just about being told to stop kissing. He also hurled insults at them. If he hadn't, they probably wouldn't have sued.

  24. #59
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that once one has examined ALL OF THE FACTS of the case they will determine that the case is frivolous. Again, I am under the impression that the only facts you know is what was presented in a newspaper article or two.



    Support or retract that he EVER told a heterosexual couple who did the exact same thing that the lesbians did to knock it off.





    If you can support this, please do.




    Actually I'm not speculating at all. I admit don't know enough about the case to say with any accuracy at all if the judge's ruling was valid or not. But unlike you, I'm willing to admit that I don't know enough to say for sure.




    If you can support that this is the case, please do. Otherwise I dismiss that claim for lack of support.





    Sherlock Holmes looks over all of the evidence before reaching a conclusion. You seem to be jumping to a conclusion based on partial information.



    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that they were not singled out based on their sexual orientation.



    You apparently aren't even fully aware of what the newspaper articles say. It's not just about being told to stop kissing. He also hurled insults at them. If he hadn't, they probably wouldn't have sued.
    #1 - Mr Hyde has provided several sources that include the drivers statements.

    #2 - Sherlock looks at the available evidence, not 'all' (which is something of a misnomer, because we never have 'all' the evidence). In fact, Sherlock is famous for being able to take the smallest pieces of evidence and construct the larger whole.

    #3 - I highly suggest you read up and acknowledge what is in this thread, do I really need to quote Mr. Hyde for you?

    #4 - I also suggest you actually address the points here, including ISLAM'S culture toward sexuality of any kind, and the awful pettiness of the lesbians in this case. Or are you claiming that the teachings of Islam are unknown here?

    Avoiding relevant portions is called pulling an ostrich, and makes the demands on others seem wholly misplaced. Mr. Hyde has done the research for us, and I for one see no reason to question what he has given us, much less pretend that it is not there unless a certain poster ALSO copies and pastes Mr. Hyde's citations.
    Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.

    Albert Einstein

  25. #60
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,700
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    #1 - Mr Hyde has provided several sources that include the drivers statements.
    And the driver's statements, at times, directly contradict the lesbian's statements. So clearly someone is not telling the truth at least part of the time. So I'm not going to blindly accept someone's claims just because they made the claim, especially when they have a financial incentive to make the claim.

    If you want to forward that everything the driver said is completely true, I ask in advance that you support that.


    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    #2 - Sherlock looks at the available evidence, not 'all' (which is something of a misnomer, because we never have 'all' the evidence). In fact, Sherlock is famous for being able to take the smallest pieces of evidence and construct the larger whole.
    But clearly the person who has seen the most evidence is in a better position to correctly render a verdict than a person who has seen a smaller amount of the evidence. And since the judge has seen more of the evidence than you or I have, he is in a better position to accurately determine what happened than either of us.

    So all else being equal, it is more rational to accept the judge's conclusion than yours (or mine).


    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    #3 - I highly suggest you read up and acknowledge what is in this thread, do I really need to quote Mr. Hyde for you?
    I see no basis for the claim that I have inadequate knowledge of the thread so this comment is ignored.


    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    #4 - I also suggest you actually address the points here, including ISLAM'S culture toward sexuality of any kind, and the awful pettiness of the lesbians in this case. Or are you claiming that the teachings of Islam are unknown here?
    I have addressed both in my previous post. And I will do so again.

    1. The lesbians claimed that they exchanged a brief kiss and no evidence has been forwarded that a brief kiss is particularly offensive to Muslims.
    2. Your claim that the lesbians are being petty is not supported.


    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    Avoiding relevant portions is called pulling an ostrich, and makes the demands on others seem wholly misplaced. Mr. Hyde has done the research for us, and I for one see no reason to question what he has given us, much less pretend that it is not there unless a certain poster ALSO copies and pastes Mr. Hyde's citations.
    And I reject your claim that I have avoided any relevant points or information. But if you do feel that Mr. Hyde has presented something that I missed, please feel free to paste it into your next post.

    As far as I can tell, all anyone has presented are newspaper articles.

 

 
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •