BOYCOTT WAL-MART OVER GAY AGENDA FOR 4TH OF JULY HOLIDAY FREEP KAREN BURKE 1-479-273-4314

FREE REPUBLIC ^ | July 2, 2003 | the eagle has landed

[Jorge]

I am a strong conservative, but I do not agree with you. Of course if you think a boycott is justified, then go for it.

I've got co-workers who are gay. What do I do: refuse to talk with them? Associate? Some are better employees than some "straight-laced, religious" co-workers.

Well said.

I believe most conservatives support equal rights under the law for gays when it comes to housing and employment.

[Dave S]

How do you compare a woman wearing a cross to work to someone at Walmart potentially harrassing or purposefully hurting the career of a homo. Wearing a cross is not intrusive. If the woman was standing up on a chair preaching about the "the End is Near" or calling customers who came in "sinners" the judge would not have sided with her.

[breakem]

I've made similar ponits as yours and people get real quiet.

[breakem]

I've also made POINTS! LOL!

[breakem]

Jorge, I've been in many WalMarts in various states. Some of the ones in Southern California are dirty and not worth going into. I find the Target stores to be cleaner and more roomy. In the east and midwest I've seen some very clean WalMarts. Two weeks ago I went with a firend into the WalMart in Hood River OR. Diriest store of any kind I've been in for quite some time. Interesting in the mens room they posted the manager and some regional manager's phone numbers and said to call if the rest room was unsatisfactory. Hell, the whole store was bad.

[breakem]

You made my point.

[Houmatt]

How do you compare a woman wearing a cross to work to someone at Walmart potentially harrassing or purposefully hurting the career of a homo?

How do you equate the freedom to practice your religion to someone "going after" a homosexual?

The assertion is people are not allowed to practice their religion whereever and whenever they please. That is patently false, and I have demonstrated such.

A person's religion and the harassment of a person because of their sexual behavior are mutually exclusive.

Period.

[breakem]

Your second point in 207 is not in dispute. I have never said the states can't set the age of consent. You are arguing for the sake of arguing. The only thing I said about consent is that kids and animals can't legally give consent so you can't engage in consentual sex with them. You have created the rest of the argument unilaterally.

Your comment on the dog-doll question being a serious question is strange. Most people here that can put a sentence together can eexplain the difference. So you can call it serious all you want. I think it's pathetic.

[breakem]

re 188. I somomized my car last weekend, looks good!

[breakem]

If you haven't read posts 200-250 you missed the primer on dogs and leg humping. I'm applying for college credit for home study on this thread.

[breakem]

boys and girls, just got back from Costco in beautiful, sprawling Temecula, CA. No sightings of any known homosexuals. I think Costco makes them work in the back room.

[Bluntpoint]

Is not that GMeastiality?

[Houmatt]

You know, I would LOVE to hear you rationalize the lowering of age of consent laws (I think they should be raised nationwide to 18) while not siding with those who wish only to sexually exploit and abuse children.

The thing is, I am asking you to do something impossible. While I said in my last post religion and the harassment of a person because of their sexual behavior are mutually exclusive, the want to lower age of consent laws and have sex with children are not.

And there is NO grey area. Not where children are concerned.

If you think there is, then there is something seriously wrong with you.

[DAnconia55]

And you probably wont. It will be indoctrinated and directed at the employees behind closed doors, and you wont see it between the isles of Chinese goods......

So Basically, WalMart is tricking you conservative types.
Everything looks normal, but in back they're having a huge all gay orgy, right?

[DAnconia55]

Incorrect. Only on public property, your own property or With the permission of the owner of whatever private property you are standing on.

You call yourself a libertarian and make an asinine statement like that? Here is a story that contradicts it.

Didn't happen to notice that was a PUBLIC EMPLOYEE, did you? Government jobs are covered by the Constitution. Private property is not.

The Constitution does NOT give you any rights on private property.

Back up your ridiculous assertion.

[Houmatt]

I'll tell you one of my personal favorite tactics of the people you're talking about. They'll rant for 10 straight posts about how, since sexual activity is not an inherent characteristic (like race), it deserves no attention at all when talking about discrimination.

Then, a few posts later, they'll start complaining about how someone is discriminating against them based on their religion.

I would strongly suggest you read the US Constitution. It specifically addresses freedom of religion. It does not address the freedom to bugger someone of your own gender in a public restroom.

[DAnconia55]

Okay. Let's see if I have this right: Those who took exception to the Gay Rights Rally in Washington, DC in March of 1993 were trying to force themselves onto the homosexuals. Got it.
Nope. Take exception all you like. No problem with that. You just can't BAN private behavior you don't like.

Is it correct to make that assumption?
Nope. You'll get around to trying to boss us heteros around next. Only the Gays stand in your way over trying to rule over us too.

I never said that. If homosexuals wish to work, that's fine. But they don't have a right to work

They have no more and no less right to work than you do.

[breakem]

Since you think there's something seriously wrong with me you may not want to read the answer. So far you've said I address this issue at my own peril, so why would I answer.

But here's what I think today. I don't have an opinion on raising or lowering the age of consent. I did say earlier that I thought kids were more mature now than a hundred years or so ago when they married much younger.

The age of reason should not be changed one way or another based upon people who want to have sex with teenagers. It should be based upon whatever makes sense for society and teenagers as a group. Hell, maybe you can justify it at 30. Give it a shot.

One problem I see is that a 17 year old girl and an 18 year old "man" can have sex and he can go to prison. For my money, most 17 year old girls are more mature than guys a year or two older.

Another thing that seems wrong is that some 19 year old Marine can't buy a beer but he can go to Iraq or wherever and get blown up.

Do we need another thread?

[breakem]

Unfortunately, Hondamy in the first degree with a sedam under 16. With a suds and wax if you know what I mean.

[Houmatt]

Done.

Sorry about that, chief.