Disabled Gay Couple Ejected From Pool

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by leekohler, Jun 14, 2011.

  1. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #1
    One step forward with DOMA getting struck down and one step back with this. This is just spiteful and cruel.

    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/06/13/Kentucky_Disabled_Gay_Couple_Ejected_From_Pool/
     
  2. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #3
    How would the guy know they're gay? It seems like developmentally and intellectually disabled are recognized as such first.
     
  3. renewed macrumors 68040

    renewed

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Location:
    Bemalte Blumen duften nicht.
    #4
    Read the local article. One guy was sitting in the other guys lap at the pool with his arm around him.

    Another witness stated they were kissing and hugging a lot.
     
  4. nizmoz macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    #5
    It's one thing if the gay couple were just there to swim. But it's another thing to be kissing or being in each others laps and doing naughty things in public with children around. Sorry but I would have kicked them out too or asked them to stop. We don't need our children to see that stuff in public. This is just my opinion. I have a friend that is gay and no issues with him being that way, but that is the way he is. I have no issues with those type of people.
     
  5. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #6
    It's just so mean. What the hell? I feel terrible for those guys.

    You're forgetting that they are also developmentally disabled. There should be some leeway given to them on that basis.

    And really? Kissing and hugging is now "naughty"?

    Oh no- gay people! Hide the children. ****ing ridiculous.
     
  6. barkomatic macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Location:
    Manhattan
    #7
    This is an example of why we need anti-discrimination legislation that specifically protects the rights of gay people. Generalized laws and legal language just isn't specific enough for stupid bigots -- and sadly it never has been.
     
  7. nizmoz macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    #8
    Not in a public place around children.
     
  8. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #9
    Hmm...do you hide the kids when straight people do the same?
     
  9. iStudentUK macrumors 65816

    iStudentUK

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    London
    #10
    That really should not be the case. You should not be able to discriminate on the basis of gender, sexuality, religion, race etc on public property or in the course of running a business (with a couple of narrow exceptions). As abhorrent as it would be to exclude someone from your house on the basis of one of the above, it should be legal to do so.

    There's a cafe near me here in London that has a sign up saying "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason". Whilst I really don't think they mean to use it to discriminate, I fear some business owners would think that a sign like that gives them that right. What they really mean is "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, in so far as the law allows". No matter what signs they put up they cannot refuse to serve someone solely based upon sexuality, race etc.

    Exactly, why should it make a difference? Whilst there are obviously some activities that shouldn't be 'performed' in front of children, it should be independent of who is doing the 'performing'! :D
     
  10. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #11
    I disagree. We should not have to compartmentalize anti-discrimination laws. They should be as broad as possible, so that every case of bigotry can be combatted by the same compact set of laws.

    The problem is, much of America vehemently disagrees with the legal reality that what they think the Bible tells them to do might be unconstitutional.
     
  11. nizmoz macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    #12
    We don't want our children to get the wrong idea. We want them to know G/B not B/B or G/G. They learn at a young age and don't need to see that. Depending what naughty things they were doing at the pool, yeah, G/M should be kicked too. It's a public place, don't be doing that in front of children period.
     
  12. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #13
    Take it away Lee...
     
  13. iStudentUK macrumors 65816

    iStudentUK

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    London
    #14
    Why should it matter if a child sees two girls kissing, holding hands etc? Or two guys? In fact if more children did grow up seeing that it may help them realise that homosexuality is no worse, and no better, than heterosexuality.

    Seeing two people of the same sex acting as a couple in love will not be detrimental in the slightest. It's like saying I don't want my children to see ginger people, in case they grow up to be ginger! Makes no sense!
     
  14. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #15
    Seeing 2 guys kiss each other isn't going to turn kids gay.
     
  15. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #16
    Oh, now you've done it.

    You claim that you have no problem with gay people. Well, you most CERTAINLY do. Look at what you just wrote! What you just wrote says that there is something wrong with being gay.

    Kids don't "learn" to be gay. They either are or aren't. I was raised by fundamentalist Christians and never was exposed gay people, but I'm gay. I didn't learn it, I just am.
     
  16. renewed macrumors 68040

    renewed

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Location:
    Bemalte Blumen duften nicht.
    #17
    I don't mean to B/L during this W/D but what are you T/A?

    In other words what is this G/B B/B G/G G/M stuff?
     
  17. iStudentUK macrumors 65816

    iStudentUK

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    London
    #18
    I'm pretty sure G/B = Girl,Boy, B/B = Boy,Boy etc. No idea what G/M is.
     
  18. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #19
    W/T/F did you just say? :p
     
  19. barkomatic macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Location:
    Manhattan
    #20
    How would such a law read? The problem is that legal teams are able to find legal holes in broad(ish) laws allowing people to discriminate and lawsuits to sit in court for years. It's because of the people you describe who consider the Bible the law of the land that we need it this specific language.
     
  20. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #21
    That's very true. Can't argue.
     
  21. ratzzo macrumors 6502a

    ratzzo

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Location:
    Madrid
    #22
    Gay people are still people... and therefore enjoy the same rights as say, myself. Why should anyone else have more rights than me just because of their sexual preference? I'm not sure I understand your post. By the way, I disagree with the ejecting from the pool.
     
  22. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #23
    I'm sorry but, how do gay people have "more rights" than you? Are you kidding me?

    And we don't have the same rights as straight people.
     
  23. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #24
    Gay people don't have the same rights as straight people. All they want are equal rights. Nothing more, nothing less.
     
  24. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #25
    I think "Discrimination on the basis of religion, race, gender, sexual preference, etc etc etc is prohibited" would be sufficient. I'm sure there will always be loopholes to plug, and as times change laws change, but a simple list should do. The more language a law contains, the greater the opportunity for varied interpretation. It should therefore be both brief in language and comprehensive in listing forms of discrimination to be prohibited.
     

Share This Page