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.

 

10 Companies That Hate Gays

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Oddly enough, I have problems supporting agendas as opposed to ideas and equality. Such as I do not support gay rights but I do support human rights.

Perhaps it is because I see "equal, but special" as an extension of "All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others."

Or perhaps I am prejudiced and bigoted white guy that happens to be of Cherokee descent that nearly married a bisexual once? No, I didn't think so either.

But there has to be a clear stopping point for domestic relationships and how coverage and taxes work. I mean what next, full child deductions for pets? There are quite a few "cat ladies" out there that would put octo-mom to shame for dependents.

[edit on 22-3-2009 by Ahabstar]



how does the argument about pets relate and there is a clear stopping point for coverage and taxes.. its just not equall or right..




posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 05:55 AM
link   
did you see the post earlier about how gays have a secret agenda and are taking over the world?? seriously it was said lol....ToTheTentPower wrote an offshoot thread about it specifically The Secret Agenda of Gays



No slander intended to ToTheTenthPower so it's clear, TTT I have found to be a very influential voice of reason and an inspiration for civility and decorum no matter what the topic


[edit on 24-3-2009 by Averysmallfoxx]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Civility and Decorum Reminder.

Good morning, peoples...

This thread is starting to get a bit heated. I would remind everyone that there are certain requirements for posting.

Civility and decorum are two. That regards the topic as well. Hate speech will be removed. Attacks on other members is no go territory, if you can't post without attacking someone, then don't.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by scorand
 


Forgive my lack of response in a timely fashion, so few pay any real attention to what I say.


People can choose to live together without the "benefit" of marriage in any concept. Man & woman, two men, two women, two couples, threesomes...etc. In most cases it is perfectly legal to live in whatever lifestyle a person wishes.

The question of marriage then becomes a question of why exactly? For a traditional man and woman marriage it can be out of religious, or social conformities. In most cases it is out of love, but there are still marriages of convenience, prearranged and other such circumstances that actually undermine the meaning of marriage.

Many arguments stem from tax incentives and insurance coverage. Hmm, not exactly the stuff of fairytale weddings there. Or even material for a workable pickup line in a singles bar.

Which brings me to pets as dependents like children. Pets are expensive, food and medical care, time consuming and like your own children...you treat pets differently than other animals. You can buy insurance policies for pets. And so on...so while an exaggeration of comparing pets as dependents to gay marriage. Some of the arguments are the same.

Now for the love aspect of marriage in a social convention. Marriage between a man and a woman is a public commitment of exclusivity. I can sympathize that gay couples would want the same ability and even somewhat agree to an extent. However, a public proclamation of commitment can also happen without a marriage as well. I know of many couples that have lived together that I consider to be "married" although they in fact not actually married. And if you want to experience a public legal commitment, open a joint account at a bank and try to close it without the other one present or signing...good luck with that one.

And even many businesses already have insurance benefits for significant others. So basically we are left with a church ceremony wedding or a justice of the peace type thing. Many churches will not marry same sex partners, nor should any law force them to do so. Far be it from me to dictate to a Hindu temple that they had better preach about Christ or no longer be considered a religious institution. Same thing for gay marriage in that regard. As for the justice of the peace, I do believe that there are some jurisdictions that allow civil unions that are legally the same thing, just not called the same as marriage. In fact, I do think that many "mixed marriages" were done that way when it was still very taboo.

Bottom line is that lines are already drawn in many people's minds of what is and is not acceptable. Yes, that does suck if you are in the minority. However placing undue strain in the form of "shock and awe" tactics is not a good solution as it will only strengthen the resolve of those opposed.

All things in time. Look at Thomas Jefferson, he could not even acknowledge his mistress back when founding the US...think he would have that problem today?



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
I don't know why I read these types of threads as I am always shocked and sickened by the hurtful things that some people post. But for some reason I can't help myself I do read them.

I am gay, like me or not for it I could care less. As far as boycotting those companies listed in the OP, I personally wouldn't boycott them because they don't provide domestic partnership benefits. I personally can't stand Wal-Mart, so even if they were pro gay I wouldn't shop there.

I am not going to go into a schpeal about how my lifestyle is not a choice, but I can honestly say that for me there was no choice I just am. Fortunately for me I have a very loving family, loving friends and a job where I do get domestic partnership. I live in a naive little bubble where being gay is not a problem and then I read posts like the ones in this thread and the prejudice reality stick smacks me upside the head.

I do not need "marriage" to be legalized, I am in a happily committed relationship regardless. Would I like similar rights like tax breaks, property rights, etc. of course. But I just wish there was a middle ground where everyone could be respected equally.

For the person that jumped to the "beastiality" (sp?) thing, that is just sick and wrong. Being in a gay relationship is between two consenting adults who aren't hurting one another. I just wish people would think before they said certain things, whether you agree/disagree with the gay lifestyle we are still people with feelings.

As far as just anyone getting the domestic partnership benefits, there are stipulations to it. We had to show proof of joint accounts, joint home-ownership/living arrangements for X amount of years, and there were other regulations.

One last thing, the whole "gay agenda" thing is ridiculous, thanks for the laugh though.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
It samaizn that this subject still arouses alot of passion and hatred. Maybe one day we will all be the same, and the problems will end. I doubt it though.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
I found it quite ironic that Urban Outfitters was on the list. Have you ever been to one of these stores? They have some quite fashionable styles and gay's love some fashion. Some of my good friends are gay, they and I both shop there. Urban Outfitters door swings both ways. Cinemark also, how ironic that these stores would discriminate against half of their clients. If my gay friends found out about this they would probably boycott fer sure.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
Its about equality, its about the fact that these types of methods of dealing with the homosexual minority are equivalent to making them sit in the back of the bus, making them drink from a separate fountain in public parks, or segregation in schools.....



Exaggerate much? Homosexuals aren't persecuted nearly to this degree. There is no "Gay Test" that everyone must take, there are no brands, tattoos or badges, bumper stickers or RFID tracking tags to single out and persecute them. They are not placed in camps, there aren't "Gay Schools", there aren't Gay bathrooms or fountains. I'm not saying that people won't be discriminatory towards them, but to suggest any of the above is blatantly over dramatic.

I don't speak for others, but I for one don't want to hear about it. If someone is a Homosexual, Bisexual, whatever... I don't really care. That's your business. I don't judge people based on orientation but by their character. Things like forcing the Firemen to march in a Gay pride parade? That's ridiculous. That's people forcing other people to partake in and promote their beliefs. To me, that's pretty much fascism. What if the Westboro Baptist Church were given Federal authority to force Homosexuals to participate in their anti-gay protests?

Non participation or not endorsing it does not equal discrimination.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
I think it's interesting how the companies listed seem to be doing ok in these economic times. They must be doing something right, so why fault them or force them to change?

They haven't even asked for a bailout.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by scorand
you just showed you're ignorance, where and when did u choose you're sexuality.. it can very well be compared with ones racial identity.. religion is a choice. not sexuality.. neither is racial idenity..


You've shown your own ignorance. "Sexuality" is not homosexual vs. heterosexual. Part of the gay agenda is corrupting the definitions of words like "sexuality."

The phrase you're looking for is "sexual preference."

And learn how to spell before you accuse other people of "ignorance."



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by scorand
men are also mainly in controll of everything.. and we are[SNIP] things up pretty good..


You're not a man to be spewing such self-hating rhetoric. That is not only self-hating, but also sexist. Are only men in control of everything, and s'ing things up? Really?? Ever hear of Marie Antoinette? Imelda Marcos?

Grow a backbone. Don't let these feminazi idiots stomp all over you.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Averysmallfoxx
 



There you go -- moral pluralism and martyrdom, more components of the gay agenda and the NWO as a whole

We all bleed red, but mice and birds bleed red as well. Maybe they are equal to humans? To say that all people are equal is to say that all people are identical. As much as you may want everyone to be identical in your own sick twisted fantasy, that's not how it works out in the real world.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
*star'd* I have star'd pretty much anyon voicing tolerance in this thread because its a lacking quality and a very necessary element in peace among all factions.


You support all tolerance in general? Where is the line drawn?

Tolerance for human sacrifice? For cannibalism as well?



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Skamindy77
 


Nobody needs your emotional appeals.

Except maybe the gay agenda, of course.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
It samaizn that this subject still arouses alot of passion and hatred. Maybe one day we will all be the same, and the problems will end. I doubt it though.


Yes, one day we will all be the same.

Like in the movie Antz. Ever seen it?



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Catfish
 



You must admit, though, that gays are often unfairly targetted for abuse. However, that doesn't mean that they should force everyone else to accept homosexuality as a social norm.

Even Jews don't force their beliefs and practices onto other people. Yeah in schools they teach about Hanukkah, but not all schools, and not as extensively as they teach about "tolerance."



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join