User Profile: Sosorryforyou

Sosorryforyou

Member Since: August 03, 2012

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • September 1, 2014 at 9:43pm

    It’s not a false comparison. Many women have children without any medically-trained persons helping them. They also have persons helping them in non-traditional settings that are medically trained but with no affiliation with a hospital. We don’t require any of them to have admitting privledges yet they are helping with a procedure that is much, much more dangerous than abortion. Seems like a double standard to me and not at all about women’s health. If it was, we’d require all people helping out with a pregnancy, whether through childbirth or abortion be required to have admitting privledges. Don’t fool yourself.

  • [-1] September 1, 2014 at 9:32pm

    Upholding the precedent of following the Constitution by upholding Federal law? Yep.

    Responses (1) +
  • September 1, 2014 at 9:29pm

    This judge is just upholding the Constitution by upholding Federal law which allows women abortion rights in the US, which by the way was passed by a Republican-appointed majority of the SCOTUS.

  • [1] September 1, 2014 at 10:52am

    Pgs – our Founders didn’t see it that way.

  • [1] September 1, 2014 at 10:49am

    Do we require women to have admitting privledges when giving birth at home or elsewhere? No. And yet it’s hundred times more dangerous than abortion. Don’t fool yourself – this law isn’t about women’s health. It’s all about denying women their Rights.

  • [1] September 1, 2014 at 10:41am

    Woman give birth to children ALL THE TIME in places no where near a hospital, and yet childbirth is a hundred times more dangerous than an abortion. And yet, we don’t require women to have “admitting requirements” in order to give at home or elsewhere. This law has nothing to do with women’s health. It’s all about denying women their Federal Rights.

  • [3] September 1, 2014 at 10:34am

    Rig worker – except at the time our Founders wrote those words in our Constitution, abortion was legal in America. So, I highly doubt the Founders considered a fetus’s Rights when writing those words.

  • [1] September 1, 2014 at 10:22am

    Disable – of course – it entirely the woman’s responsibility, isn’t it? Well, if you keep pushing that it’s all the woman’s responsibility, then the choice must also be solely hers, too.

  • September 1, 2014 at 10:07am

    What you’re forgetting is that this state law is encroaching on federal law, and federal trumps state law. This judge not only made the right call, he is following the Constitution.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-1] September 1, 2014 at 10:02am

    Here’s a thought for you Grandpa: How about making your gender more prevelant and equally responsible in the pregnancy and abortion debate. Then, and only then, will women freely come to the table to discuss with men the complexities of these issues.

    Responses (3) +
  • [1] September 1, 2014 at 9:50am

    Except that EVERYONE knows this law wasn’t passed as a “pro-health” measure for women. It was strictly passed to make legal abortion more difficult for women.

    Responses (6) +
  • [-2] September 1, 2014 at 9:45am

    Not if state law encroaches on Federal law, which always trumps state law.

  • [5] August 31, 2014 at 10:25pm

    “appaling stupidity” – yes, over and over again, The Blaze has appallingly stupid proofreaders.

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] August 31, 2014 at 6:10pm

    And what’s wrong with him saying a secular prayer at the invocation? And as for baiting them, Rees stepped right into it, didn’t he?

    Responses (1) +
  • August 31, 2014 at 3:17pm

    Also, your “grounfpds to refuse service” argument is weak. A business denying someone service based on discrimination versus denying them service based on health standards, which is where the whole “no shoes, no shirt, no service” idea comes from is not the same thing at all. The business does. not have the legal right to deny anyone the same service as they give someone else solely based on discrimination. Also, your comment that society depends on heterosexuality for continuation is bogus. Homosexuals can and do reproduce ALL THE TIME exactly the same ways as heterosexuals do.

  • August 31, 2014 at 2:48pm

    Truth – I never said the right to marry is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, but there is no denying that it is protected under the Constitution as a fundamental right. There is NO arguing that fact. And New York law allows same-sex marriage. It therefore is protected. You are blinded by the fact that you view everything through the prism of your religious faith, but thankfully, citizens of the United States are not bound by yours or anyone else’s religion ideology. We are a secular society and our laws are civil. Period.

    As for your assumption that homosexuality is a behavior. Again, where is your proof? You state that because it’s not a normal or desired state, homosexuals should not expect to be granted the same rights as everyone else. That’s a huge slippery slope, isn’t it? There are MANY characteristics in humans that are not a “normal sand desired” state. This doesn’t mean that they don’t receive the same rights as everyone. That’s actually an incredibly weak and ridiculous argument.

  • [1] August 31, 2014 at 11:52am

    A business knows what they are surrendering before they open their business, or at least they should know. There have always been US and State laws regarding business and everyone has to follow them. If you find that in good conscience you cannot follow the rule of law, then don’t put yourself in a position where your principles are going to be in conflict with your livelihood.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] August 31, 2014 at 11:39am

    No. Any business whether private or public is deemed a public entity if they are considered a public accommodation, which the Gifford’s business is. This is US law and individual rights to non-discrimination in the sphere of public accommodation is protected by our US Constitution.

    Responses (1) +
  • August 31, 2014 at 11:28am

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fundamental_right

  • [1] August 31, 2014 at 11:19am

    Truth – but, again you are wrong. First, the business owners have a an individual right to Religious Freedom, but under US law, their business cannot use this freedom to discriminate in the sphere is public accommodation. Their religious freedoms were not infringed upon, but they were using their religious freedom to infringe on the rights of others. It’s amazing that you don’t understand this. Second – you are right. The Constitution does not afford protections to homosexuals beyond what’s afforded to everyone else. BUT homosexuals absolutely are afforded the same protections as everyone else. Where do you have proof of your assumption the homosexuality is anymore “behaviorable” than heterosexuality? Third – your wrong to state that no Rights were infringed against this homosexual couple. They have the Right to marry in New York in any public accommodation that offers nuptial services to the public. But hey were denied this Right. Fourth – Marriage is absolutely a Fundamental Right as stated in at least 15 SCOTUS rulings over the past 200 years. Fifth – this is not a property rights issue. It is a public accommodations issue. And, actually the business owners do have options when it comes to public accommodation, but they chose to not use any of those options.

123 To page: Go