Thread: Miss California causes waves!

Originally Posted by Seraphim

How is what she said bigotry?

Did she say that gays should be denied equal legal rights, or somehow belittle or slander them? From what I read, she simply commented on the issues pertaining to marriage, which for all we know she may have been viewing the term marriage in the religious sense.

Her quote:


So, she is denied her rights to her opinion for the sake of "political correctness"?

EDIT: And that is where the argument of "why do people get upset if it does not concern them?" loses its' validity, because it does concern everybody, in this case vis-a-vis an infringement on Ms. California's freedom of speech.

Believing (or having the opinion that) people should be denied fundamental rights and equal protection is one way I define bigotry.

And freedom of speech? All she lost was her shot at the crown! She has all the freedom of speech she would like! As do we all. If you use your freedom of speech and people don't like what you say, that doesn't make you less free to say it. Holds true for Michael Moore, and holds true for Neo-Nazis.

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

Believing (or having the opinion that) people should be denied fundamental rights and equal protection is one way I define bigotry.

And freedom of speech? All she lost was her shot at the crown! She has all the freedom of speech she would like! As do we all. If you use your freedom of speech and people don't like what you say, that doesn't make you less free to say it. Holds true for Michael Moore, and holds true for Neo-Nazis.

I take your point.

However, is marriage a RIGHT?

Originally Posted by Seraphim

I take your point.

However, is marriage a RIGHT?

Great question. Not in an of itself, no....but I think many of the BENEFITS bestowed upon those who choose to marry most certainly are.

Again, get the government out of the marriage business, and I think a bunch of the issue goes away. If a religious of non-religious marrying-authority (can't just say "Church" I guess) marries two people, then the state ought not be able to pick and choose who gets the benefits of that union.