use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
詳しくは検索FAQを参照
高度な検索: 投稿者や、subredditで……
10,176 人のユーザーが現在閲覧しています
/r/inthenews /r/worldnews /r/politics new comments
Want to talk?
Chat with us on IRC Follow @rslashnews on Twitter
See a post that violates the rules below? Had your post stuck in the spam filter? Have a question about policy? Just want to give feedback? Send the mod team a message.
Submit all self- & meta-posts to /r/inthenews
Your post will likely be removed if it:
Your comment will likely be removed if it:
Extreme or repeat offenders will be banned.
>>>Expanded Rules<<<
If your post doesn't fit, consider finding an appropriate news article on that story to submit instead, or submitting yours to lower moderation subreddits:
/r/inthenews - all news-related content /r/AnythingGoesNews - unrestricted news /r/truereddit - insightful articles /r/self - any self-post /r/misc, /r/redditdotcom - anything
or other news subreddits:
/r/worldnews - from outside the USA only /r/SyrianCivilWar - about the conflict in Syria /r/MidEastRegionalWar - on MidEast conflict /r/UpliftingNews - uplifting /r/mediaquotes - the things they say
or subreddits for other topics:
/r/FoodForThought - discussion-worthy long form articles about interesting subjects /r/politics - for shouting about politics /r/moderatepolitics - less shouting /r/politicaldiscussion - even less shouting /r/geopolitics - intl. politics and geography /r/entertainment - Justin Bieber updates, etc. /r/europe - news from Europe
or check out the 200 most active subreddits, categorized by content and the full list of subreddits by subscribers.
Recommendations:
/r/redactedcharts /r/patriots /r/personalfinance /r/restorethefourth
reddit is fun for Android and its subreddit /r/redditisfun
submit analysis/opinion article
submit news article
submit something else
Illinois inn fined $80,000 for refusing to host gay civil union ceremony (news.yahoo.com)
lapapinton が 12時間前 投稿
残りのコメントをみる →
[–]Moleculartony -54ポイント-53ポイント-52ポイント 10時間前 (31子コメント)
They didn't deny gay people the right to use their facility. They denied using their facility to celebrate a civil union between two men. It had nothing to do with their sexual orientation. The owner indeed said he had no problem marrying two gay people as long as one was a man and the other a woman.
Traditional marriage is a celebration of the universal natural order of human biological reproduction by presiding chastity over progenitive sexual intercourse. A gay marriage is an entirely different ritual.
[–]Opheltes 13ポイント14ポイント15ポイント 9時間前* (15子コメント)
They didn't deny gay people the right to use their facility. They denied using their facility to celebrate a civil union between two men.
Like I said above, denying gay people the right to use your facility on the basis of their sexual orientation (which is exactly what happened here) is illegal in many states, including IL. You can turn away a gay customer because you don't like him, or the fact that he's got long hair, or because of his eye color. But in most states, you cannot turn him away because he's gay.
It had nothing to do with their sexual orientation. as long as one was a man and the other a woman.
It had nothing to do with their sexual orientation.
as long as one was a man and the other a woman.
Do you not see the obvious contradiction here?
[+]Moleculartony スコアが基準値未満のコメント-16ポイント-15ポイント-14ポイント 9時間前 (14子コメント)
Like I said above, denying gay people the right to use your facility on the basis of their sexual orientation (which is exactly what happened here)
That is not what happened here. He did not deny service based on sexual orientation. It played no role in that decision. The gender of the individuals involved was the basis of the discrimination. That may serve as the basis for another debate, but it as nothing to do with discrimination against LGBTQ.
So it is impossible for people who have a sexual attraction to their own gender to engage in a marriage with someone of the opposite gender? How can that be true? Marc Bachmann married Michelle. There is a whole TV show about these people, ironically called "My Husband's not gay"
Maybe we should persecute gay people who make the conscious choice to respect values of chastity and believe that their is a higher purpose to marriage, as it regards the natural order of the human life cycle or their deeply held religious beliefs.
Marriage is about fucking and sucking who you want to fuck and suck. And that's it. Anyone who disagrees is a bigot.
[–]Opheltes 11ポイント12ポイント13ポイント 9時間前 (13子コメント)
He did not deny service based on sexual orientation. It played no role in that decision. The gender of the individuals involved was the basis of the discrimination.
Are you seriously claiming that a guy who refuses to cater a gay wedding is not engaging in sexual orientation discrimination because he would happily service them if they were getting straight-married?
Sorry, but that's just bizarre.
If the gender of the partner to which they are getting married alters his decision whether or not to service their wedding, that is sexual orientation discrimination. Full stop.
So it is impossible for people who have a sexual attraction to their own gender to engage in a marriage with someone of the opposite gender?
No, but that's not the case here at all and I didn't imply that, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.
The obvious contradiction I mentioned is your claim that "sexual orientation has nothing to do with it" but in the very next sentence you say he'd be happy servicing them as long as they were getting straight-married. Obviously orientation must have something to do with it.
[+]Moleculartony スコアが基準値未満のコメント-8ポイント-7ポイント-6ポイント 8時間前 (12子コメント)
Yup. Assuming it is true, then case closed. No discrimination based on sexual orientation. Right?
[–]Opheltes 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 8時間前 (9子コメント)
No discrimination based on sexual orientation. Right?
Again, no, your position is bizarre and you didn't do anything to justify it other than repeating it.
The Illinois Law which outlaws sexual orientation discrimination defines sexual orientation as:
actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or gender-related identity, whether or not traditionally associated with the person's designated sex at birth.
He refused to cater to them because of their homosexuality. That's illegal. Whether he would have serviced them if they were engaged in a straight wedding is irrelevant.
[–]Moleculartony -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 8時間前 (8子コメント)
He refused to cater to them because of their homosexuality
You are incorrect. He refused to cater to them because they were both men. It had nothing to do with their sexuality. That definition actually proves my point. If the two men were heterosexuals, he still wouldn't have married them.
[–]DoYouBro 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 7時間前 (5子コメント)
If they were heterosexuals, then by the definition of the word heterosexual, they wouldn't be entering into a homosexual union. Refusing them based on their sexuality, which he was no matter how convolutedly you want to spin it, is discrimination. The fact that they were both men trying to enter into a union means they were, by definition, gay and refusing them because they are both men trying to enter into a union is, by definition, discrimination.
[–]ItIsOneCrazyWorld -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 5時間前 (2子コメント)
Actually, gay people marry straight ones all the time so non-gays entering into a "gay marriage" is also possible and has in fact happened: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/12/marriage-two-straight-men-radio-competition-angers-gay-rights-group
[–]DoYouBro 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 4時間前 (1子コメント)
Yes, that's called the exception and not the rule. And in the past, those events took place simply because of the stigma and the fact that it was illegal.
[–]Moleculartony -3ポイント-2ポイント-1ポイント 6時間前 (1子コメント)
If they were heterosexuals, then by the definition of the word heterosexual, they wouldn't be entering into a homosexual union.
So they should be prohibited by law to get married? how would you enforce it? Would you require them to hook up electrodes to their penises and show naked photos of their prospective partner to weed-out the heterosexuals?
[–]DoYouBro 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 4時間前 (0子コメント)
How far up your own ass did you reach to pull that sentiment out of anything I've said. Do you understand simple logical reasoning?
No, but generally speaking non-gay people of the same sex don't enter into a civil union or get married to each other. But you know that, you're just being willfully ignorant and obtuse.
Gay people tend to be in relationships with other gay people. You're argument is flawed much like your logical reasoning skills. Perhaps you should work on that.
[–]TrumpIsSeriousNRG 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 7時間前 (0子コメント)
That's some serious stretching there buddy.
[–]Opheltes 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 6時間前 (0子コメント)
Even if we accept your assertion that it's discrimination on the basis of their gender rather than their sexual orientation, I'm not really sure what that buys you. Gender discrimination is illegal under the very same statute (and federal law too, which applies even in states that don't protect sexual orientation)
And with that said, I'd like you to please describe for me a scenario that you think would be a case of sexual orientation discrimination that but which would not be gender discrimination under your extremely broad definition of the latter.
[–]Corgisauron 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 8時間前 (1子コメント)
Did your stepfather stick his dick in your ear, as well as your asshole? Good god you are fucking dumb.
[–]Moleculartony 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 8時間前 (0子コメント)
Stay classy bro.
[–]diefree85 12ポイント13ポイント14ポイント 10時間前* (10子コメント)
Actually if you want traditional marriage in the original you consider women no more than property. This is no different than if it was an interracial couple. He could of just said no to the event but he did more than that.
[+]Moleculartony スコアが基準値未満のコメント-13ポイント-12ポイント-11ポイント 9時間前 (9子コメント)
Cross that bridge when you come to it. There were no women in this case that were treated like property, nor were there any interracial couples. If the only issue you have is the slippery slope, then the owner of this inn hasn't slid down anything yet, so he certainly shouldn't be fined $80,000 for something he could potentially do. Agreed?
[–]diefree85 7ポイント8ポイント9ポイント 9時間前 (8子コメント)
He violated the law and it is no different than if it was a black or interracial couple. Also the point is that the original definition of marriage was about property exchange which included women. So you can't say you support traditional marriage unless you consider women property. Thought I would point it out since you clearly missed it.
[+]Moleculartony スコアが基準値未満のコメント-12ポイント-11ポイント-10ポイント 9時間前 (7子コメント)
it is no different than if it was a black or interracial couple.
Are gender segregated bathrooms an injustice?
So you can't say you support traditional marriage unless you consider women property
That's your definition of traditional marriage. Not the inn owner or his congregation's definition.
[–]diefree85 8ポイント9ポイント10ポイント 9時間前 (3子コメント)
Then they aren't using the traditional definition either. Gender segregated bathrooms are different and you know it. It would be more accurate if a place ONLY provided a bathroom for men.
Your grasp of this is kinda pathetic.
[–]This_is_Hank 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 8時間前 (0子コメント)
I believe it's call willful ignorance.
[–]Moleculartony -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 8時間前 (1子コメント)
What's different about gender segregated bathrooms? It has become a controversy now. Many in the LGBT community indeed see gender segregated bathrooms the same as racially segregated bathrooms.
[–]diefree85 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5時間前 (0子コメント)
No they haven't the issue there is different and has to do with gender dysmorphia. I already showed how your idea is wrong so move on.
[–]TristanIsAwesome 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 8時間前 (1子コメント)
No one gives a shit about the owner's definition of marriage. We only give a shit about the legal definition of marriage.
[–]Moleculartony -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 8時間前 (0子コメント)
No one gives a shit about the owner's definition of marriage.
That's because individuals have no right to freedom of conscience in this country.
We only give a shit about the legal definition of marriage.
The one that the unaccountable black-robed overlords define for us based on their own personal opinions.
[–]dannoffs1 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 7時間前 (2子コメント)
People that think like you do are the exact reason we have to have these laws in the first place. This is the same quality of logic you get out of sovcit crowd.
[–]Moleculartony -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 6時間前 (1子コメント)
People who believe when two gay men or two gay women are genuinely in love with eachother, it is holy?
[–]dannoffs1 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5時間前 (0子コメント)
Something being "holy" isn't a legal defense in a secular country.
[–]abyss6 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5時間前 (0子コメント)
oh god. 1990s wants their retarded argument back.
π Rendered by PID 15716 on app-193 at 2016-03-31 01:36:40.655642+00:00 running d68b188 country code: JP.
残りのコメントをみる →
[–]Moleculartony -54ポイント-53ポイント-52ポイント (31子コメント)
[–]Opheltes 13ポイント14ポイント15ポイント (15子コメント)
[+]Moleculartony スコアが基準値未満のコメント-16ポイント-15ポイント-14ポイント (14子コメント)
[–]Opheltes 11ポイント12ポイント13ポイント (13子コメント)
[+]Moleculartony スコアが基準値未満のコメント-8ポイント-7ポイント-6ポイント (12子コメント)
[–]Opheltes 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント (9子コメント)
[–]Moleculartony -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント (8子コメント)
[–]DoYouBro 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント (5子コメント)
[–]ItIsOneCrazyWorld -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント (2子コメント)
[–]DoYouBro 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]Moleculartony -3ポイント-2ポイント-1ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]DoYouBro 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]TrumpIsSeriousNRG 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]Opheltes 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]Corgisauron 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]Moleculartony 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]diefree85 12ポイント13ポイント14ポイント (10子コメント)
[+]Moleculartony スコアが基準値未満のコメント-13ポイント-12ポイント-11ポイント (9子コメント)
[–]diefree85 7ポイント8ポイント9ポイント (8子コメント)
[+]Moleculartony スコアが基準値未満のコメント-12ポイント-11ポイント-10ポイント (7子コメント)
[–]diefree85 8ポイント9ポイント10ポイント (3子コメント)
[–]This_is_Hank 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]Moleculartony -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]diefree85 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]TristanIsAwesome 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]Moleculartony -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]dannoffs1 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント (2子コメント)
[–]Moleculartony -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]dannoffs1 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]abyss6 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント (0子コメント)