The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: Chris_ on June 10, 2009, 07:30:22 AM
-
Same-Sex Couple, Children Denied Family Rate at Idaho Pool
POCATELLO, Idaho — A same-sex couple and their three foster children were denied a reduced admission price to a pool in eastern Idaho because the Lava Hot Springs State Foundation says the five don't fit the definition of a family.
Amber Koger and Jeri Underwood say they and their three children were recently denied the resort's advertised family admission price to the Olympic Swimming Complex at Lava Hot Springs.
"What made me mad is that their definition leaves out a lot of families," Koger told the Idaho State Journal. "What you're saying is that because we're gay, we're not a family."
No, being gay doesn't automatically make you a family. :whatever:
If they're going to give family discounts, they need some sort of definition. Otherwise, any group of people that walks up can claim to be a family and demand the discount. That was not the intent of the discount. BTW, discounts are not a right, they're a privilege offered by the merchant.
MORE (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525601,00.html)
-
I used to live in this area as a kid (Montpelier, Soda Springs, Dingle). Lava Hot Springs is on the way between Soda and Pocatello.
VERY conservative, heavily LDS. Not a big surprise there. I'm sure my old neighbors in Montpelier are just shaking their heads when they see these tourists.
-
It seems that one of the adults should have been allowed in with the children under the family rate with the other adult paying their full rate.
-
It seems that one of the adults should have been allowed in with the children under the family rate with the other adult paying their full rate.
That seems like a reasonable compromise.
-
Given the family rate at LHS, they would have been better off paying individually anyway.
-
Given the family rate at LHS, they would have been better off paying individually anyway.
It's not the MONEY, it's the PRINCIPLE. :lmao:
-
What if two brothers lived together and adopted the kids from some of their siblings? Would they be considered a "family"?
I think it's one thing to fight the whole marriage thing, but it's getting too ridiculous when we start wanting to define "family" especially when there are so many kids in the system who just need some stability and someone to love and provide for them. Every household isn't comprised the same. This one touched a nerve, at a certain point, we need to start minding our own business when it comes to others personal and private lives.
-
What if two brothers lived together and adopted the kids from some of their siblings? Would they be considered a "family"?
I think it's one thing to fight the whole marriage thing, but it's getting too ridiculous when we start wanting to define "family" especially when there are so many kids in the system who just need some stability and someone to love and provide for them. Every household isn't comprised the same. This one touched a nerve, at a certain point, we need to start minding our own business when it comes to others personal and private lives.
That works the other way around too. Some people need to stop forcing me to accept their idea of what constitutes a family and mind their own business. Private businesses can set their own rules. "Fairness" is a fairytale for the emotionally challenged.
-
What if two brothers lived together and adopted the kids from some of their siblings? Would they be considered a "family"?
I think it's one thing to fight the whole marriage thing, but it's getting too ridiculous when we start wanting to define "family" especially when there are so many kids in the system who just need some stability and someone to love and provide for them. Every household isn't comprised the same. This one touched a nerve, at a certain point, we need to start minding our own business when it comes to others personal and private lives.
Does that mean you oppose "gay pride" parades and special rights for gays?
-
Does that mean you oppose "gay pride" parades and special rights for gays?
Nope, those pride parades allow for easier stoning as a group. :fuelfire:
-
What if two brothers lived together and adopted the kids from some of their siblings? Would they be considered a "family"?
I think it's one thing to fight the whole marriage thing, but it's getting too ridiculous when we start wanting to define "family" especially when there are so many kids in the system who just need some stability and someone to love and provide for them. Every household isn't comprised the same. This one touched a nerve, at a certain point, we need to start minding our own business when it comes to others personal and private lives.
Maybe we shouldn't try to tell businesses how to run their business?
-
"We are a state agency bound by all the laws of the state of Idaho"
And therein lies the problem....They are not a private business and even if they were could set themselves up for a discrimination lawsuit.
As far as gay pride parades.....
I could care less as long as it's within the confines of the law.
-
And therein lies the problem....They are not a private business and even if they were could set themselves up for a discrimination lawsuit.
As far as gay pride parades.....
I could care less as long as it's within the confines of the law.
Discrimination?? Of whom? These queers are not free to dictate who must be accepted as a family. They have no legal grounds. They could be two runaways from a college dorm who "borrowed" a couple of kids from down the street for all the ticket seller knows.
-
And therein lies the problem....They are not a private business and even if they were could set themselves up for a discrimination lawsuit.
As far as gay pride parades.....
I could care less as long as it's within the confines of the law.
And therein lies the problem. The voters have spoken repeatedly about this absurd idea that any 2 sexually involved people can create a marriage...and the response from those wanting special rights was to go to court to force their opinion upon the 70% of the country that understands what constitutes marriage. A family is the husband and wife in a marriage, and the children they are raising...not just any batch of people who arrive at the same time.
-
Like I said, people--I've LIVED in this area for a number of years in my misspent youth.
Good luck getting ANY jury to award more than a middle finger to any potential lawsuit that is brought up.
-
... we need to start minding our own business when it comes to others personal and private lives.
...
As far as gay pride parades.....
I could care less as long as it's within the confines of the law.
It would seem you can't make up your mind. Therein lies the problem. :whatever:
-
It would seem you can't make up your mind. Therein lies the problem. :whatever:
That makes no sense on your part. I stated that I don't care in both instances. I believe we shouldn't legislate our beliefs, that is all. Obviously I don't accept homosexuality....
-
That makes no sense on your part. I stated that I don't care in both instances. I believe we shouldn't legislate our beliefs, that is all. Obviously I don't accept homosexuality....
All legislation is based on beliefs of one fashion or the other. Are you advocating we wipe the slate clean and have a free-for-all?
-
All legislation is based on beliefs of one fashion or the other. Are you advocating we wipe the slate clean and have a free-for-all?
I was trying to give simple responses to lenghthy thoughts lest I be tarred and feathered for my typically long missives.
Principally, I believe that issues such at these as they relate to what two consenting adults do and the rights their of should be left up to individual States and private institutions. When it becomes Federal the only thing I expect is equal protection under the law. I happen to believe is less government.
That being said as it relates to this particular issue, this was not a privately owned business, therefore they have to give equal access and protections and can't discriminate on things such as fees because of personally held beliefs, unless it just so happens that there is a state or federal statute that happens to agree with their beliefs.
From the article, the only thing we got was one of the management stating that the state of Idaho defines "family" as one man and one woman. And I doubt that is on the books, because "family" is a broad term and if we used that polarizing definition, than people like me never had a family even though all my caretakers were straight. See the issue there.
I think the marriage issue was confused with "family" and that is a problem. Obviously, the State of Idaho considers them a family or they wouldn't give them foster children.
As far as gay pride parades, if it's legal, I don't object.
I'm not stating that we should have a free for all, but once we begin asking government to intercede on behalf of our personal beliefs, we are asking for more government and like I stated I believe in less government.
-
That makes no sense on your part. I stated that I don't care in both instances. I believe we shouldn't legislate our beliefs, that is all. Obviously I don't accept homosexuality....
But you're totally okay with sharia law being applied.
Got it.
-
But you're totally okay with sharia law being applied.
Got it.
Where have I stated that? Or is it that mud sligging, slander, name calling, and defamation is the status quo around here?
-
Where have I stated that? Or is it that mud sligging, slander, name calling, and defamation is the status quo around here?
No, you haven't stated that and I too wondered from where it came. I understand the question though.
Your tone seems to be in favor of "whatever" as far as the radical homosexual agenda is concerned. Most folks like myself find that attitude extreme. Homosexuals are not special in any shape or fashion. Homosexuals walk through their day with the exact same rights as you and I. They are denied NOTHING. Homosexuals have every right to get married and whatever else. The fact their sexual appetite does not compel them to take advantage of these rights is not my problem. It isn't society's problem.
In fact, I have a better case to demand that I be allowed to live in a civilized society which does not recognize and indulge every weird and unconventional personal choice made by some radically inclined oddballs than the radically inclined oddballs have in trying to force their whims on society.
-
That makes no sense on your part.
You contradicted yourself and got caught....again.
I stated that I don't care in both instances.
No, that's not what you said. I even quoted it. You do appear to care and said that "we need to start minding our own business when it comes to others personal and private lives". Gay pride parades don't do that."
I believe we shouldn't legislate our beliefs, that is all.
All our laws legislate beliefs.
Obviously I don't accept homosexuality....
But you said:
I could care less as long as it's within the confines of the law.
Seems you still don't know what you believe.
-
Where have I stated that? Or is it that mud sligging, slander, name calling, and defamation is the status quo around here?
Fine. Deny it.
-
OK, if you have to paint me as a liar do as you will, I'm certain nothing I can state will stop that allegation anyway. As the rules are if you don't agree with us, your (...insert derogatory...)
-
OK, if you have to paint me as a liar do as you will, I'm certain nothing I can state will stop that allegation anyway. As the rules are if you don't agree with us, your (...insert derogatory...)
I don't see a denial there. Very weak evasion of the previous post.
-
OK, if you have to paint me as a liar do as you will, I'm certain nothing I can state will stop that allegation anyway. As the rules are if you don't agree with us, your (...insert derogatory...)
Just because I find you nauseating doesn't mean that everybody else does. This place doesn't march in lockstep with a lot, except a general dislike of stupidity.
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaam's post
Quote
"We are a state agency bound by all the laws of the state of Idaho"
And therein lies the problem....They are not a private business and even if they were could set themselves up for a discrimination lawsuit.
--------------------------------
If the place is a "state agency" not only are the bound by the laws of the state, they are bound by federal law.
Homosexuality is a "protected" class, same as the elderly or handicapped. It is illegal to discriminate against them by federal law.
-
Salaam--I merely asked you a question and you get defensive. Speaks volumes, really.
Oh, and I notice you still haven't answered it, but that's okay, I got the answer I expected.
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but whats the state of Idaho's definition of "family" thats the issue
-
I was trying to give simple responses to lenghthy thoughts lest I be tarred and feathered for my typically long missives.
Principally, I believe that issues such at these as they relate to what two consenting adults do and the rights their of should be left up to individual States and private institutions. When it becomes Federal the only thing I expect is equal protection under the law. I happen to believe is less government.
That being said as it relates to this particular issue, this was not a privately owned business, therefore they have to give equal access and protections and can't discriminate on things such as fees because of personally held beliefs, unless it just so happens that there is a state or federal statute that happens to agree with their beliefs.
From the article, the only thing we got was one of the management stating that the state of Idaho defines "family" as one man and one woman. And I doubt that is on the books, because "family" is a broad term and if we used that polarizing definition, than people like me never had a family even though all my caretakers were straight. See the issue there.
I think the marriage issue was confused with "family" and that is a problem. Obviously, the State of Idaho considers them a family or they wouldn't give them foster children.
As far as gay pride parades, if it's legal, I don't object.
I'm not stating that we should have a free for all, but once we begin asking government to intercede on behalf of our personal beliefs, we are asking for more government and like I stated I believe in less government.
The fact that an activist judge placed children in a home with a same-sex couple does not make "the state of Idaho" in agreement. Activist judges do stupid things all the time.
-
Salaam--I merely asked you a question and you get defensive. Speaks volumes, really.
Indeed it does. IMO anyway.
-
Indeed it does. IMO anyway.
...has yet to answer the question either.
-
...has yet to answer the question either.
I'm not going to hold my breathe waiting for it either.
-
I'm not going to hold my breathe waiting for it either.
Do you suppose TNO converted to Islam? Posting style seems familiar.
-
My God, what question children? You keep rambling on about a question that wasn't asked. Maybe I missed it, re post it then I will answer. No need to get the tinfoil hats out swearing a conspiracy over it...
And BTW, judges don't place children in foster care, that's done by the state's child welfare agency.
-
My God, what question children? You keep rambling on about a question that wasn't asked. Maybe I missed it, re post it then I will answer. No need to get the tinfoil hats out swearing a conspiracy over it...
And BTW, judges don't place children in foster care, that's done by the state's child welfare agency.
You are drifting out of the lane. Grab the wheel. The foster care case mentioned here was indeed decided by a judge.
-
My God, what question children? You keep rambling on about a question that wasn't asked. Maybe I missed it, re post it then I will answer. No need to get the tinfoil hats out swearing a conspiracy over it...
And BTW, judges don't place children in foster care, that's done by the state's child welfare agency.
Let me help you, since you apparently can't find the time to even read what was posted a page ago:
Salaam:
That makes no sense on your part. I stated that I don't care in both instances. I believe we shouldn't legislate our beliefs, that is all. Obviously I don't accept homosexuality....
NHSparky:
But you're totally okay with sharia law being applied.
Got it.
Sparky's implication is, of course, that while you hold a lofty laissez faire philosophy with respect to the gay and lesbian agenda, "agenda" meaning their insistence that they somehow have basic human rights denied them, you're adamantly in favor of sharia law.
You were given an opportunity to deny it. Which you did not.
Perhaps this topic might be better served in a separate thread? :popcorn:
-
And Euph I'm on record time and time again against Shariah law for a myriad of reasons I outlined in the past, most Islamic that non-Muslims really wouldn't care about as the debate is normally one between Muslims.
But for your purposes, the simple answer is no. It's not a new question or a new answer. Some just want to make gross assumptions about what I believe because I happen to be both Muslim and one who disagrees with their opinion.
Next, I will probably get a question about Israel, which before you ask, support their right to exist in Peace and got crucified by other Muslims some even my close associates in December when I blamed Hamas for that flare up that killed 1000 plus Palestinians.
Let's just try to stay on topic please.
I don't support a "gay agenda" I just happen to have a different view concerning their rights according to the law.
-
Problem is, as someone else pointed out, they weren't a "family" in that these kids were not legally adopted by said couple. Had that been the case, then they might actually have recourse. But they don't. C'est dommage.
-
Problem is, as someone else pointed out, they weren't a "family" in that these kids were not legally adopted by said couple. Had that been the case, then they might actually have recourse. But they don't. C'est dommage.
Hadn't thought of it that way. Once you brought up the "foster" versus "adoption" argument, I had to reevalute my thoughts concerning the topic. While I'm now in agreement with you on the merits of whether or not they have a right to challenge the pool.
I still am concerned about the legal implications of having "family" being defined based on where you go. If there was a uniform standard that would be one thing, but right now it's just too much gray area in my opinion.
-
Hadn't thought of it that way. Once you brought up the "foster" versus "adoption" argument, I had to reevalute my thoughts concerning the topic. While I'm now in agreement with you on the merits of whether or not they have a right to challenge the pool.
I still am concerned about the legal implications of having "family" being defined based on where you go. If there was a uniform standard that would be one thing, but right now it's just too much gray area in my opinion.
1. Blood relative
2. Legally married (1 male, 1 female)
3. Legally adopted.
Seems simple enough.
-
I think this still boils down to the gays seeing discrimination where it doesn't exist. Either one of the "parents" could have entered with the children as a family with the other adult paying their fair share. In fact, as a kid, I often went with another friend and their mom and was included under their "family" fee. Places like that don't ask for a proof of relationship, it would be too time consuming.
-
I think this still boils down to the gays seeing discrimination where it doesn't exist. Either one of the "parents" could have entered with the children as a family with the other adult paying their fair share. In fact, as a kid, I often went with another friend and their mom and was included under their "family" fee. Places like that don't ask for a proof of relationship, it would be too time consuming.
Another good point...
2. Legally married (1 male, 1 female)
Playing devil's advocate here, but what if they were legally married in another State? I don't know Idaho's laws on recognizing marriages performed in other states, but would it then be up to the pool rep to determine those nuances?
I only state such because the main thrust of the argument seemed to have more to do with the fact that they were a same-sex couple.
If they were legally married, would they/should they present a marriage certificate to get the family rate?
I only ask these hypothetical questions because these are legal questions that have to be resolved one way or the other.
I'm under the impression given the tone of the debate that two men showing up with kids claiming to be a family would have been an issue regardless.
I guess the better way to phrase it is what do you guys think if those conditions I brought up were fact?
Simple opinion, no debate...
-
My God, what question children? You keep rambling on about a question that wasn't asked. Maybe I missed it, re post it then I will answer. No need to get the tinfoil hats out swearing a conspiracy over it...
And BTW, judges don't place children in foster care, that's done by the state's child welfare agency.
The article specifies a divorce hearing. This requires a judge. Judges most certainly award custody.
-
Like I said, people--I've LIVED in this area for a number of years in my misspent youth.
Good luck getting ANY jury to award more than a middle finger to any potential lawsuit that is brought up.
That pretty much is going to be the outcome in the whole state. I think all of two counties carried the Messiah, both were downtown Boise or there abouts. Not exactly a liberal state. Oh, and we're all armed to the teeth! Very little violent crime in these parts. It could get ya killed!
BTW, Idaho does NOT recognize gay marriage in any form. From another state or country, won't matter.
edited to add content