We have it, just not in the cities. Beaches, etc. we can. No point in really walking around the city topless anyways, most things tell you they wont serve you if you don't wear a shirt.

They'll serve men anyway... mmm memories of hospitality in the summer

Must be nice!

I'm sure you'd get better service if you weren't wearing a shirt. Also, as I said, it is legal in one city, so long as it's not done for the purpose of making money.

i didn't know you were LDS Stangmar.... or maybe I did, I forget

it is a ridiculous notion to think that people who hold a certain belief don't have just as much right to vote for that belief as those who believe differently. a greater concern is this:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/...ends_adoptions/

Everyone want's to talk about rights, but when a state begins meddling with moral law, they begin defining what religions can and cannot do, and in some cases, enforcing it to the point where the religion cannot practice as they wish. This is a strong reason for any church that morally opposes gay marriage to vote against it. In this case, the majority voted for Prop 8.

The same is true in reverse. Religion begins to define what the state can and cannot do, and then those not of that religion are not able to live as they wish.

As for the adoption agency, that is their choice. It's certainly not the fault of the government. I was rather upset at the idea proposed in there of the governor exempting them. Why should a religious institution be exempt from laws regarding discrimination? In the end, it's a shame that the charities could not work with the state, but given that belief, perhaps it's just better that they do not.

Fixed.

You're like a pitbull, except someone modified your jaw so you can't let go even by choice.

Plus you're not nearly as charming as one.

You're right, I'm way more persistent than any dog, and I don't have that "so ugly it's cute" thing going on either.

This is indeed a great concern, but probably not in the way you meant it. States "meddling" with moral law? They're SUPPOSED to handle the law. That's the point of their existence.

If the Catholics want to take their ball and go home because the state is allowing gay couples to adopt, that's too bad, but to make it out to be anyone else's fault than their own is highly unfair. If someone closed up shop because they found out they weren't allowed to not hire people simply because they were black, I should hope no one would be telling the govt. they were being draconian and employers can't function as they wish.

Apologies if I misunderstood where you were going with the above comment: if I'm wrong, just take it as a general note against those beliefs as held by other people.

The Catholic took their ball because they were given the ultimatum of allowing adoption to gay couples, or not allowing it at all. The concern is this precedence being used against other religions. Should the LDS Church be required to allow same sex marriage within it's temples? Should the state be allowed to make that decision?

More than that though, it completely within the LDS Churches right to support a law against same sex marriage, just as it is others right to campaign against it. The Church isn't publishing anti-gay slander, or depicting gays breaking into an LDS families house and ransacking it. It is only exercising its democratic rights, just as anti prop 8 groups are theirs.

You forget that apparently Californians are giving more rights to chickens, which get slaughtered then to gay people. How could have done such a thing when we voted for Obama? Its impossible!

That's not a fair comparison. The state does not have any right to legislate how they perform religious ceremonies, but adoption isn't a religious ceremony, and it's well within the state's right to dictate how they run it. Adoption goes well beyond just the church. Marriage ceremonies do not. Surely, you wouldn't agree if they refused to give children to Mormon or Jewish families just because they weren't Catholic, right? And both of those groups have beliefs that you could say are in conflict with Catholicism.

The MEAN EVIL RELIGIOUS PEOPLE MUST DIE!!!!!!!!!!!



Give it up already, You're really starting to sound like an asshole.

In Texas there is no law against women walking around completely topless if they want. Nothing specifically stating they can but nothing saying they can't either.

http://michaelbluejay.com/nudity/

Why exactly does the government care who gets adopted by who?

That should be a private family matter as long as the children aren't being used for slavery or something similar, they shouldn't be involved with adoption agencies?

Why is the government getting involved with family creation? Its a purely religious institution.

Yeah, that made me giggle when I read it too.

I don't have a problem with them not assisting gay couples, the problem is creating an ability for exceptions to occur. If they want to shove a "no gays" sign on the front door let them, their attitude might put some people off but that's their issue.



Family creation at its most basic is biological, if you think it has anything to do with religion what so ever I would like to introduce you to the (counts) many, many... many families world wide who don't give a flying about the bible or anything related to it ('cept xmas cause everyone likes free stuff and pagan ritual)