Killington Pride weekend

[madhatter]

all public displays of deviant behavior garner attention...

Is this why your posts are so hateful and obnoxious, you are just hoping to get attention?

...

By making your posts so obnoxious and hateful you cause the rest of us to simply ignore them. We do not care what you are saying, we are too offended at the way you are saying it. Ever wonder why so few of your posts are ever quoted and replied to?

no I completely understand that there is a segment of society that simply cannot handle reality or any opposition to their world view and will do anything to shield themselves from it...fits in w the whole mental illness thing...

[freeski]

Inapropriate public displays of affection happen every weekend at Killington and are no more likely to be near where kids are during this LGBT weekend than they are during any other weekend.

https://www.google.com/search?q=gay+pri ... 24&bih=625" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


ya sure?

IMO no different than the Jack Daniels Girls, the pimps and hos party, the mini skirt party, skimpy bikinis at pond skimming, etc etc.

Sure you might see a couple of dudes making out at the after party at the outback, but no different than a dude a chick making out then either... and I'm not likely to have my kids at the outback / wobbly / pickle late night regardless of there being a primarially hetro or homo sexual crowd..

yep same thing:





















note NONE of these pics are late night at a bar...

nor are any of them from last years Killington event...

And you don't even know if they are gay.

[Bubba]

Most people do not care what/who you have sex with

So why has gay sex been considered illegal in many states for so long?

[madhatter]

https://www.google.com/search?q=gay+pri ... 24&bih=625" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


ya sure?

IMO no different than the Jack Daniels Girls, the pimps and hos party, the mini skirt party, skimpy bikinis at pond skimming, etc etc.

Sure you might see a couple of dudes making out at the after party at the outback, but no different than a dude a chick making out then either... and I'm not likely to have my kids at the outback / wobbly / pickle late night regardless of there being a primarially hetro or homo sexual crowd..

yep same thing:





















note NONE of these pics are late night at a bar...

nor are any of them from last years Killington event...

And you don't even know if they are gay.

every one of those pictures came from the google search "gay pride event" do you a-holes ever have a valid argument? are you all that stupid? seriously you idiots couldn't debate a 2nd grade debate team...strawmen and BS is about the extent of it...that only flies w other useful idiots...

yep I get it. you want what you want and that's that, petulant children need to be told no by the adults...

[Bubba]

The argument about having a sanctioned event for gay people at killington is not so much the off chance that children may see something or that patrons will have to be around gay people throughout the day. Let's face it we see this stuff on a regular basis. The argument is that as a business killington should leave the politics alone and let anyone who pleases come up and enjoy the resort. They don't need to throw a specific party just for gay people it's simply unnecessary as it is a controversial topic for many as should be obvious by the small sample response in this thread. Would you all be in support of a resort throwing catholic weekend? What about hetero weekend? I would doubt it...you'd call them bigots. You can't compare jack Daniels weekend where killington is partnering with another private business on the same scale as hosting a weekend centered around social issue in the country today

Gets back to the question about Killington doing this for profit and not for pride. No one is commenting on the fact that Killington is doing this to increase their bottom line. If Killington thought this would cost them revenue, they never would have done this event. Maybe Killington should be boycotted that weekend for getting involved in what is a political debate for profit.

It's the second one, they must have made money on the first one... Killington has welcomed specific groups with special events in the past, outside of the LGBT. College weeks (two college weeks with activities). Triathletes (triathlon). Wine and beer enthusiasts (Beer and wine festivals). Religiophiles (Easter services, egg hunts). Women (women specific camps and clinics). Cycling events, motorcycle events, and on and on. Most of which have nothing to do with skiing, except that all these folks ski.

Are you offended that college kids get special treatment and have two weeks of special events just for them? Why?

None of those events are being shoved down our thoats on a daily basis. That's the main opposition to this event, it's part of what is being forced upon us on a daily basis.

Does the phrase "shoved down our throats" have special meaning in this thread?

[boston_e]

every one of those pictures came from the google search "gay pride event" do you a-holes ever have a valid argument? are you all that stupid? seriously you idiots couldn't debate a 2nd grade debate team...strawmen and BS is about the extent of it...that only flies w other useful idiots...

yep I get it. you want what you want and that's that, petulant children need to be told no by the adults...

So is what you see in the photos you posted less approprate than if a chick wears a skimpy bikini or a guy in a speedo at a pond skimming event?

Is it more appropriate for the Picklebarrel to have a mini skirt party or the "pimps and hos" party than for the Outback to have a LBGT party?

[Bubba]

Seriously, for all who are offended in some way by the scheduled weekend, how many of you will actually stay away as a result of the events? Probably zero. Therefore, if nobody stays away and more people come, then it's a good business decision. What's to debate, at least from management's point of view?

[f.a.s.t.]

This was a disgrace, those that argued in favor of defining marriage as between one man and one woman gave testimony in front of the Court based on historical, social and religious reasons and facts. When the majority rendered their written opinion, they never even argued why the historical, social and religious reasons and facts were unconstitutional, they just said it was discrimination and based on hatred, they totally ignored the opposing view and facts presented in testimony in front of them. So, you are incorrect to write there is no absolute right or wrong in this matter given what the Court did, they said there is a right and wrong, and to hell with anyone who thinks otherwise.

Again, this couldn't be more mistaken. If these are your personal views, fine. But please do not present them as what the Supreme Court actually said, because it simply isn't. These things can be corroborated. Just read the opinion next time.

Just to reiterate, the SCOTUS did not say that a particular definition of marriage was right or wrong or constitutional or unconstitutional. Rather, they said that the federal government cannot enact a law that denies marriage benefits to same-sex couples that were lawfully married under validly enacted state laws. States remain free to define marriage in however way they see fit. But if a state defines marriage in a way that allows same sex couples to marry, Congress must respect the state definition of marriage even if it does not like it. Nothing less, nothing more.


Not so fast there Skiersleft
It has set federal precedent making it easier to deny the definition of marraige.

The case on the federal law was the more important one from a legal perspective, setting the terms for challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage. Justice Kennedy’s reasoning, as Justice Scalia noted at length in dissent, could just as easily have applied to state laws as to the federal one.

“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the state, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.” No one is saying that they are less respected, it is not in the record.

He said the law was motivated by a desire to harm gay and lesbian couples and their families, demeaning the “moral and sexual choices” of such couples and humiliating “tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples.” This is a total lie and disgrace.

Dissenting from the bench, Justice Scalia said that that declaration took “real cheek.”

“By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency,” Justice Scalia said, “the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition.”

Again, please read the opinion as opposed to third party summaries. An elemental proposition in law is that law is made by the holding of the case, not by third party accounts. Also, Justice Scalia's characterization of Kennedy's opinion is legally irrelevant. After all, Scalia is dissenting because his opinion is NOT the law of the land. As a result, his description of the majority is not determinative of anything. If you want to figure out what the court held, please read the majority opinion in its entirety instead of dissenting opinions. This is all law 101. I suggest that if - as you obviously do - you lack any knowledge about legal reasoning and the nature of legal precedents, you abstain from making ignorant statements about what the SCOTUS held or didn't hold in a given case. After all, people go to law school and spend years studying law to master how to read legal opinions. I suggest you do the same before you keep claiming that you know what a SCOTUS opinion holds. If you want to know where to start, your lack of knowledge would be greatly increased by learning about the distinction between HOLDING and DICTUM. Then come back and tell me what the HOLDING of Windsor was. Who knows, you might end up learning something.

I live in the real world, not in the world of scholarly debate of 101 law so I'm sorry I lack any knowledge about legal reasoning and the nature of legal precedents. I'm not a lawyer and never went to law school, so damn, I guess I'm not as smart as all those lawyers in Washington. You know the ones that never legislate from the bench, never partake in partisan politics or make laws based on their own personal opinions. I trust Justice Scalia's minority opinion that the 5-4 ruling will make it easier for judges in states to legislate from the bench and declare that marriage defined as between one man and one woman is unconstitutional. The courts are being stacked with far left radical liberal judges so they can force their beliefs upon society. Why do think there's such a push for Harry Reid to do away with Senate rules for the confirmation of judges to the Washington Circuit Court of Appeals, it's so they can stack this most important court with radical judges that will rule legislation unconstitutional if they don't agree with it. So here's something else that they might teach in 101 law, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; radical judges are legislating from the bench and to hell with any one that disagrees with them. Afterall, Chief Justice Marshall ruled all the way back in 1803 that the Court has the power of judicial review. It alone can decide what the Constitution meant and and find unconstitutional and unenforceable a law or action not in agreement with it. The Supreme Court will have the last word, not you, me, or anyone including legislative bodies, to hell with legislation. Judges and lawyers know best and they alone are the only ones capable of reasoning and setting legal precedents, everone else needs to stay out of the way.

[freeski]

Madhatter, Of course they are gay. I was kidding. How could they be more gay? If they were more gay they would be on fire.

[f.a.s.t.]

Seriously, for all who are offended in some way by the scheduled weekend, how many of you will actually stay away as a result of the events? Probably zero. Therefore, if nobody stays away and more people come, then it's a good business decision. What's to debate, at least from management's point of view?

I'm not so sure about that Bubba, if people (espcially families) are considering a trip to Killington that weekend and they know ahead of time about this event, they just might decide to stay away, go somewhere else. It's a question of how many will actually know this is going on that weekend?

[Rime & Reason]

all public displays of deviant behavior garner attention...

Is this why your posts are so hateful and obnoxious, you are just hoping to get attention?

...

By making your posts so obnoxious and hateful you cause the rest of us to simply ignore them. We do not care what you are saying, we are too offended at the way you are saying it. Ever wonder why so few of your posts are ever quoted and replied to?

no I completely understand that there is a segment of society that simply cannot handle reality or any opposition to their world view and will do anything to shield themselves from it...fits in w the whole mental illness thing...

Are you saying that your distorted view of reality is caused by a mental illness?

[GSKI]

People like the gay "rights" issue because it lets them climb up on their moral high horse and condescendingly preach to those hordes of primitives who mostly do not exist and those that do do not really care about this issue much. Most everybody I know treats people the same unless they get in their face every day trying to force them to accept something then they simply turn you off. The gay "marriage" issue is mostly about forcing the Catholic church to accept gays rather than tolerate them as "sinners" of which we all are at some point (they say). Marriage is a religious sacrament so the use of the word is designed to stick it to the Catholic church. Let the Catholics believe what they want to believe and go have your civil unions. They mostly do not like gays because they cannot reproduce and grow the congregation. I think if you are not truly religious you should not get "married" even if you are hetero.

If gay "rights" activists were really brave they would go after all the Muslim countries that cannot decide of they should stone gays to death or throw them from the roof tops. Of course those guys actually fight back so the gay "rights" folks will stick with going after the Catholic church.

As for Killingtons gay weekend they can do what they want and those that somehow object can do what they want and take their business elsewhere. I am sure it will be mostly low key as the cold weather will forces them to keep their clothes on. I think most people object to the raunchy nature of the gay pride marches and some events. Similarly if I had a family I might stay away from Florida spring breaker hot spots when they are in full swing with hetero action...no pun intended.

[madhatter]

People like the gay "rights" issue because it lets them climb up on their moral high horse and condescendingly preach to those hordes of primitives who mostly do not exist and those that do not really care about this issue much. Most everybody I know treats people the same unless they get in their face every day trying to force them to accept something then they simply turn you off. The gay "marriage" issue is mostly about forcing the Catholic church to accept gays rather than tolerate them as "sinners" of which we all are at some point. Marriage is a religious sacrament so the use of the word it designed to stick it to the Catholic church. Let the Catholics believe what they want to believe. They mostly do not like gays because they cannot reproduce and grow the congregation.

If gay "rights" activists were really brave they would go after all the Muslim countries that cannot decide of they should stone gays to death or throw them from the roof top. Of course those guys actually fight back so the gay "rights" folks will stick with going after the Catholic church.
and other straw men as you mentioned above...
As for Killingtons gay weekend they can do what they want and those that somehow object can do what they want and take their business elsewhere. I am sure it will be mostly low key the cold weather forces them to keep their clothes on. I think most people object because of the raunchy nature of the gay pride marches. it's LOVE its not raunchy...</sarc> Similarly if I had a family I might stay away from Florida spring breaker hot spots when they are in full swing...no pun intended.

[madhatter]

Former Farmington School Employee Accused of Sexually Abusing Cows

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/loca ... FB_CTBrand" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm sure he couldn't help it, he was born w a predisposition for cows... Bovinophilia?

maybe K can host a cow "power bottom" event and tie it in with their cow power program?savvy...

[Stache]

This was a disgrace, those that argued in favor of defining marriage as between one man and one woman gave testimony in front of the Court based on historical, social and religious reasons and facts. When the majority rendered their written opinion, they never even argued why the historical, social and religious reasons and facts were unconstitutional, they just said it was discrimination and based on hatred, they totally ignored the opposing view and facts presented in testimony in front of them. So, you are incorrect to write there is no absolute right or wrong in this matter given what the Court did, they said there is a right and wrong, and to hell with anyone who thinks otherwise.

Again, this couldn't be more mistaken. If these are your personal views, fine. But please do not present them as what the Supreme Court actually said, because it simply isn't. These things can be corroborated. Just read the opinion next time.

Just to reiterate, the SCOTUS did not say that a particular definition of marriage was right or wrong or constitutional or unconstitutional. Rather, they said that the federal government cannot enact a law that denies marriage benefits to same-sex couples that were lawfully married under validly enacted state laws. States remain free to define marriage in however way they see fit. But if a state defines marriage in a way that allows same sex couples to marry, Congress must respect the state definition of marriage even if it does not like it. Nothing less, nothing more.


Not so fast there Skiersleft
It has set federal precedent making it easier to deny the definition of marraige.

The case on the federal law was the more important one from a legal perspective, setting the terms for challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage. Justice Kennedy’s reasoning, as Justice Scalia noted at length in dissent, could just as easily have applied to state laws as to the federal one.

“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the state, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.” No one is saying that they are less respected, it is not in the record.

He said the law was motivated by a desire to harm gay and lesbian couples and their families, demeaning the “moral and sexual choices” of such couples and humiliating “tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples.” This is a total lie and disgrace.

Dissenting from the bench, Justice Scalia said that that declaration took “real cheek.”

“By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency,” Justice Scalia said, “the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition.”

Again, please read the opinion as opposed to third party summaries. An elemental proposition in law is that law is made by the holding of the case, not by third party accounts. Also, Justice Scalia's characterization of Kennedy's opinion is legally irrelevant. After all, Scalia is dissenting because his opinion is NOT the law of the land. As a result, his description of the majority is not determinative of anything. If you want to figure out what the court held, please read the majority opinion in its entirety instead of dissenting opinions. This is all law 101. I suggest that if - as you obviously do - you lack any knowledge about legal reasoning and the nature of legal precedents, you abstain from making ignorant statements about what the SCOTUS held or didn't hold in a given case. After all, people go to law school and spend years studying law to master how to read legal opinions. I suggest you do the same before you keep claiming that you know what a SCOTUS opinion holds. If you want to know where to start, your lack of knowledge would be greatly increased by learning about the distinction between HOLDING and DICTUM. Then come back and tell me what the HOLDING of Windsor was. Who knows, you might end up learning something.

I live in the real world, not in the world of scholarly debate of 101 law so I'm sorry I lack any knowledge about legal reasoning and the nature of legal precedents. I'm not a lawyer and never went to law school, so damn, I guess I'm not as smart as all those lawyers in Washington. You know the ones that never legislate from the bench, never partake in partisan politics or make laws based on their own personal opinions. I trust Justice Scalia's minority opinion that the 5-4 ruling will make it easier for judges in states to legislate from the bench and declare that marriage defined as between one man and one woman is unconstitutional. The courts are being stacked with far left radical liberal judges so they can force their beliefs upon society. Why do think there's such a push for Harry Reid to do away with Senate rules for the confirmation of judges to the Washington Circuit Court of Appeals, it's so they can stack this most important court with radical judges that will rule legislation unconstitutional if they don't agree with it. So here's something else that they might teach in 101 law, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; radical judges are legislating from the bench and to hell with any one that disagrees with them. Afterall, Chief Justice Marshall ruled all the way back in 1803 that the Court has the power of judicial review. It alone can decide what the Constitution meant and and find unconstitutional and unenforceable a law or action not in agreement with it. The Supreme Court will have the last word, not you, me, or anyone including legislative bodies, to hell with legislation. Judges and lawyers know best and they alone are the only ones capable of reasoning and setting legal precedents, everone else needs to stay out of the way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3J89Io28qM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;