so brave, what's his kickstarter link

Originally Posted by fearthesloths

shouldn't that work both ways? if he's not allowed to impose his beliefs at work they shouldn't be allowed to either.

They own the business. It boils down to he pissed off his boss.

Originally Posted by CallMeTroy

Marriage equality is about human rights. It's not a purely political issue like marijuana legalization is. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Why don't you think smoking marijuana is a human right?

Originally Posted by CallMeTroy

Prohibiting someone from smoking marijuana doesn't devalue them as a person. I do believe it should be legalized, though.

As someone in favor of legalizing both these points of contention, that's a pretty hazy and emotionally fueled argument you got there.

Originally Posted by CallMeTroy

How? Is disallowing marriage for two consenting gay adults not clearly oppressive?

No more oppressive than disallowing marijuana possession, which you relegate to "a purely political issue." Neither policy really "devalues" anyone "as a person," they just prevent people from doing something they want to.

Originally Posted by Big_Guy

if there is no dress code do they have a right to terminate the guy?

They have a right to terminate a guy for any reason that's not protected under federal law, or applicable state law, including what they showed up to work wearing. "They" are the boss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employm..._United_States

Originally Posted by Jason Tate

This is a pretty flawed analogy. However, separate but equal policy most certainly does devalue someone as a person.

If you say so. The laws that prohibit same-sex marriage in some states apply to everyone. A man cannot marry a man and a woman cannot marry a woman, regardless of their sexual orientations. A man can marry a woman, regardless of their sexual orientations.

Prohibiting same-sex marriage obviously mainly affects gay people because they're the ones who'd seek a same-sex marriage in most (all) cases. Prohibiting marijuana use mainly affects marijuana smokers because they're the one who'd seek to possess, use, etc. marijuana.

Am I not "devalued as a person" by oppressive marijuana laws that mainly apply to me as a marijuana smoker, but not to non-smokers, any less than oppressive marriage laws that apply mainly to gay people, but not straight people, "devalue as people" gay people?

Originally Posted by Jason Tate

And the right to marry is the issue at hand, removing the right to marry the person you love is not analogous with your choice to smoke weed. I firmly believe you should be able to smoke weed all you want; however, you are not having a right removed that others have ... there's a big difference there.
But one is not a right bestowed upon another class of citizens arbitrarily. If those with blonde hair could smoke weed, and everyone else was SOL ... then maybe I'd agree with you.
This is a very odd sentence.
I think I get what you're asking ... and the answer is you are not devalued on the same level because you are not stripped of a right another person has, in the same manner.

Yes sorry for that sentence structure, you're getting my point in any case, and to me the "level" of devaluation isn't meaningful to me. Seems like a matter of accounting.

Essential to my point is the idea that gay people are allowed to marry--just to marry people of the opposite sex, same as straight people. Obviously that means little to gay people and is not material to the actual gay marriage debate. However, for my purposes in this point, gay people aren't stripped of that right. They're not removed of a right that others have. The law offers marriage to gay people in a manner they're not interested in, but only appeals to straight people. The law offers smoking to weed smokers in a manner they're not interested in. Laws that restrict smoking marijuana apply unequally to marijuana smokers as to cigarette smokers and non smokers.

I think it's the same point stated differently; I'm arguing semantics mainly. As it stands I'm a straight non-smoker in favor of marijuana and gay marriage legalization, and I was just curious as to why Troy thought marriage was a more fundamental right than smoking. And the point you're both making is something I'm picking up on, but briefly stating "one or the other devalues somebody as a person" just seemed overemotional and not up-to-mustard for me, because I'm being an insufferable brat for no reason.