>What a person decides to do with their body is between themselves, whatever god they do or don't believe in, and their medical provider.

The answer of they become a human being isn't precise. It's not like at 12 weeks gestation they aren't suddenly a human. Bodily autonomy should recognize that at some point, which will forever remain undecided, there are two bodies, one of which is unable to protest against their impending murder. The government absolutely has business in cases of criminality such as the taking of a human life.

This was about forcing beliefs onto others, marriage is an example of that force coming from the left. Like I said elsewhere, I'm not interested in an argument over right and wrong, I'm just pointing out the fact that forcing beliefs is not unique to the right, it's probably more prevalent from the left.. even if they refuse to recognize it.

This was many years ago, but as I recall, the feds were accommodating civil unions.

>people should be allowed to marry who they want

Including children, their sister, someone not mentally capable of making decisions, someone that's already married, a corpse..?

>Afterwards, think about what it means to marginalize 20% of the population.

Wasn't arguing the right and wrong of it, was arguing that Pride was pushing a belief onto others. You can't possibly think that the majority of the population went along willingly, because wow, would that be some revisionist history.

Nice deflection. I doubt anyone noticed.

>There are benefits that come from being married in the eyes of the state which is what the issue of gay marriage is predicated upon

Right, which as I said elsewhere, could have been handed over to individuals to determine for themselves. Custody of children, medical proxy, inheritance, and so on. Would be a lot more flexible to not even have a concept of marriage and just let people determine these things as they wish. Maybe designate a default person if one doesn't want to spend time on it. But nah, lets double down on this concept of marriage so we can clog the courts with an ever increasing number of divorces and family squabbles.

But again, this was about pushing beliefs. If I remember right, NH had civil unions before marriages. But that wasn't enough, because.. it was a different term. The left wanted to enforce the belief by using the same term, there was no other reason to push at that point. It had the same legal recognition and rights.

>The touchy Feely stuff about the "erosion" of marriage is the sort of argument used against allowing all adults to vote without restriction.

We shouldn't allow all adults to vote. It's the right of citizens, you're only allowed to vote in each election once, you have to be voting in the correct location, etc. Talk about a slippery slope, you built your argument on one apparently.

​

>Separation of church and state and all that.

No such thing. The state can't demand that you be religious, but it doesn't have to run screaming away from religion either. Christmas as a federal holiday, anyone? But this is just an example of the lack of awareness that beliefs are pushed from both sides, not from just one side as was alleged. Can't have God in school, that's offensive therefore my belief that there is no God is more important than other people's belief that there is or might be!

Marriage isn't exclusively a state institution. I don't believe there's any law that says you can't call yourself married unless it was a state recognized marriage. Just because the state latched on, doesn't mean it's not a matter of belief for many people.

> How is that "forcing their beliefs" on anyone else?

I imagine many would see it as an erosion of the concept of marriage, since we're talking about beliefs. Next up, polygamy, incest, etc. At some point the word and the concept is meaningless. Personally, I think we should just get government out of it altogether. Document who you want to be able to visit you if you're in the hospital, who gets the kiddos, etc.

​

>Now, forcing my belief (or lack thereof in this case) upon them would be to say that they can not practice any religion.

Try having prayer time in a public school.

>It baffles me that you see someone wanting to have the right to marry whoever they want as somehow infringing on your life

Did I say that? My point was about forcing beliefs on others.

>I'm pretty sure it is more about respect.

Pretty sure it's more than that. If you respect others, they'll tend to respect you. No training required.

​

>Or was the baker just being spiteful to someone that didn't share their particular religious views?

Or was the "customer" being spiteful to someone that didn't share their beliefs? It's the same damn question either way. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that?

>They are simply asking for the respect to love who they want to love.

No, they demanded marriage rights. Not the same thing. There was no ban on homosexuality.

>Why is it it different for someone that is Gay or Trans? They aren't forcing you to watch them make out with someone.

Then you'd have to ask why DEI training is even a thing. People shouldn't be displaying their sexuality in the workplace. Yet at many companies, that's actually a thing. They have "resource groups" or something similar. Baffles my mind to see how that's appropriate in a workplace. Love whoever you want (other than children, your own relatives, and a few other exceptions), but don't become a nuisance about it in the workplace.

>Does it really hurt your manhood to have to show respect to someone

Why can't you respect traditionalists? Even liberal Boston had a problem with this. This was battled for years with the St Patrick's Day parade. Why couldn't the pride folks respect the wishes of the parade organizers?

>Man, woman, gay, trans- everyone deserves to be respected and allowed to be who they want to be. But they don't get the right to tell someone else how they should live their life.

Again, this works both ways. This gets back to the situation with the baker that got sued for not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding. The "customer" tried to force this on the baker and ultimately lost. This is the lack of self-awareness that I'm poking at here.

But the rainbow folks are forcing their beliefs. They demanded marriage rights, for example. The majority of the US did not share the belief that marriage was appropriate for same-sex individuals. Look at the former head of Mozilla/Firefox as an example. He was ousted from the company for having made a tiny donation to support "traditional marriage". You may not agree with others' interpretation of what marriage is, but they are entitled to have those beliefs.

Anyone being forced to take DEI training by their employers is experiencing the thrill of beliefs being pushed onto them. Who do you think pushed to make such training necessary?

I'm not even looking at this from a right/wrong perspective. I just think it's laughable to not be able to recognize what one side has done versus the other.

>There are too many idiots up here that think it is ok to push their belief on others.

Isn't that what "Pride" did?

I'm surprised this wasn't already the case too. The lease has an end date, both parties agreed to it. Having the state force the property owner to extend the lease with the same tenant seems to violate the rights of the property owner. If they don't want to extend it further, seems to me that should be their choice.

Here's the actual text from the proposal and where it fits into the existing law:

Proposed bill:

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billinfo.aspx?id=146&inflect=2

1 New Subparagraph; Termination of Tenancy; Expiration of Term. Amend RSA 540:2, II by inserting after subparagraph (g) the following new subparagraph:

(h) For a lease or tenancy the original term of which is 6 months or longer, or for a lease or tenancy the term of which is less than 6 months but which has been renewed for a total period of 6 months or longer, the expiration of the term of the lease or tenancy, provided that the landlord has provided the tenant with written notice at least 30 days in advance of the termination date of the lease term that the lease will not be renewed and that the tenant must vacate the rental property at the end of the lease term.

​

That gets tacked on to:

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lv/540/540-2.htm

II. The lessor or owner of restricted property may terminate any tenancy by giving to the tenant or occupant a notice in writing to quit the premises in accordance with RSA 540:3 and 5, but only for one of the following reasons:

It's Vice. That's their specialty.

Everything is racist according to the internet.

For a very short distance to the exit 2 bridge, where the road is already quite wide. It's a fairly ideal location.

Not sure what the point of that site is. It's not clandestine if the DEA knows about it, and presumably it's been busted and cleaned up.

That's what brings stuff like this new distribution center. As the population climbs, the facilities serving that population need to increase as well. Goodbye open land, hello retail support for a growing population. Not great for the handful of residents that live near there, but it does have easy highway access.

Used to find some in Bar Harbor in the summer, not sure if that's still a thing. But otherwise, yea.. everyone assimilated.

NH gets a dishonorable mention:

>Maine’s new rules, which Bellows said track closely with New Hampshire's revised standards, ban derogatory references to age, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion or disability. Also banned is language that incites violence, or is considered profane or obscene.

https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/politics/maine-politics/maine-vanity-plate-laws-begins-removing-those-naughty-license-plates/97-82291350-9e45-49a3-8525-b4a4c0e5b1cf

That's so lame. I wouldn't drive around with a F***YOU license plate, but I salute the brave soul that did.

If you suspect the oil itself is the problem, have you tried sending a sample to a lab for testing? Alternatively, you could switch suppliers and see if that helps.

Ahh, truck shaming. Reminds me years ago of the anti-Scott Brown ads. "Republican Scott Brown drives a truck". Truly these are demons straight from hell. There can be no other explanation.

BTW, your own motor vehicle can probably do close to twice the maximum speed limit in this state. What are you using that for?

Rule #3.