That's not the point. The minimum wage is criminally low.
I give it 3 months...max
Should I take that as you're not up to answering any of the questions?
FYI, Christ didn't say anything about any of those behaviors you deem deviant. Does that mean Christians should think they're OK? Christ is not the only figure in scripture who taught. You actually might be a fan of Red Letter Christians who think if Christ didn't speak explicitly about it, its otherwise mention in the bible is irrelevant.
Again tupper, why do you continue to want to make religion your straw man. Thomas Jefferson (a stretch to call him a Christian) said:
"Buggery is twofold. 1. With mankind, 2. With beasts. Buggery is the Genus, of which Sodomy and Bestiality, are the species."
Do you want to make Jefferson your whipping boy as well? Do you want to impute to him your mindset that religion must be the blame for anyone's wrong thinking? To Jefferson, homosexuality was a crime against nature. There was nothing religious about his objections and those of many others.
But you keep creating that straw man.
Not all jobs are the same. Thus, not all jobs pay the same. There seems to be some idea that jobs are commodities, and everyone that has one should therefore have all their expenses paid.
What if she had 6 kids, or 8? Is an employer responsible to pay you an agreed wage or to cover all your expenses?
Having said that I admire her for her hard work and wish her well. A $0.10/hr raise in a decade is nuts. Surely with her experience she can find a higher paying job?
Spare me the platitudes about equality. From the beginning, same-sex marriage zealots have stated that was their goal. And, unsurprisingly, they've been liars.
California was one of the first states to create civil unions that had all the rights under the state's laws as did marriages. And what did homosexuals say? They said that was not good enough. Homosexuals went on to challenge Prop 8 in California. What was the need for doing so if equality was the goal?
This debate is not about equality. You can put that notion to rest. It's not about tolerance, so put that argument to bed. It's about a stamp of approval. It's about forcing the rest of society to give nothing but full-fledged endorsement.
Have you looked to see what homosexuals have done to those who donated to the Prop 8 cause in California? Did you see what they did to Brendan Eich? This is not a movement interested in equality. It's a fascist movement most interested in using blunt force to trample opposition while anointing itself with unfettered approval.
Silly people pretending that the state bows to any church. Preachers say "by the power vested in me by the State of South Carolina, I pronounce you married." That marriage ain't valid if the state didn't issue a license. A wedding conducted by a notary or JP is totally valid without requiring the endorsement of a church.
While admiring the nuptials of European royalty, have any of you narrow-minds ever wondered why there are two ceremonies, one civil and one church? Only in America does the state allow a church official to perform a legal wedding.
Marriage is a civil contract with serious property-ownership concerns, and it can only be entered into by consenting adults. This is why slaves couldn't marry. Not because white people feared the "let no man put asunder" clause, but because slaves could not enter legal contracts.
Why don't we start out with what the founders of this nation, those who gave us the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, thought of marriage. I give you this for enjoyable reading:
If you can find any evidence from our Founders that they understood marriage to be something other than an institution of a man and a woman, I'm all ears. Some of you like setting up phony arguments about religion as a straw man. We can leave religion out of it and talk about what the Founders believed it to be - and you'll lose that argument as well.
The legal definition of marriage was NOT gender neutral for 200 years. At least in the case of the federal government, marriage had NO gender-defining legalese. That's not the same as saying it was gender neutral. The understanding of marriage was axiomatic. It needed no defining. The federal govt. and many states only began to define marriage when 20th- and 21st-century fad-setters began, under an equality facade, to make it something different.
You say MY side changed 200 years of history when DOMA was passed. Who is MY side? The bill passed in both houses of Congress by overwhelming majorities - including a 2-1 margin in favor amongst Democrats, and Bill Clinton signed it into law. And who was changing anything if not those wanting to dumb marriage down?
Sean Brock knows at least as much about Mexican food as he does about lowcountry South Carolina food. Which is to say, he doesn't know Oaxaca from Vera Cruz.
For the record freefirezone, I, nor anyone in the lgbt community seeking marriage condone any kind of incest, beastiality, pedophilia or any other REAL deviant behaviors no more than your righteous *ss! You, sir, are an insult to decent human dignity and using religion as you and your ilk do is blatant disregard to what your Jesus really taught. Apparently, what comes from the altar is intentional mis-interpretation in order to judge those you deem less "pure". I am incenced at your implications toward our community and tired of having to continue to endure the debasing of our community that, for me, started in grade school and you are making d*mn sure to keep carrying the torch of lies and hate! Since you offer no respect, you get none. GO TO YOUR H*LL!
Let's pretend that the update wasn't on this story when I posted my comment, OK?
The link to Shuler's website is gone.
"Once again, the Government has shut down a useful entrepreneur."
OK, let's stop right here. This isn't "government" doing anything except what some private developer wants done. Period.
You want better government? End the collusion between government and business.
"...and bike taxi drivers who can't answer the question, "Is that Rainbow Row," or be fined $1,000.00."
That's bullshit, and you know it. Bike taxi drivers can answer questions. What they are not allowed to do is meander all over the city and give a tour.
These folks are still asking for too little, too late.
"If the minimum wage had simply tracked U.S. productivity gains since 1968, it would be $21.72 an hour -- three times what it is now."
Once again, the Government has shut down a useful entrepreneur. This is a sad loss, but Joe wants more hotels, in-the-way bike rentals that nobody will use, early closing bars while begging the world's tourists to come here, and bike taxi drivers who can't answer the question, "Is that Rainbow Row," or be fined $1,000.00. Let's hope that Vegetable Bin.1 opens and provides Mr. Leonard free vegetables for life.
Doubt too many locals will venture all the way down East Bay where the tourists have taken over.
If one agrees that in biblical times marriage was between a man and woman, what leads you to believe that aspect changed when govt. started endorsing marriage (the legal aspect you seem to endorse)?
Moreover, why do you think you have a right to marry any you wish? Are the rights of siblings or, in may cases, first cousins infringed upon when govt. bans their marrying? Are the rights of polygamists infringed upon when govt. discriminates against them?
What, tupper, is a marriage?
What about the gay men and women who live in Charleston now? If it weren't for people like John Jenrette, that great house with the Chinese Chippendale decoration on East Bay Street wouldn't be there...nor many other beautiful houses all over the country. And he is far from being the only prominent gay man who has/is playing a part in present-day Charleston. Dozens of man and women have been at the heart of making Charleston a destination for folks who love art and music, gardens and houses, and they are an important part of the city's history. Why the seemingly arbitrary cut-off at mid-20th century?
Will they wash my walls?
Yes, companies and caring workers like Dana, and he is a professional, who provide these kind of services are indispensable and invisible until we need them.
Nofaith is right. Just what the chuck needs, yet another overpriced Mexican place. We are only impressed if they do real Mexican street food at real Mexican street prices
McDonalds has contributed to many evils of the world (obesity, heart disease, diabetes, factory farming, environmental destruction, just to name a few); however, the amount of money McDonalds pays its employees is not a salient issue in comparison. They will all be replaced by robots/computers in a few years anyway.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2014,
Charleston City Paper