If LGBT can dictate pronouns to use (or else complain of harassment), can Atheists and Christians dictate terms to use to avoid offending them?

[emilynghiem]

Currently the political movement to include LGBT individuals,
right down to demanding of others what pronouns or labels to call them
(where refusal to comply is considered discrimination and harassment),
doesn't yet recognize "ex-gays" or "ex-trans."

Should LGBT be expanded to include LGBTX?

Also, why stop there with only these minorities?

Why not recognize ALL people with alternative beliefs, identity or preferences
of labels and terms:

What about Atheists requiring that references to God be changed to
Greater Good or Public Good?

Or God's laws to be called Universal Laws or Laws of Nature?

Could Christians insist that references to Justice be called by the name of Jesus?
And vice versa, secularists insist that if you are going to talk to them about Jesus,
then have "courtesy" and use the term Justice to avoid harassing nontheists.

If anyone is complaining about the recent court case, NOT forcing teachers
to use transgender pronouns,
just imagine if other faith based groups or people of other or no beliefs,
started demanding public accommodations for each and every
preference in belief, identity or terminology
to avoid "offending" or "harassing" them!

 

[Damaged Eagle]

*****SMILE*****

 

[LuckyDuck]

I figure that the LBGTQ...etc., group thinks of itself as a persecuted "minority" and thus expect those that are not in their group, to respect their chosen pronouns.
Personally, I'm not even a fan of the human race as a species, but my bottom line is that if you want respect from me, earn it.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Currently the political movement to include LGBT individuals,
right down to demanding of others what pronouns or labels to call them
(where refusal to comply is considered discrimination and harassment),
doesn't yet recognize "ex-gays" or "ex-trans."

Should LGBT be expanded to include LGBTX?

Also, why stop there with only these minorities?

Why not recognize ALL people with alternative beliefs, identity or preferences
of labels and terms:

What about Atheists requiring that references to God be changed to
Greater Good or Public Good?

Or God's laws to be called Universal Laws or Laws of Nature?

Could Christians insist that references to Justice be called by the name of Jesus?
And vice versa, secularists insist that if you are going to talk to them about Jesus,
then have "courtesy" and use the term Justice to avoid harassing nontheists.

If anyone is complaining about the recent court case, NOT forcing teachers
to use transgender pronouns,
just imagine if other faith based groups or people of other or no beliefs,
started demanding public accommodations for each and every
preference in belief, identity or terminology
to avoid "offending" or "harassing" them!

Dude shhhhhh
They're gonna throw you in gulag

 

[Sunsettommy]

The Bible says that God made man and women, just two sexes then he rested.

 

[Lysistrata]

Tempest in a teapot. Just call people what they want to be called. Why the obsession?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Currently the political movement to include LGBT individuals,
right down to demanding of others what pronouns or labels to call them
(where refusal to comply is considered discrimination and harassment),
doesn't yet recognize "ex-gays" or "ex-trans."

Should LGBT be expanded to include LGBTX?

Also, why stop there with only these minorities?

Why not recognize ALL people with alternative beliefs, identity or preferences
of labels and terms:

What about Atheists requiring that references to God be changed to
Greater Good or Public Good?

Or God's laws to be called Universal Laws or Laws of Nature?

Could Christians insist that references to Justice be called by the name of Jesus?
And vice versa, secularists insist that if you are going to talk to them about Jesus,
then have "courtesy" and use the term Justice to avoid harassing nontheists.

If anyone is complaining about the recent court case, NOT forcing teachers
to use transgender pronouns,
just imagine if other faith based groups or people of other or no beliefs,
started demanding public accommodations for each and every
preference in belief, identity or terminology
to avoid "offending" or "harassing" them!

I wasn't aware that refusing (or not remembering) to use their preferred pronoun is considered harassment/discrimination. I think that's an erroneous claim.

 

[emilynghiem]

I wasn't aware that refusing (or not remembering) to use their preferred pronoun is considered harassment/discrimination. I think that's an erroneous claim.

The case that most recently went to court argued the teacher refusing to call students by their identity pronouns was failing to accommodate by discriminating against Transgender students, while the popular LGBT movement considers this a form of harassment and microaggression.

The court case found in favor of free speech, and not penalizing or forcing the teacher into language against their beliefs.

I think these cases are getting closer to treating both sides as having equal rights and beliefs.

Had the teacher countersued the student for forcing their beliefs on them, the teacher would have lost as well.

Overall,the problem is both sides have their beliefs.

And the issue is what happens when one person is acting on behalf of a public institution or a business under public accommodations: what do you do when individuals both have their beliefs, but one of the people is with an institution that is normally required by govt not to discriminate by creed or belief.

When is the PERSON being discriminated against. And when are they asking for "behavior or speech of others" to be changed to satisfy their own beliefs.

It is one thing to refuse the same services normally delivered to others.

It is another thing to CHANGE the services delivered to some different version that violates the beliefs of the service provider.

 

[Colin norris]

Currently the political movement to include LGBT individuals,
right down to demanding of others what pronouns or labels to call them
(where refusal to comply is considered discrimination and harassment),
doesn't yet recognize "ex-gays" or "ex-trans."

Should LGBT be expanded to include LGBTX?

Also, why stop there with only these minorities?

Why not recognize ALL people with alternative beliefs, identity or preferences
of labels and terms:

What about Atheists requiring that references to God be changed to
Greater Good or Public Good?

Or God's laws to be called Universal Laws or Laws of Nature?

Could Christians insist that references to Justice be called by the name of Jesus?
And vice versa, secularists insist that if you are going to talk to them about Jesus,
then have "courtesy" and use the term Justice to avoid harassing nontheists.

If anyone is complaining about the recent court case, NOT forcing teachers
to use transgender pronouns,
just imagine if other faith based groups or people of other or no beliefs,
started demanding public accommodations for each and every
preference in belief, identity or terminology
to avoid "offending" or "harassing" them!

Clearly you are coming from a religious point. Its always been pet hatreds of godbotherers because they consider it vile. You cannot longer mask or label it any different. Its pure hate.
When that goes out of the debate, you might stand a chance.

 

[Meriweather]

Tempest in a teapot. Just call people what they want to be called. Why the obsession?

As a substitute teacher, this is why: It is hard enough to remember the names of 150 students, let alone their names and what pronoun they may prefer. If close friends and family want to go this route, that's up to them. But expect simplicity from all others--don't be obsessed.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Currently the political movement to include LGBT individuals,
right down to demanding of others what pronouns or labels to call them
(where refusal to comply is considered discrimination and harassment),
doesn't yet recognize "ex-gays" or "ex-trans."

Should LGBT be expanded to include LGBTX?

Also, why stop there with only these minorities?

Why not recognize ALL people with alternative beliefs, identity or preferences
of labels and terms:

What about Atheists requiring that references to God be changed to
Greater Good or Public Good?

Or God's laws to be called Universal Laws or Laws of Nature?

Could Christians insist that references to Justice be called by the name of Jesus?
And vice versa, secularists insist that if you are going to talk to them about Jesus,
then have "courtesy" and use the term Justice to avoid harassing nontheists.

If anyone is complaining about the recent court case, NOT forcing teachers
to use transgender pronouns,
just imagine if other faith based groups or people of other or no beliefs,
started demanding public accommodations for each and every
preference in belief, identity or terminology
to avoid "offending" or "harassing" them!

I will continue to call that what they really are "QUEER AS A THREE DOLLAR BILL"..

A three dollar bill would not only be obviously fake but a ridiculous value for money that would be hard to use properly. The phrase is simply an emphasizer for the word queer with its older meaning. Using this phrase to describe a homosexual person could be considered derogatory and not in good taste.

Queer as a Three Dollar Bill Origin | The Village Idiom​

thevillageidiom.org/queer-as-a-three-dollar-bill/

 

[Penelope]

The Bible says that God made man and women, just two sexes then he rested.

So why did he create intersex kids.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

So why did he create intersex kids.

Lucifer you stupid Kuuunt...

 

[Colin norris]

I will continue to call that what they really are "QUEER AS A THREE DOLLAR BILL"..

A three dollar bill would not only be obviously fake but a ridiculous value for money that would be hard to use properly. The phrase is simply an emphasizer for the word queer with its older meaning. Using this phrase to describe a homosexual person could be considered derogatory and not in good taste.

Queer as a Three Dollar Bill Origin | The Village Idiom​

thevillageidiom.org/queer-as-a-three-dollar-bill/

View attachment 516188

I'll bet your predujice stems from religion.

 

[emilynghiem]

Clearly you are coming from a religious point. Its always been pet hatreds of godbotherers because they consider it vile. You cannot longer mask or label it any different. Its pure hate.
When that goes out of the debate, you might stand a chance.

Dear Colin norris
Sorry to give you this impression that sounds very negative and the opposite of my intent.

I identify as Constitutionalist and Universalist in letting each person expresa their beliefs and process their way.

The best way I know to be fair and inclusive is to respect each person's beliefs and defend that for each person but not let them impose on each other (unless they both agree to keep imposing, which most people do not enjoy).

What is wrong with treating LGBT beliefs the same as Buddhist Atheist Christian and Muslim, and ask people to respect other cultural expressions without imposing on each other?

If I would ask the Muslim not to judge someone for using the term "Gaia" or "Goddess" where they use the term "God" or "Allah" (or ask to use a Neutral term like "Heavens" or "Universe"), then I would equally ask the govt to use neutral terms such as civil unions or domestic partnerships instead of marriage if that stops infighting over terms deemed religiously biased.

The point is to find terms equally fair to both sides they can live with.

I believe in the Golden Rule, and the Buddhist ethics of reducing the cause of suffering in the world. If more of us choose the path of tolerance and noncoercion instead of imposing indoctrination, this helps with mutual respect for our individual beliefs and ways of expression.

Why not encourage inclusion for each person as LGBT are asking? Whatever standards you want for inclusion, the Golden Rule means respect and include the differences that others have as well.

That is what I am trying to figure out here. Sorry it comes across as mean or hateful. That is the opposite of what I'm trying to do.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Dear Colin norris
Sorry to give you this impression that sounds very negative and the opposite of my intent.

I identify as Constitutionalist and Universalist in letting each person expresa their beliefs and process their way.

The best way I know to be fair and inclusive is to respect each person's beliefs and defend that for each person but not let them impose on each other (unless they both agree to keep imposing, which most people do not enjoy).

What is wrong with treating LGBT beliefs the same as Buddhist Atheist Christian and Muslim, and ask people to respect other cultural expressions without imposing on each other?

If I would ask the Muslim not to judge someone for using the term "Gaia" or "Goddess" where they use the term "God" or "Allah" (or ask to use a Neutral term like "Heavens" or "Universe"), then I would equally ask the govt to use neutral terms such as civil unions or domestic partnerships instead of marriage if that stops infighting over terms deemed religiously biased.

The point is to find terms equally fair to both sides they can live with.

I believe in the Golden Rule, and the Buddhist ethics of reducing the cause of suffering in the world. If more of us choose the path of tolerance and noncoercion instead of imposing indoctrination, this helps with mutual respect for our individual beliefs and ways of expression.

Why not encourage inclusion for each person as LGBT are asking? Whatever standards you want for inclusion, the Golden Rule means respect and include the differences that others have as well.

That is what I am trying to figure out here. Sorry it comes across as mean or hateful. That is the opposite of what I'm trying to do.

Back in the late 1980s it was "you need to mind your own business, what we do behind closed doors". Now the libertarian side of me, said "You are correct, i dont give a flying fuck, if you want to poke your dick in another man's shithole", just keep it legal and dont involve children. Then in the 1990's it was all about civil unions, where the fags just wanted to see their sick fudgepacking partners who were sick in the hospital. Then in the 2000s it was they wanted to come out of the closet and started getting queer month and flashing the rainbows all over the place, ruining the true meaning of what a rainbow means. It just never is enough with queers, they just demand more and more, even to have children placed into their charge, fucking up the minds of the young, for if they didnt indoctrinate young into their immoral lifestyle, the queers would eventually die off....

 

[Hellbilly]

The Bible says that God made man and women, just two sexes then he rested.

God did not write the bible.

 

[dblack]

Currently the political movement to include LGBT individuals,
right down to demanding of others what pronouns or labels to call them
(where refusal to comply is considered discrimination and harassment),
doesn't yet recognize "ex-gays" or "ex-trans."

Should LGBT be expanded to include LGBTX?

Also, why stop there with only these minorities?

Why not recognize ALL people with alternative beliefs, identity or preferences
of labels and terms:

What about Atheists requiring that references to God be changed to
Greater Good or Public Good?

Or God's laws to be called Universal Laws or Laws of Nature?

Could Christians insist that references to Justice be called by the name of Jesus?
And vice versa, secularists insist that if you are going to talk to them about Jesus,
then have "courtesy" and use the term Justice to avoid harassing nontheists.

If anyone is complaining about the recent court case, NOT forcing teachers
to use transgender pronouns,
just imagine if other faith based groups or people of other or no beliefs,
started demanding public accommodations for each and every
preference in belief, identity or terminology
to avoid "offending" or "harassing" them!

The entire "freak of the week" approach to civil rights is nonsense.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

God did not write the bible.

How do you know, were you there when it was being written?

 

[Colin norris]

Dear Colin norris
Sorry to give you this impression that sounds very negative and the opposite of my intent.

I identify as Constitutionalist and Universalist in letting each person expresa their beliefs and process their way.

The best way I know to be fair and inclusive is to respect each person's beliefs and defend that for each person but not let them impose on each other (unless they both agree to keep imposing, which most people do not enjoy).

What is wrong with treating LGBT beliefs the same as Buddhist Atheist Christian and Muslim, and ask people to respect other cultural expressions without imposing on each other?

If I would ask the Muslim not to judge someone for using the term "Gaia" or "Goddess" where they use the term "God" or "Allah" (or ask to use a Neutral term like "Heavens" or "Universe"), then I would equally ask the govt to use neutral terms such as civil unions or domestic partnerships instead of marriage if that stops infighting over terms deemed religiously biased.

The point is to find terms equally fair to both sides they can live with.

I believe in the Golden Rule, and the Buddhist ethics of reducing the cause of suffering in the world. If more of us choose the path of tolerance and noncoercion instead of imposing indoctrination, this helps with mutual respect for our individual beliefs and ways of expression.

Why not encourage inclusion for each person as LGBT are asking? Whatever standards you want for inclusion, the Golden Rule means respect and include the differences that others have as well.

That is what I am trying to figure out here. Sorry it comes across as mean or hateful. That is the opposite of what I'm trying to do.

Golden rule my foot.
Most repigs and are godbotherers, racist
Xenophobes. They hate gays etc because it abhorrent to their hideous beliefs.
I don't care if you worship cancerous tumours or holes in the ground, it's all rubbish. Its not as if Buddhism has reduced suffering in the world when you co side the poverty that resides in countries where they are prevalent.
Come on comrade. You have to be kidding.