Conservatives, what pisses you off the most about homosexuals

[impuretrash]

No, they can't. But that doesn't stop them from trying.

So?

Don't pretend that there's not a concerted effort by powerful lobbies to impose acceptance of the LGBTQ lifestyle on everyone with the threat of social, political and financial ruin.

I didn’t deny any such thing. I asked, so what if they try? That’s their right. What does it matter?

Is it really their right to destroy people's reputations because they oppose homosexuality? And by oppose, I mean be critical of it in any way, shape or form. I don't expect you to understand, but some of us find it repulsive.

Not what I said. I said it’s their right to try to impose society accepts their behavior. Since we agree they can’t accomplish that, why do you care?

Because it's corrosive to society..? If our ancestors were so apathetic we wouldn't even be here today.

 

[Faun]

So?

Don't pretend that there's not a concerted effort by powerful lobbies to impose acceptance of the LGBTQ lifestyle on everyone with the threat of social, political and financial ruin.

I didn’t deny any such thing. I asked, so what if they try? That’s their right. What does it matter?

Is it really their right to destroy people's reputations because they oppose homosexuality? And by oppose, I mean be critical of it in any way, shape or form. I don't expect you to understand, but some of us find it repulsive.

Not what I said. I said it’s their right to try to impose society accepts their behavior. Since we agree they can’t accomplish that, why do you care?

Because it's corrosive to society..?

That’s for society to decide. Meanwhile, gays still have the right to try to convince society to accept their behavior.

 

[impuretrash]

Don't pretend that there's not a concerted effort by powerful lobbies to impose acceptance of the LGBTQ lifestyle on everyone with the threat of social, political and financial ruin.

I didn’t deny any such thing. I asked, so what if they try? That’s their right. What does it matter?

Is it really their right to destroy people's reputations because they oppose homosexuality? And by oppose, I mean be critical of it in any way, shape or form. I don't expect you to understand, but some of us find it repulsive.

Not what I said. I said it’s their right to try to impose society accepts their behavior. Since we agree they can’t accomplish that, why do you care?

Because it's corrosive to society..?

That’s for society to decide. Meanwhile, gays still have the right to try to convince society to accept their behavior.

And I still have the right to tell them to shut their faggot faces

 

[Faun]

I didn’t deny any such thing. I asked, so what if they try? That’s their right. What does it matter?

Is it really their right to destroy people's reputations because they oppose homosexuality? And by oppose, I mean be critical of it in any way, shape or form. I don't expect you to understand, but some of us find it repulsive.

Not what I said. I said it’s their right to try to impose society accepts their behavior. Since we agree they can’t accomplish that, why do you care?

Because it's corrosive to society..?

That’s for society to decide. Meanwhile, gays still have the right to try to convince society to accept their behavior.

And I still have the right to tell them to shut their faggot faces

Yes you do. So what? I’m still not getting what the concern is with them trying to get society to accept their behavior. They certainly can’t force anyone to be gay; nor can they impose their lifestyle on society.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

I didn’t deny any such thing. I asked, so what if they try? That’s their right. What does it matter?

Is it really their right to destroy people's reputations because they oppose homosexuality? And by oppose, I mean be critical of it in any way, shape or form. I don't expect you to understand, but some of us find it repulsive.

Not what I said. I said it’s their right to try to impose society accepts their behavior. Since we agree they can’t accomplish that, why do you care?

Because it's corrosive to society..?

That’s for society to decide. Meanwhile, gays still have the right to try to convince society to accept their behavior.

And I still have the right to tell them to shut their faggot faces

YEah youre paranoid whats wrong with you ? I think thiers something wrong with you no ones forcing anyone to do anything .
Maybe just a little prodding to get my 3 year old to say it likes wearing dresses ...think of all the twitter rainbows
dont you want the children to be educated ?
why do you also hate the witlle children ?

nah they're not grooming kids
everyone at a kiddie Queen show is pure at heart and combating transphobia


reading to 6 year olds ...special educational books ....it will help them grow into well rounded adults.
ITS SO IMPORTANT that we expose children to grown men in dresses...im fine with letting a 10 year old girl go into a ladies room at a store with a man wearing a dress
shell be absolutely be fine in there by herself ....cause hes not gonna force anyone to do or put up with anything!!

theyre not committing lewd sexual act in public at san fransico and NYC gay pride events
AND their are children in the crowd !!!!with super tolerant parents !!! yeah more twitter rainbows of tolerance and love

ya know if one gets banged barbra Streisand will be along to assure everyone that hey they lived through it whats the big deal you bigots


when SHTF im with yas 100%

IM tellin ya somedays ya hope its tomorrow

 

[Lysistrata]

For the record, I'm not Gay.

Interesting.

So how in the hell would you know what an ordinary gay or bisexual person in America needs from their society?

Repression, in all forms, flies in the face of freedom.

Curious


So would it count as repression if I went into a Christian establishment demanded they cater to my sexual orientation, then threatened them with legal and financial ruin if they didn't?

Would I not be trampling on their freedoms too?

Not if they are operating a public business.

Unless while you were placing your order as a customer does in public businesses you hindered their right to attend the place of worship of their choice.

Sigh.

One is prohibited by law, the other isn't.

If the Constitution says I have a right to express my religion in the 1st Amendment, wouldn't that make public accommodation laws unconstitutional? As in, prohibitive of free expression of religion? Business owners must accommodate the public, but the public needn't not accommodate the religious beliefs of the business owner. Is that fair?

From where I sit, the laws crafted to give equal rights to gay people took rights away from Christians wanting to express their faith through entrepreneurial means.

If a law, in spite of its good intent, stops me from practicing my faith when and where I choose to, that is repression.

I posit that public accommodation laws are repressive.

American society has to balance the rights of all. It's going to be chaos if every religious group shows up and demands something. The rights of LGBTs of whatever faith are not superseded by the rights of these groups that call themselves Christian but are bigoted against LGBTs.

There is nothing "repressive" about public-accommodation laws. They are reasonable and apply to anyone and everyone. The process is the same. The punishments for violating them are the same regardless of why the person chose to violate them.

What you are demanding is "special rights." You are not entitled to that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What you are demanding is "special rights." You are not entitled to that.

Uh no.

What I am demanding is that both sides get the same treatment under public accommodation laws. That or craft legislation giving accommodations to business owners who are people of faith. Or fashion the laws in such a way that it appeases both sides without taking rights from one or the other.

I never said I was entitled to anything.

 

[TNHarley]

No conservative but you need to be more specific.
Some are religious, some is just a personal taste etc.
Or do you mean in a legal way?
That could mean some people dont want to lose their rights so certain groups of people could be special rights.

The opposition to equal rights comes f of the Conservatives.

Why are equal rights seen asm'apecial rights'?

When you have to legislate rights for certain people, there is no equality.

When lefislarionhas been written outlawing their life, it has to be addressed with legislation.

Outlawing their life?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Repression, in all forms, flies in the face of freedom.

So would it count as repression if I went into a Christian establishment demanded they cater to my sexual orientation, then threatened them with legal and financial ruin if they didn't?

Would I not be trampling on their freedoms too?

…Or even a secular business, owned and operated by someone who doesn't want to be forced to cater to immorality?

For example, a baker who doesn't want to make a cake celebrating an immoral homosexual mockery of marriage.

 

[Blues Man]

A lot of people here say I'm a conservative even though I'm not

I don't care if a person is gay.

Life is too short to worry about what other people do

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Don't pretend that there's not a concerted effort by powerful lobbies to impose acceptance of the LGBTQ lifestyle on everyone with the threat of social, political and financial ruin.

I didn’t deny any such thing. I asked, so what if they try? That’s their right. What does it matter?

It is most certainly not your right to force immorality, madness, and outright evil, on those of us who want no part in it.

 

[Faun]

Don't pretend that there's not a concerted effort by powerful lobbies to impose acceptance of the LGBTQ lifestyle on everyone with the threat of social, political and financial ruin.

I didn’t deny any such thing. I asked, so what if they try? That’s their right. What does it matter?

It is most certainly not your right to force immorality, madness, and outright evil, on those of us who want no part in it.

It’s called freedom of speech and it’s their right.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It’s called freedom of speech and it’s their right.

Forcing your sick perversions on decent people, and on society as a whole, has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom of speech, nor with any other genuine freedom.

 

[Faun]

It’s called freedom of speech and it’s their right.

Forcing your sick perversions on decent people, and on society as a whole, has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom of speech, nor with any other genuine freedom.

Of course it does. People are free to believe what they want and say what they want, as long as they don’t infringe on others’ rights.

 

[Nosmo King]

For the record, I'm not Gay.

Interesting.

So how in the hell would you know what an ordinary gay or bisexual person in America needs from their society?

Repression, in all forms, flies in the face of freedom.

Curious


So would it count as repression if I went into a Christian establishment demanded they cater to my sexual orientation, then threatened them with legal and financial ruin if they didn't?

Would I not be trampling on their freedoms too?

Not if they are operating a public business.

Unless while you were placing your order as a customer does in public businesses you hindered their right to attend the place of worship of their choice.

Sigh.

One is prohibited by law, the other isn't.

If the Constitution says I have a right to express my religion in the 1st Amendment, wouldn't that make public accommodation laws unconstitutional? As in, prohibitive of free expression of religion? Business owners must accommodate the public, but the public needn't not accommodate the religious beliefs of the business owner. Is that fair?

From where I sit, the laws crafted to give equal rights to gay people took rights away from Christians wanting to express their faith through entrepreneurial means.

If a law, in spite of its good intent, stops me from practicing my faith when and where I choose to, that is repression.

I posit that public accommodation laws are repressive.

There is no mercantile imperator. Merchants do not morally vet all their clients.

I am a Dhristian. I have been for over sixty years now. And never EVER have I heard the music mister admonish the congregation to avoid Commerce with homosexuals.

It seems so me 'Christians' have written their own dogma. Thou shalt not serve homosexuals. These homophobic 'Christians' are wrapping their phony dogma around themselves like an aegis, twisting a beautiful loving and forgiving faith to serve an ignoble purpose. Much as Islamic terrorists twist the Quran to serve their repressive purpose.

What would such a 'Christian' do if a mafia don asked their firm to cater his daughter's wedding? Would they take blood money for services rendered and complete their task happily?

Wedding vendors are not participants in the wedding. They do not officiate the service. They are not invited guests at the reception. They don't wrap a toaster oven in silver paper and bring it along. There is no 'baker's dance' with the bride.

Their services are usually not beyond their regular menu of services. If they are, then the merchant may refuse his services. For instance, bakeries bake wedding cakes as a daily part of the services they render. If a client requests a cake that is not shown in their portfolio or a flavor requiring mapecial ingredients the baker does not stock, then the baker could reasonably refuse the customer.

But same sex weddings are exactly the same as heterosexual weddings with the exception of the participants. Flowers, cakes, reception halls, all the same. Clients must be afforded the same high level of service that made the merchant the choice of the client. Moral vetting is as egregious as racial discrimination.

 

[Nosmo King]

in an effort to better understand your political ideology, I'm asking a series of questions.

Please list your primary point of offense about homosexuals.

I'm old enough to remember when their cry was “Don't force your morality on us!”

All that they wanted—or so they claimed—was to be allowed to practice their sick perversions in peace and privacy.

Foolishly, as a society, we granted them that. We gave them that inch, and they took a mile. Now, they force their immorality on all of us, on society as a whole, and even on children. And those of us who object to having this sickness forced on us are told that we're the once with whom something is very wrong.

They are forcing you to be gay?? You should be more careful about who you let walk up behind you.

The LGBT lobby wants to impose on society in general a "tolerant" attitude towards their lifestyle. When a lefty says tolerance, what they mean is submission.

Do you have reasons you are intolerant? What form does your intolerance take? Would you repress homosexuals for a reason, and if so, what is that reason.

Have you found it better to be intolerant of other groups? Should intolerance be considered virtuous?

 

[Nosmo King]

No conservative but you need to be more specific.
Some are religious, some is just a personal taste etc.
Or do you mean in a legal way?
That could mean some people dont want to lose their rights so certain groups of people could be special rights.

The opposition to equal rights comes f of the Conservatives.

Why are equal rights seen asm'apecial rights'?

When you have to legislate rights for certain people, there is no equality.

When lefislarionhas been written outlawing their life, it has to be addressed with legislation.

Outlawing their life?

Anti sodomy laws were repressive laws written to repress homosexuals. It was, incredible as it is to believe, illegal to be Gay in America.

When your life has been outlawed, marching to get the same consideration other Americans enjoy is an absolute right and an absolute imperative

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

All cries of gay oppression only come from urban towns run by Democrats,, might want to ask your self why you oppress them

Heterosexuals have enjoyed unchecked privilege for so long that equality feels like oppression.

 

[TNHarley]

No conservative but you need to be more specific.
Some are religious, some is just a personal taste etc.
Or do you mean in a legal way?
That could mean some people dont want to lose their rights so certain groups of people could be special rights.

The opposition to equal rights comes f of the Conservatives.

Why are equal rights seen asm'apecial rights'?

When you have to legislate rights for certain people, there is no equality.

When lefislarionhas been written outlawing their life, it has to be addressed with legislation.

Outlawing their life?

Anti sodomy laws were repressive laws written to repress homosexuals. It was, incredible as it is to believe, illegal to be Gay in America.

When your life has been outlawed, marching to get the same consideration other Americans enjoy is an absolute right and an absolute imperative

I am against laws like that. I dont believe the govt should discriminate in any way.

 

[Foxfyre]

Interesting.

So how in the hell would you know what an ordinary gay or bisexual person in America needs from their society?

Repression, in all forms, flies in the face of freedom.

Curious


So would it count as repression if I went into a Christian establishment demanded they cater to my sexual orientation, then threatened them with legal and financial ruin if they didn't?

Would I not be trampling on their freedoms too?

Not if they are operating a public business.

Unless while you were placing your order as a customer does in public businesses you hindered their right to attend the place of worship of their choice.

Sigh.

One is prohibited by law, the other isn't.

If the Constitution says I have a right to express my religion in the 1st Amendment, wouldn't that make public accommodation laws unconstitutional? As in, prohibitive of free expression of religion? Business owners must accommodate the public, but the public needn't not accommodate the religious beliefs of the business owner. Is that fair?

From where I sit, the laws crafted to give equal rights to gay people took rights away from Christians wanting to express their faith through entrepreneurial means.

If a law, in spite of its good intent, stops me from practicing my faith when and where I choose to, that is repression.

I posit that public accommodation laws are repressive.

There is no mercantile imperator. Merchants do not morally vet all their clients.

I am a Dhristian. I have been for over sixty years now. And never EVER have I heard the music mister admonish the congregation to avoid Commerce with homosexuals.

It seems so me 'Christians' have written their own dogma. Thou shalt not serve homosexuals. These homophobic 'Christians' are wrapping their phony dogma around themselves like an aegis, twisting a beautiful loving and forgiving faith to serve an ignoble purpose. Much as Islamic terrorists twist the Quran to serve their repressive purpose.

What would such a 'Christian' do if a mafia don asked their firm to cater his daughter's wedding? Would they take blood money for services rendered and complete their task happily?

Wedding vendors are not participants in the wedding. They do not officiate the service. They are not invited guests at the reception. They don't wrap a toaster oven in silver paper and bring it along. There is no 'baker's dance' with the bride.

Their services are usually not beyond their regular menu of services. If they are, then the merchant may refuse his services. For instance, bakeries bake wedding cakes as a daily part of the services they render. If a client requests a cake that is not shown in their portfolio or a flavor requiring mapecial ingredients the baker does not stock, then the baker could reasonably refuse the customer.

But same sex weddings are exactly the same as heterosexual weddings with the exception of the participants. Flowers, cakes, reception halls, all the same. Clients must be afforded the same high level of service that made the merchant the choice of the client. Moral vetting is as egregious as racial discrimination.

I have to disagree. If I was a baker, I would have no problem decorating a cake specifically for a same sex couple. I have attended such a wedding. However, if I did have a problem with it, I would want to have the right to not participate in that event in any respect.

The baker(s), florists, photographers etc. who did not want to work at a same sex wedding delivering and setting up the cake, flowers, taking the photos etc. may appear unreasonably homophobic to you and me, but it should nevertheless be their right if they have moral problems with it.

As that same baker I would refuse to decorate cupcakes with swaztikas for the KKK or other white supremacist meeting, I would refuse to provide a product that in any way depicts pornography or beastiality or polygamy or an anti-gay theme or an anti-Christian theme or a dog fight event or anything else that I might have moral problems with. And even though I am not so pro life as to think all abortion for ANY reason should be illegal, I would refuse to provide a product or work at an event that was in any way pro-abortion.

Just as the baker should be able to refuse to provide products for or work at an event that was pro-life, evangelical, a rodeo event, a Civil war re-enactment, or anything else he/she had a personal problem with.

At the same time the baker or whomever should sell the products he/she DOES normally have for sale to any one of those people mentioned and anybody else who walks into the bakery to buy something.

The difference is in providing the product/service you have for sale to all customers without prejudice and in being forced to participate in something for which you have objections.