Finally someone said it:Why should Group demand minority status based on what they do in the bedroom

[TheOldSchool]

While a lot of the reaction to LGBT politics from the religious right goes "too far" with unnecessary rejection and judgment against people personally, I think this man's statement sticks to the core issue of "NOT protecting someone based on their sexual behavior."

The arguments defending LGBT, and Transgender in particular, aren't focused on behavior but spiritually how people believe and identify as individuals, which is the equivalent of their own expression of faith and beliefs.

But for those who see this externally as an issue of "outward appearance
and behavior," I think this guy hits the target right on, and with as diplomatic
and clear explanation as possible, given the highly contentious subject matter.

I think he does very well with such a difficult issue to address and explain:


World Congress of Families in Kenya: Africans 'Should Be Horrified' at LGBT Actions in USA -- 'It's Insane'

"We’re not saying that these people have to be persecuted," said Feder, an author and former Boston Herald columnist. "We’re not saying that you can’t have compassion for them -- of course, you can. But you can’t let this be the role model. And you can’t allow Christians and other religious people to be persecuted because they refuse to go along with this agenda.”

“You know, other people have demanded minority status based on their religion, based on their race," said Feder, a graduate of Boston University Law School.

"This is the first group that demands minority status based on what they do in their bedrooms. And that’s what makes it so dangerous."

"And if you look at the United States, I mean if Africans look seriously at the United States, they should be horrified by what’s going on," he said.
Turning to the transgender issue, Feder said, “We now have the latest created gender, transgender. Men who feel they’re actually women, women who feel they’re actually men. The latest front in the culture war is bathrooms, transgender bathrooms."

"The idea is, if you’re a man who feels you’re actually a woman, you should be able to use a woman’s bathroom, changing room, showers," said Feder. "This is absolutely insane."

"What about the privacy, the modesty of women and girls?" he said. "But in our legal system that’s irrelevant because the rights of so-called transgenders are far more important.”

I would assume they're a protected group because of the merciless persecution they faced in the past and are currently facing here in the U.S. and throughout the entire rest of the world.

Dear TheOldSchool
Even so, even if they are persecuted as Christians and Muslims
have been, does that give them (or Christians or Muslims) the right
to demand special recognition and treatment by govt?

So because Christians are persecuted, they can demand that govt recognize they have been harassed for their beliefs, and demand that govt PUNISH anyone who rejects Christianity? Really?

Is that an appropriate response?

I'm not saying it's acceptable to persecute anyone,
but I'm saying that ALL sides and beliefs should be respected and protected.

But that's not what is happening with govt and laws enforced.
People are being punished for their beliefs in conflict with LGBT,
instead of protecting all people of all beliefs equally. The govt is abused to take sides.

If we did this with Hindus and Muslims, and sided/defending the Hindus
while punishing the Muslims for rejecting them, that would clearly be
unconstitutional for govt to enforce any such onesided policy.

Why are we taking sides with bathroom policy or marriage policies?
If people don't agree why is the govt forcing one policy for all people?

Christians and Muslims already have special recognition and treatment by government, even though Christians here are trying to take that away from Muslims too.

 

[tyroneweaver]

whos discriminating on what people do in the bedroom ?

ask Danney Williams

 

[Timmy]

While a lot of the reaction to LGBT politics from the religious right goes "too far" with unnecessary rejection and judgment against people personally, I think this man's statement sticks to the core issue of "NOT protecting someone based on their sexual behavior."

The arguments defending LGBT, and Transgender in particular, aren't focused on behavior but spiritually how people believe and identify as individuals, which is the equivalent of their own expression of faith and beliefs.

But for those who see this externally as an issue of "outward appearance
and behavior," I think this guy hits the target right on, and with as diplomatic
and clear explanation as possible, given the highly contentious subject matter.

I think he does very well with such a difficult issue to address and explain:


World Congress of Families in Kenya: Africans 'Should Be Horrified' at LGBT Actions in USA -- 'It's Insane'

"We’re not saying that these people have to be persecuted," said Feder, an author and former Boston Herald columnist. "We’re not saying that you can’t have compassion for them -- of course, you can. But you can’t let this be the role model. And you can’t allow Christians and other religious people to be persecuted because they refuse to go along with this agenda.”

“You know, other people have demanded minority status based on their religion, based on their race," said Feder, a graduate of Boston University Law School.

"This is the first group that demands minority status based on what they do in their bedrooms. And that’s what makes it so dangerous."

"And if you look at the United States, I mean if Africans look seriously at the United States, they should be horrified by what’s going on," he said.
Turning to the transgender issue, Feder said, “We now have the latest created gender, transgender. Men who feel they’re actually women, women who feel they’re actually men. The latest front in the culture war is bathrooms, transgender bathrooms."

"The idea is, if you’re a man who feels you’re actually a woman, you should be able to use a woman’s bathroom, changing room, showers," said Feder. "This is absolutely insane."

"What about the privacy, the modesty of women and girls?" he said. "But in our legal system that’s irrelevant because the rights of so-called transgenders are far more important.”

I would assume they're a protected group because of the merciless persecution they faced in the past and are currently facing here in the U.S. and throughout the entire rest of the world.

Dear TheOldSchool
Even so, even if they are persecuted as Christians and Muslims
have been, does that give them (or Christians or Muslims) the right
to demand special recognition and treatment by govt?

So because Christians are persecuted, they can demand that govt recognize they have been harassed for their beliefs, and demand that govt PUNISH anyone who rejects Christianity? Really?

Is that an appropriate response?

I'm not saying it's acceptable to persecute anyone,
but I'm saying that ALL sides and beliefs should be respected and protected.

But that's not what is happening with govt and laws enforced.
People are being punished for their beliefs in conflict with LGBT,
instead of protecting all people of all beliefs equally. The govt is abused to take sides.

If we did this with Hindus and Muslims, and sided/defending the Hindus
while punishing the Muslims for rejecting them, that would clearly be
unconstitutional for govt to enforce any such onesided policy.

Why are we taking sides with bathroom policy or marriage policies?
If people don't agree why is the govt forcing one policy for all people?

Christians and Muslims already have special recognition and treatment by government, even though Christians here are trying to take that away from Muslims too.

Yeah. Like that whole no paying tax bullshit .

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Minority status shouldn't exist, regardless.

Yeah ! Stupid handicapped parking spots!!!

I wasn't referring to disabled people, so you don't have to worry about your parking spots.

But they are a minority? And you said , and I quote "minority status shouldn't exist "!

That's what you said . Now you make exceptions ? So which is it????

You know, if you want to get really specific, while I wasn't referring to them, I don't think they should count either~

So, no, no handicapped parking spots. We're all just people, so they should all be treated the same, with no special treatment anywhere. So, yes, since you're mentally handicapped, if I had my way, you'd lose your parking spot, too. Problem?

Yeah. You'd be like "fuck you disable vet, grow some legs and use the stairs". I think that sucks .

Actually, someone who's missing legs would be more likely to go to a store with ramps, which means that stores would build said ramps to attract customers.

Besides, I highly doubt a disabled vet would live alone. They'd need someone to drive them around since... you know... they have no legs to hit the gas with.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Minority status shouldn't exist, regardless.

Yeah ! Stupid handicapped parking spots!!!

I wasn't referring to disabled people, so you don't have to worry about your parking spots.

But they are a minority? And you said , and I quote "minority status shouldn't exist "!

That's what you said . Now you make exceptions ? So which is it????

You know, if you want to get really specific, while I wasn't referring to them, I don't think they should count either~

So, no, no handicapped parking spots. We're all just people, so they should all be treated the same, with no special treatment anywhere. So, yes, since you're mentally handicapped, if I had my way, you'd lose your parking spot, too. Problem?

Yeah, disabled people, pregnant women etc, they can just stand on buses and trains while able bodied people sit down because they too might get a little tired. We don't discriminate.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I think that Emily has a point! The GOP should put a plank in their platform to role back the clock on ALL these social issues! It has worked so well for them in the past!

 

[rightwinger]

Yeah ! Stupid handicapped parking spots!!!

I wasn't referring to disabled people, so you don't have to worry about your parking spots.

But they are a minority? And you said , and I quote "minority status shouldn't exist "!

That's what you said . Now you make exceptions ? So which is it????

You know, if you want to get really specific, while I wasn't referring to them, I don't think they should count either~

So, no, no handicapped parking spots. We're all just people, so they should all be treated the same, with no special treatment anywhere. So, yes, since you're mentally handicapped, if I had my way, you'd lose your parking spot, too. Problem?

Yeah. You'd be like "fuck you disable vet, grow some legs and use the stairs". I think that sucks .

Actually, someone who's missing legs would be more likely to go to a store with ramps, which means that stores would build said ramps to attract customers.

Besides, I highly doubt a disabled vet would live alone. They'd need someone to drive them around since... you know... they have no legs to hit the gas with.

Yet none of them ever did it until they were required to do so

 

[tyroneweaver]

While a lot of the reaction to LGBT politics from the religious right goes "too far" with unnecessary rejection and judgment against people personally, I think this man's statement sticks to the core issue of "NOT protecting someone based on their sexual behavior."

The arguments defending LGBT, and Transgender in particular, aren't focused on behavior but spiritually how people believe and identify as individuals, which is the equivalent of their own expression of faith and beliefs.

But for those who see this externally as an issue of "outward appearance
and behavior," I think this guy hits the target right on, and with as diplomatic
and clear explanation as possible, given the highly contentious subject matter.

I think he does very well with such a difficult issue to address and explain:


World Congress of Families in Kenya: Africans 'Should Be Horrified' at LGBT Actions in USA -- 'It's Insane'

"We’re not saying that these people have to be persecuted," said Feder, an author and former Boston Herald columnist. "We’re not saying that you can’t have compassion for them -- of course, you can. But you can’t let this be the role model. And you can’t allow Christians and other religious people to be persecuted because they refuse to go along with this agenda.”

“You know, other people have demanded minority status based on their religion, based on their race," said Feder, a graduate of Boston University Law School.

"This is the first group that demands minority status based on what they do in their bedrooms. And that’s what makes it so dangerous."

"And if you look at the United States, I mean if Africans look seriously at the United States, they should be horrified by what’s going on," he said.
Turning to the transgender issue, Feder said, “We now have the latest created gender, transgender. Men who feel they’re actually women, women who feel they’re actually men. The latest front in the culture war is bathrooms, transgender bathrooms."

"The idea is, if you’re a man who feels you’re actually a woman, you should be able to use a woman’s bathroom, changing room, showers," said Feder. "This is absolutely insane."

"What about the privacy, the modesty of women and girls?" he said. "But in our legal system that’s irrelevant because the rights of so-called transgenders are far more important.”

Once again, conservatives confuse sex with love

You should be ashamed Emily. Are you defined by what you do in the bedroom?

ya, your group is running wild in the streets with no fathers in the home.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

While a lot of the reaction to LGBT politics from the religious right goes "too far" with unnecessary rejection and judgment against people personally, I think this man's statement sticks to the core issue of "NOT protecting someone based on their sexual behavior."

The arguments defending LGBT, and Transgender in particular, aren't focused on behavior but spiritually how people believe and identify as individuals, which is the equivalent of their own expression of faith and beliefs.

But for those who see this externally as an issue of "outward appearance
and behavior," I think this guy hits the target right on, and with as diplomatic
and clear explanation as possible, given the highly contentious subject matter.

I think he does very well with such a difficult issue to address and explain:


World Congress of Families in Kenya: Africans 'Should Be Horrified' at LGBT Actions in USA -- 'It's Insane'

"We’re not saying that these people have to be persecuted," said Feder, an author and former Boston Herald columnist. "We’re not saying that you can’t have compassion for them -- of course, you can. But you can’t let this be the role model. And you can’t allow Christians and other religious people to be persecuted because they refuse to go along with this agenda.”

“You know, other people have demanded minority status based on their religion, based on their race," said Feder, a graduate of Boston University Law School.

"This is the first group that demands minority status based on what they do in their bedrooms. And that’s what makes it so dangerous."

"And if you look at the United States, I mean if Africans look seriously at the United States, they should be horrified by what’s going on," he said.
Turning to the transgender issue, Feder said, “We now have the latest created gender, transgender. Men who feel they’re actually women, women who feel they’re actually men. The latest front in the culture war is bathrooms, transgender bathrooms."

"The idea is, if you’re a man who feels you’re actually a woman, you should be able to use a woman’s bathroom, changing room, showers," said Feder. "This is absolutely insane."

"What about the privacy, the modesty of women and girls?" he said. "But in our legal system that’s irrelevant because the rights of so-called transgenders are far more important.”

Whomever said it is ignorant of the law.

No one is ‘demanding’ ‘minority status,’ whatever that’s supposed to be.

In the United States all citizens have the fundamental right of choice, to make personal, private decisions concerning one’s life absent unwarranted interference from the state, where the Constitution prohibits the states from seeking to disadvantage a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are, or the choices they might make concerning their personal lives:

“When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

The Constitution likewise protects transgender Americans with regard to their choice concerning gender; government can’t ‘compel’ conformity because it is hostile to the choices citizens might make.

And this ‘bathroom’ nonsense his an ignorant, bigoted red herring fallacy contrived and propagated by conservative demagogues who have an unwarranted fear and hostility toward those transgender.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Minority status shouldn't exist, regardless.

Yeah ! Stupid handicapped parking spots!!!

I wasn't referring to disabled people, so you don't have to worry about your parking spots.

But they are a minority? And you said , and I quote "minority status shouldn't exist "!

That's what you said . Now you make exceptions ? So which is it????

You know, if you want to get really specific, while I wasn't referring to them, I don't think they should count either~

So, no, no handicapped parking spots. We're all just people, so they should all be treated the same, with no special treatment anywhere. So, yes, since you're mentally handicapped, if I had my way, you'd lose your parking spot, too. Problem?

Yeah, disabled people, pregnant women etc, they can just stand on buses and trains while able bodied people sit down because they too might get a little tired. We don't discriminate.

I'm glad you understand. Of course, people who aren't selfish can feel free to give up their seat.

 

[emilynghiem]

WHAT special rights ? An example please.

Dear Timmy:
Example A:
Houston passed a bathroom policy where Transgender people could not even be questioned in the restroom or that could count as harassment and incur a fine up to $5,000.

No other group would have this special rights protection against harassment where someone couldn't question them in the restroom.

So other people lose their free speech to ask questions to make sure it is safe for someone of male appearance to be in the women's restroom.

So the LGBT have protected status that other people don't have, at the expense of the equal civil rights of other members of the public.

Example B:
When states passed laws banning same sex marriage and only recognizing traditional marriage, that violated constitutional laws and was struck down.

But when laws were passed imposing same sex marriage through the state govt, against the beliefs of people this violates, that is enforced as law.

Thus the beliefs of LGBT are enforced through govt against the beliefs of those who are in conflict; but when the beliefs in traditional marriage were imposed in conflict with LGBT, that was struck down.

Again, along with PENALTIES against business owners who can be forced to attend gay weddings against their beliefs if this is a recognized status.

So that is discriminating against people for their beliefs.

A. the people OF LGBT beliefs are favored by govt
B. the people of other beliefs are penalized by govt

that is taking sides, and not neutral.

If govt was fair, it would be disallowed for groups to be forced
to do business together who have conflicting beliefs,
so that both are equally protected from the other.

Again, like Hindus and Muslims. Govt would never be used to defend one belief from persecution by the other, where one side is penalized and the other side is defended as a special class. Common sense would tell us to separate these groups if they disagree so much, mind their own business, and don't impose on each other if they can't work it out civilly. But not force one belief on the other THROUGH GOVT.

 

[Vandalshandle]

DRAFT KIM DAVIS FOR PRESIDENT!

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I wasn't referring to disabled people, so you don't have to worry about your parking spots.

But they are a minority? And you said , and I quote "minority status shouldn't exist "!

That's what you said . Now you make exceptions ? So which is it????

You know, if you want to get really specific, while I wasn't referring to them, I don't think they should count either~

So, no, no handicapped parking spots. We're all just people, so they should all be treated the same, with no special treatment anywhere. So, yes, since you're mentally handicapped, if I had my way, you'd lose your parking spot, too. Problem?

Yeah. You'd be like "fuck you disable vet, grow some legs and use the stairs". I think that sucks .

Actually, someone who's missing legs would be more likely to go to a store with ramps, which means that stores would build said ramps to attract customers.

Besides, I highly doubt a disabled vet would live alone. They'd need someone to drive them around since... you know... they have no legs to hit the gas with.

Yet none of them ever did it until they were required to do so

Why don't you cry about it? I hear that's a common reaction among lefties.

 

[Asclepias]

"This is the first group that demands minority status based on what they do in their bedrooms. And that’s what makes it so dangerous."

"What about the privacy, the modesty of women and girls?" he said. "But in our legal system that’s irrelevant because the rights of so-called transgenders are far more important.”

To be honest those two statements are full of ignorance. No one is demanding minority status based on what they do in the bedroom. Its based on their sexual preference which is obvious in alot of cases due to social norms.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yeah ! Stupid handicapped parking spots!!!

I wasn't referring to disabled people, so you don't have to worry about your parking spots.

But they are a minority? And you said , and I quote "minority status shouldn't exist "!

That's what you said . Now you make exceptions ? So which is it????

You know, if you want to get really specific, while I wasn't referring to them, I don't think they should count either~

So, no, no handicapped parking spots. We're all just people, so they should all be treated the same, with no special treatment anywhere. So, yes, since you're mentally handicapped, if I had my way, you'd lose your parking spot, too. Problem?

Yeah, disabled people, pregnant women etc, they can just stand on buses and trains while able bodied people sit down because they too might get a little tired. We don't discriminate.

I'm glad you understand. Of course, people who aren't selfish can feel free to give up their seat.

So pregnant women gets on a train and there's a seat for people who need seats and all the people sitting down are selfish, so the pregnant woman should just stand then?

 

[Timmy]

WHAT special rights ? An example please.

Dear Timmy:
Example A:
Houston passed a bathroom policy where Transgender people could not even be questioned in the restroom or that could count as harassment and incur a fine up to $5,000.

No other group would have this special rights protection against harassment where someone couldn't question them in the restroom.

So other people lose their free speech to ask questions to make sure it is safe for someone of male appearance to be in the women's restroom.

So the LGBT have protected status that other people don't have, at the expense of the equal civil rights of other members of the public.

Example B:
When states passed laws banning same sex marriage and only recognizing traditional marriage, that violated constitutional laws and was struck down.

But when laws were passed imposing same sex marriage through the state govt, against the beliefs of people this violates, that is enforced as law.

Thus the beliefs of LGBT are enforced through govt against the beliefs of those who are in conflict; but when the beliefs in traditional marriage were imposed in conflict with LGBT, that was struck down.

Again, along with PENALTIES against business owners who can be forced to attend gay weddings against their beliefs if this is a recognized status.

So that is discriminating against people for their beliefs.

A. the people OF LGBT beliefs are favored by govt
B. the people of other beliefs are penalized by govt

that is taking sides, and not neutral.

If govt was fair, it would be disallowed for groups to be forced
to do business together who have conflicting beliefs,
so that both are equally protected from the other.

Again, like Hindus and Muslims. Govt would never be used to defend one belief from persecution by the other, where one side is penalized and the other side is defended as a special class. Common sense would tell us to separate these groups if they disagree so much, mind their own business, and don't impose on each other if they can't work it out civilly. But not force one belief on the other THROUGH GOVT.

Actually . Having. "Men" and "women" bathrooms is special status . You lose .

 

[defcon4]

Minority status shouldn't exist, regardless.

Yeah ! Stupid handicapped parking spots!!!

I wasn't referring to disabled people, so you don't have to worry about your parking spots.

He wouldn't have to worry anyway. I don't think mentally disabled are entitled to parking spots. I could be wrong though.

 

[emilynghiem]

While a lot of the reaction to LGBT politics from the religious right goes "too far" with unnecessary rejection and judgment against people personally, I think this man's statement sticks to the core issue of "NOT protecting someone based on their sexual behavior."

The arguments defending LGBT, and Transgender in particular, aren't focused on behavior but spiritually how people believe and identify as individuals, which is the equivalent of their own expression of faith and beliefs.

But for those who see this externally as an issue of "outward appearance
and behavior," I think this guy hits the target right on, and with as diplomatic
and clear explanation as possible, given the highly contentious subject matter.

I think he does very well with such a difficult issue to address and explain:


World Congress of Families in Kenya: Africans 'Should Be Horrified' at LGBT Actions in USA -- 'It's Insane'

"We’re not saying that these people have to be persecuted," said Feder, an author and former Boston Herald columnist. "We’re not saying that you can’t have compassion for them -- of course, you can. But you can’t let this be the role model. And you can’t allow Christians and other religious people to be persecuted because they refuse to go along with this agenda.”

“You know, other people have demanded minority status based on their religion, based on their race," said Feder, a graduate of Boston University Law School.

"This is the first group that demands minority status based on what they do in their bedrooms. And that’s what makes it so dangerous."

"And if you look at the United States, I mean if Africans look seriously at the United States, they should be horrified by what’s going on," he said.
Turning to the transgender issue, Feder said, “We now have the latest created gender, transgender. Men who feel they’re actually women, women who feel they’re actually men. The latest front in the culture war is bathrooms, transgender bathrooms."

"The idea is, if you’re a man who feels you’re actually a woman, you should be able to use a woman’s bathroom, changing room, showers," said Feder. "This is absolutely insane."

"What about the privacy, the modesty of women and girls?" he said. "But in our legal system that’s irrelevant because the rights of so-called transgenders are far more important.”

Whomever said it is ignorant of the law.

No one is ‘demanding’ ‘minority status,’ whatever that’s supposed to be.

In the United States all citizens have the fundamental right of choice, to make personal, private decisions concerning one’s life absent unwarranted interference from the state, where the Constitution prohibits the states from seeking to disadvantage a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are, or the choices they might make concerning their personal lives:

“When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

The Constitution likewise protects transgender Americans with regard to their choice concerning gender; government can’t ‘compel’ conformity because it is hostile to the choices citizens might make.

And this ‘bathroom’ nonsense his an ignorant, bigoted red herring fallacy contrived and propagated by conservative demagogues who have an unwarranted fear and hostility toward those transgender.

Spoken from a onesided bias, C_Clayton_Jones
Again you remind me of prolife people who say that
banning abortion isn't taking away any liberty or choice
because abortion is murder and isn't a choice anyway.

You are assuming that it doesn't really affect people
for LGBT to endorse their beliefs through govt.
So any offense is "faux outrage" and for ill reasons anyway.

This reminds me of Muslims who are against consuming pork
and Hindus who hold cows sacred and won't eat beef.

Just because those beliefs "don't affect us"
doesn't give you or me the right to legislate through govt
any policy FORCING pork on Muslims or beef on Hindus.

Since in this case you don't care for any of the people
affected, you don't consider any of their rights violated.

Very onesided and selfish, C_Clayton_Jones
I'm sorry you are so one dimensional
and cannot see past your own bias
to step in the shoes of someone else equally as offended as you
from the opposite direction when the "shoe is on the other foot."

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I wasn't referring to disabled people, so you don't have to worry about your parking spots.

But they are a minority? And you said , and I quote "minority status shouldn't exist "!

That's what you said . Now you make exceptions ? So which is it????

You know, if you want to get really specific, while I wasn't referring to them, I don't think they should count either~

So, no, no handicapped parking spots. We're all just people, so they should all be treated the same, with no special treatment anywhere. So, yes, since you're mentally handicapped, if I had my way, you'd lose your parking spot, too. Problem?

Yeah, disabled people, pregnant women etc, they can just stand on buses and trains while able bodied people sit down because they too might get a little tired. We don't discriminate.

I'm glad you understand. Of course, people who aren't selfish can feel free to give up their seat.

So pregnant women gets on a train and there's a seat for people who need seats and all the people sitting down are selfish, so the pregnant woman should just stand then?

Pretty much. Sounds a bit like life, doesn't it?

 

[rightwinger]

But they are a minority? And you said , and I quote "minority status shouldn't exist "!

That's what you said . Now you make exceptions ? So which is it????

You know, if you want to get really specific, while I wasn't referring to them, I don't think they should count either~

So, no, no handicapped parking spots. We're all just people, so they should all be treated the same, with no special treatment anywhere. So, yes, since you're mentally handicapped, if I had my way, you'd lose your parking spot, too. Problem?

Yeah. You'd be like "fuck you disable vet, grow some legs and use the stairs". I think that sucks .

Actually, someone who's missing legs would be more likely to go to a store with ramps, which means that stores would build said ramps to attract customers.

Besides, I highly doubt a disabled vet would live alone. They'd need someone to drive them around since... you know... they have no legs to hit the gas with.

Yet none of them ever did it until they were required to do so

Why don't you cry about it? I hear that's a common reaction among lefties.

Actually we put up quite a cry about handicapped access

Of course....Republicans were on the wrong side of history on that one once again