Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Although I don't agree I appreciate the discussion... I think you'll come around someday, you're almost there ;-)I feel like we are now going in circles so perhaps its time to say we agree to disagree and end it there... I just have one more question for you... If a gay couple goes into a restaurant or a single person wearing a rainbow shirt... Is it OK with you for the restaurant to deny them service?substitute inequality with discrimination... I misspoke... To your other points, substitute LGBT with Blacks and Women and the 2000's with the early 1900's. This is a repetition of history and should speak for itself.Inequality is not always harm, and even if so, when does it become something that government gets involved in? I graduated 4th out of 290 kids in my High School. Did that inequality mandate government action to equalize the outcomes? Should I have been punished because I was smarter than those kids?
All the situations you list do show evidence of actual harm, except public acceptance. Most of them involve government interaction or rules, which I have already said have to be neutral.
By referencing public acceptance. you are trying to say government has a responsibility to get people to like some other group, or at least pretend to, and government shouldn't be doing that.
Back in the 1900's women were punished economically and politically by government as well as social conventions. Its the same with blacks between the Civil War and the Civil Rights era. Those examples simply do not cross over to the current situation with homosexuals. While the social oppression was always there, the political and economic oppression was often avoided by being under the radar, something women and blacks just couldn't do. When gays decided to "fight the power" they emerged with a background and power base already established (if closeted) that women and blacks simply didn't have. its why the fight took far shorter for them than with the other groups.
None of this explains why government has to punish one side in an argument basically over who's butt hurt is more equal than the other's butt hurt. In the battle of some people's butt hurt over serving gay people, and the gay people's butt hurt over being told that said other people's desire to not serve them, why does government get to punish one side instead of the other?
I actually think restaurants are public accommodations when it comes to standard service, and service shouldn't be denied. Now, the restaurant, if it allows itself to be bought out to host events, shouldn't be forced to host a gay wedding if it doesn't want to.
It's called the majority of people. Yes the deck is stacked against you because you are In The vast minorityBecause we are at that point with LGBT... Read before you respond
No, evidently the mob can handle it, just look at Memories Pizza.
Obviously it does or there wouldn't be cases that these bakers, florists and photographers keep losing.
They keep losing to bureaucrats and local progressive judges. It's not really losing when the deck is stacked against you.
You have numbers to back that up? Most people want others to get along, but ask them if government force should be involved and you lose a lot of people.
And with polls, it all goes by how you ask the question.
There are always going to be people who think homosexuality is wrong, unless of course you get rid of religion, which we know is one of your pet douchebag projects.
I don't see why a small group of people gets to decide how others get to live their lives when there is no actual harm done to the small group of people.
But why does someone else have the right to make you go against your beliefs simply for hurt feelings, where there is no actual harm done?
In the previous cases the real discrimination was economic and political. The discrimination at the counters, and in the buses were symptoms of a far larger problem, which was mandated by governments, both State and more local, and re-enforced by a terrible supreme court decision (Plessey).
The issue I have is that examples are being made of people who are doing no real harm other than hurting another person's feelings, and maybe making them make a few more phone calls or do another google search. The systemic economic and political discrimination that made Jim Crow the force it was it non-existent in this case. Hell, Gays in some studies are shown to be more affluent than your average heterosexual couple, and they have obvious political clout that a black in the 1930's would kill for.
It's called the majority of people. Yes the deck is stacked against you because you are In The vast minorityNo, evidently the mob can handle it, just look at Memories Pizza.
Obviously it does or there wouldn't be cases that these bakers, florists and photographers keep losing.
They keep losing to bureaucrats and local progressive judges. It's not really losing when the deck is stacked against you.
You have numbers to back that up? Most people want others to get along, but ask them if government force should be involved and you lose a lot of people.
And with polls, it all goes by how you ask the question.
Way to cover your bases...ask for proof but discount the proof before it's provided.
Majority of Americans Agree: Businesses and Government Officials Should Not Discriminate against LGBT People
A full two-thirds (67%) of Americans, including 78% of LGBT Americans, agreed that a government official should be obligated to serve all of the public and perform all duties, regardless of their religious beliefs. The Out & Equal Workplace survey also confirmed that 60% of Americans (and 80% of LGBT individuals) believe that business owners should not be permitted to turn away anyone based on their religious beliefs.
There are always going to be people who think homosexuality is wrong, unless of course you get rid of religion, which we know is one of your pet douchebag projects.
I don't see why a small group of people gets to decide how others get to live their lives when there is no actual harm done to the small group of people.
Funny, you have no problem when the 1% dictates how the rest of us live.
Yes, the day the last Church closes will be a great day.
But why does someone else have the right to make you go against your beliefs simply for hurt feelings, where there is no actual harm done?
If something you do is against your beliefs, you should probably find another line of work.
In the previous cases the real discrimination was economic and political. The discrimination at the counters, and in the buses were symptoms of a far larger problem, which was mandated by governments, both State and more local, and re-enforced by a terrible supreme court decision (Plessey).
The issue I have is that examples are being made of people who are doing no real harm other than hurting another person's feelings, and maybe making them make a few more phone calls or do another google search. The systemic economic and political discrimination that made Jim Crow the force it was it non-existent in this case. Hell, Gays in some studies are shown to be more affluent than your average heterosexual couple, and they have obvious political clout that a black in the 1930's would kill for.
Again, I know people who were fired from their jobs for being gay.
I know people who were beaten up for being gay.
to claim that homophobia isn't still rampant is laughable.
It's called the majority of people. Yes the deck is stacked against you because you are In The vast minorityObviously it does or there wouldn't be cases that these bakers, florists and photographers keep losing.
They keep losing to bureaucrats and local progressive judges. It's not really losing when the deck is stacked against you.
You have numbers to back that up? Most people want others to get along, but ask them if government force should be involved and you lose a lot of people.
And with polls, it all goes by how you ask the question.
Way to cover your bases...ask for proof but discount the proof before it's provided.
Majority of Americans Agree: Businesses and Government Officials Should Not Discriminate against LGBT People
A full two-thirds (67%) of Americans, including 78% of LGBT Americans, agreed that a government official should be obligated to serve all of the public and perform all duties, regardless of their religious beliefs. The Out & Equal Workplace survey also confirmed that 60% of Americans (and 80% of LGBT individuals) believe that business owners should not be permitted to turn away anyone based on their religious beliefs.
Again, with surveys, its all about asking the question. Ask them if a business should be forced to close their doors if they don't want to cater a gay wedding, and I'm sure the # goes down. Americans like fairness, they don't like punishing people, so change the question from more positive (not permitted) to more negative (punishment) and you get different numbers for the answers.
And 60% is hardly a gigantic majority, and in any event below the threshold to remove a constitutionally protected right.
Gov. Deal to speak about Religious Freedom decision, source says
Good thing that piece of shit is term limited. Time to vote out the piece of anti first amendment shit out of office. So glad I am leaving Ga soon. I hated that SOB from the time he was elected nothing but a spineless wimp.
Ah, your standard "plutocracy" rant. Never mind that more government like you want always leads to worse equality.
People are entitled to their opinions, and to act on their opinions if there is no harm caused to others.
You can't beat up people in general, we have that covered by criminal law. I would actually support expanding homosexuality as protected for employment (except in certain cases, example Churches), however the "give an inch, take a mile" tendency of gay rights advocates leads me not to trust them.
It's called the majority of people. Yes the deck is stacked against you because you are In The vast minorityThey keep losing to bureaucrats and local progressive judges. It's not really losing when the deck is stacked against you.
You have numbers to back that up? Most people want others to get along, but ask them if government force should be involved and you lose a lot of people.
And with polls, it all goes by how you ask the question.
Way to cover your bases...ask for proof but discount the proof before it's provided.
Majority of Americans Agree: Businesses and Government Officials Should Not Discriminate against LGBT People
A full two-thirds (67%) of Americans, including 78% of LGBT Americans, agreed that a government official should be obligated to serve all of the public and perform all duties, regardless of their religious beliefs. The Out & Equal Workplace survey also confirmed that 60% of Americans (and 80% of LGBT individuals) believe that business owners should not be permitted to turn away anyone based on their religious beliefs.
Again, with surveys, its all about asking the question. Ask them if a business should be forced to close their doors if they don't want to cater a gay wedding, and I'm sure the # goes down. Americans like fairness, they don't like punishing people, so change the question from more positive (not permitted) to more negative (punishment) and you get different numbers for the answers.
And 60% is hardly a gigantic majority, and in any event below the threshold to remove a constitutionally protected right.
Discrimination isn't a Constitutionally protected right. What was the public's thinking when we desegregated?
Ah, your standard "plutocracy" rant. Never mind that more government like you want always leads to worse equality.
Um, no. The Europeans have exactly the level of government I'd like to have, and funny enough, they have nowhere near our levels of poverty or obscene wealth.
But you keep letting the Plutocrats tell you the Gays are oppressing you, those mean old Gay people actually insisting they be entitled to all the things you get.
So Kosher Butchers should close shop because they won't sell pork?
People are entitled to their opinions, and to act on their opinions if there is no harm caused to others.
You can't beat up people in general, we have that covered by criminal law. I would actually support expanding homosexuality as protected for employment (except in certain cases, example Churches), however the "give an inch, take a mile" tendency of gay rights advocates leads me not to trust them.
Um, yeah, guy, here's the thing. Until we finally got some hate crime laws on the books, "Fag-bashing" was considered something gays just had to deal with. In short, the laws against assault weren't considered adequate, so we needed tougher laws.
People are entitled to their opinions. Their businesses, however, are not. their businesses are governed by commerce and public accommedation laws that are meant to protect the consumer. Which incidentally is EXACTLY HOW IT SHOULD BE.
No, they just have stagnant, non-reproducing populations being overrun by far more reactionary and religious populations.
It's not "gays" doing, it's progressive nimrods who happen to be gay, or support crushing people who disagree with them, and find the gay thing an efficient path for it.
So Kosher Butchers should close shop because they won't sell pork?
Um, no. They are selling a very specific sort of product. They arent' selling pork to ANYONE.
The Kleins were selling wedding cakes, just not wedding cakes to you lesbians. Because Jesus or something. (Even though Jesus never talked about Lesbians, even once.)
