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.
I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.
Right? Seems reasonable to me.
Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?
No. Quite the opposite.
How so? When you use government to force others to service something they don't want to, you are not asking for tolerance, you are asking for acceptance and condoning.
Oh look... the resident shoe-polish specialist raises her irrelevant head and once again illustrates her hatred and contempt for adults trying to have a legitimate conversation.1. you aren't the mainstream. you're a winger.I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.
Right? Seems reasonable to me.
Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?
2. they don't care if you "accept" them.
3. they care about having the same rights as everyone else.
you're welcome.
Good gravy.
That is not the way it works. First, you have to get enough of the population to sympathize with you in order to get such a law passed. This means you have already attained acceptance by mainstream society. Once it is passed, it becomes a societal norm. If you are breaking the law it is the automatic assumption that you are in the wrong. So people who do break the law are outside the norm and, by definition, the one who fails to be accepted by mainstream society. That's human nature.
I think the mistake you are making is the assumption that in those areas where these laws exist your position is mainstream. It isn't.
Actually in this case you don't, because you are applying law that was meant to end something entirely different, i.e. perverse and systemic racial discrimination, and have mutated it to cover any "oppressed" group out there to make their butthurt more equal than someone else's butthurt.
When laws become so trivial that breaking them becomes a matter of course, (i.e pot laws) than one has to wonder if society is really benefiting from such laws, or do such laws only benefit people who feel the need to control every little facet of other people's lives.
No. Those laws specifically include sexual orientation or they couldn't be used. Whatever you might think was the intent doesn't matter. The wording of the law is what matters, and that wording did not just pop into existence on its own.
The question put forth by the OP was whether this negatively affects mainstream acceptance and I responded no. It clearly does not. Quite the opposite.
Sexual orientation was added, mostly in places where single party rule has been the norm for decades (with the occasional RHINO). They weren't added by popular demand, they were added because the elites wanted it, and they were in power.
Just wait until more lawsuits start up, and they start going after anything related to a Church. I know people don't think it will happen, but it will.
The thing with activists is there is always the next thing. Do you really expect them to stop at the church door?
I am sure there might be a small handful of militant assholes that file lawsuits against churches but those suits will be laughed out court. I am not aware of any successful suit against a church on the grounds they violated public accommodation laws.
Why not? the word Church actually isn't in the constitution, its the free exercise of religion that is protected. Evidently bakers can't do that now, why should churches be exempt?
I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.
Right? Seems reasonable to me.
Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?
1. you aren't the mainstream. you're a winger.
2. they don't care if you "accept" them.
3. they care about having the same rights as everyone else.
you're welcome.
Good gravy.
Actually in this case you don't, because you are applying law that was meant to end something entirely different, i.e. perverse and systemic racial discrimination, and have mutated it to cover any "oppressed" group out there to make their butthurt more equal than someone else's butthurt.
When laws become so trivial that breaking them becomes a matter of course, (i.e pot laws) than one has to wonder if society is really benefiting from such laws, or do such laws only benefit people who feel the need to control every little facet of other people's lives.
No. Those laws specifically include sexual orientation or they couldn't be used. Whatever you might think was the intent doesn't matter. The wording of the law is what matters, and that wording did not just pop into existence on its own.
The question put forth by the OP was whether this negatively affects mainstream acceptance and I responded no. It clearly does not. Quite the opposite.
Sexual orientation was added, mostly in places where single party rule has been the norm for decades (with the occasional RHINO). They weren't added by popular demand, they were added because the elites wanted it, and they were in power.
Just wait until more lawsuits start up, and they start going after anything related to a Church. I know people don't think it will happen, but it will.
The thing with activists is there is always the next thing. Do you really expect them to stop at the church door?
I am sure there might be a small handful of militant assholes that file lawsuits against churches but those suits will be laughed out court. I am not aware of any successful suit against a church on the grounds they violated public accommodation laws.
Why not? the word Church actually isn't in the constitution, its the free exercise of religion that is protected. Evidently bakers can't do that now, why should churches be exempt?
This is an interesting new tactic. With conservatives trying to increase the impact of PA laws beyond their scope to include churches.......apparently to increase opposition to them.
Nope. Churches aren't commerce.
It is,, but I will ask it again just so you address it:That's not what you asked.Wait...No. Quite the opposite.I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.
Right? Seems reasonable to me.
Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?
You think that the LBGT should NOT treat those with opposing views with respect?
Do you think that the LBGT community should treat those with opposing views with respect?
Do you think that by not doing so, they work against their goal to have the mainstream accept them and treat them with respect?
Good gravy.
That is not the way it works. First, you have to get enough of the population to sympathize with you in order to get such a law passed. This means you have already attained acceptance by mainstream society. Once it is passed, it becomes a societal norm. If you are breaking the law it is the automatic assumption that you are in the wrong. So people who do break the law are outside the norm and, by definition, the one who fails to be accepted by mainstream society. That's human nature.
I think the mistake you are making is the assumption that in those areas where these laws exist your position is mainstream. It isn't.
Actually in this case you don't, because you are applying law that was meant to end something entirely different, i.e. perverse and systemic racial discrimination, and have mutated it to cover any "oppressed" group out there to make their butthurt more equal than someone else's butthurt.
When laws become so trivial that breaking them becomes a matter of course, (i.e pot laws) than one has to wonder if society is really benefiting from such laws, or do such laws only benefit people who feel the need to control every little facet of other people's lives.
No. Those laws specifically include sexual orientation or they couldn't be used. Whatever you might think was the intent doesn't matter. The wording of the law is what matters, and that wording did not just pop into existence on its own.
The question put forth by the OP was whether this negatively affects mainstream acceptance and I responded no. It clearly does not. Quite the opposite.
Sexual orientation was added, mostly in places where single party rule has been the norm for decades (with the occasional RHINO). They weren't added by popular demand, they were added because the elites wanted it, and they were in power.
Just wait until more lawsuits start up, and they start going after anything related to a Church. I know people don't think it will happen, but it will.
The thing with activists is there is always the next thing. Do you really expect them to stop at the church door?
I am sure there might be a small handful of militant assholes that file lawsuits against churches but those suits will be laughed out court. I am not aware of any successful suit against a church on the grounds they violated public accommodation laws.
Why not? the word Church actually isn't in the constitution, its the free exercise of religion that is protected. Evidently bakers can't do that now, why should churches be exempt?
I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.
Right? Seems reasonable to me.
Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?
No. Quite the opposite.
How so? When you use government to force others to service something they don't want to, you are not asking for tolerance, you are asking for acceptance and condoning.
You're literally blaming the victims of intolerance for seeking the same goods and services as everyone else gets. Religiously motivated intolerance is neither their fault nor their responsibility.
I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.
Right? Seems reasonable to me.
Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?
No. Quite the opposite.
How so? When you use government to force others to service something they don't want to, you are not asking for tolerance, you are asking for acceptance and condoning.
You're literally blaming the victims of intolerance for seeking the same goods and services as everyone else gets. Religiously motivated intolerance is neither their fault nor their responsibility.
Good gravy.
Actually in this case you don't, because you are applying law that was meant to end something entirely different, i.e. perverse and systemic racial discrimination, and have mutated it to cover any "oppressed" group out there to make their butthurt more equal than someone else's butthurt.
When laws become so trivial that breaking them becomes a matter of course, (i.e pot laws) than one has to wonder if society is really benefiting from such laws, or do such laws only benefit people who feel the need to control every little facet of other people's lives.
No. Those laws specifically include sexual orientation or they couldn't be used. Whatever you might think was the intent doesn't matter. The wording of the law is what matters, and that wording did not just pop into existence on its own.
The question put forth by the OP was whether this negatively affects mainstream acceptance and I responded no. It clearly does not. Quite the opposite.
Sexual orientation was added, mostly in places where single party rule has been the norm for decades (with the occasional RHINO). They weren't added by popular demand, they were added because the elites wanted it, and they were in power.
Just wait until more lawsuits start up, and they start going after anything related to a Church. I know people don't think it will happen, but it will.
The thing with activists is there is always the next thing. Do you really expect them to stop at the church door?
I am sure there might be a small handful of militant assholes that file lawsuits against churches but those suits will be laughed out court. I am not aware of any successful suit against a church on the grounds they violated public accommodation laws.
Why not? the word Church actually isn't in the constitution, its the free exercise of religion that is protected. Evidently bakers can't do that now, why should churches be exempt?
Marty, our positions on public accommodations laws are almost identical. Why would I want to expand PA laws to churches when I feel they should be scrapped almost entirely?
I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.
Right? Seems reasonable to me.
Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?
1. you aren't the mainstream. you're a winger.
2. they don't care if you "accept" them.
3. they care about having the same rights as everyone else.
you're welcome.
Yes, they do. It's plain to see in everything going on. And I haven't found the right to a wedding cake from a specific baker in the constitution, no matter how hard I have looked.
Good gravy.
No. Those laws specifically include sexual orientation or they couldn't be used. Whatever you might think was the intent doesn't matter. The wording of the law is what matters, and that wording did not just pop into existence on its own.
The question put forth by the OP was whether this negatively affects mainstream acceptance and I responded no. It clearly does not. Quite the opposite.
Sexual orientation was added, mostly in places where single party rule has been the norm for decades (with the occasional RHINO). They weren't added by popular demand, they were added because the elites wanted it, and they were in power.
Just wait until more lawsuits start up, and they start going after anything related to a Church. I know people don't think it will happen, but it will.
The thing with activists is there is always the next thing. Do you really expect them to stop at the church door?
I am sure there might be a small handful of militant assholes that file lawsuits against churches but those suits will be laughed out court. I am not aware of any successful suit against a church on the grounds they violated public accommodation laws.
Why not? the word Church actually isn't in the constitution, its the free exercise of religion that is protected. Evidently bakers can't do that now, why should churches be exempt?
This is an interesting new tactic. With conservatives trying to increase the impact of PA laws beyond their scope to include churches.......apparently to increase opposition to them.
Nope. Churches aren't commerce.
Why does commerce trump free exercise?
Also known as "cut off your nose to spite your face".Good gravy.
No. Those laws specifically include sexual orientation or they couldn't be used. Whatever you might think was the intent doesn't matter. The wording of the law is what matters, and that wording did not just pop into existence on its own.
The question put forth by the OP was whether this negatively affects mainstream acceptance and I responded no. It clearly does not. Quite the opposite.
Sexual orientation was added, mostly in places where single party rule has been the norm for decades (with the occasional RHINO). They weren't added by popular demand, they were added because the elites wanted it, and they were in power.
Just wait until more lawsuits start up, and they start going after anything related to a Church. I know people don't think it will happen, but it will.
The thing with activists is there is always the next thing. Do you really expect them to stop at the church door?
I am sure there might be a small handful of militant assholes that file lawsuits against churches but those suits will be laughed out court. I am not aware of any successful suit against a church on the grounds they violated public accommodation laws.
Why not? the word Church actually isn't in the constitution, its the free exercise of religion that is protected. Evidently bakers can't do that now, why should churches be exempt?
Marty, our positions on public accommodations laws are almost identical. Why would I want to expand PA laws to churches when I feel they should be scrapped almost entirely?
It may be the only way to get rid of them, or at least return them to their original purpose.
I know "burn the village in order to save it " is a drastic tactic, but it may be the only way out.
I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.
Right? Seems reasonable to me.
Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?
1. you aren't the mainstream. you're a winger.
2. they don't care if you "accept" them.
3. they care about having the same rights as everyone else.
you're welcome.
Yes, they do. It's plain to see in everything going on. And I haven't found the right to a wedding cake from a specific baker in the constitution, no matter how hard I have looked.
Show in the Constitution where it says a wedding cake seller can refuse to sell a cake. I've searched it high and low and can't find "wedding cake" anywhere in it. So clearly wedding cakes shops are not covered under the Constitution.
I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.
Right? Seems reasonable to me.
Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?
No. Quite the opposite.
How so? When you use government to force others to service something they don't want to, you are not asking for tolerance, you are asking for acceptance and condoning.
You're literally blaming the victims of intolerance for seeking the same goods and services as everyone else gets. Religiously motivated intolerance is neither their fault nor their responsibility.
I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.
Right? Seems reasonable to me.
Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?
No. Quite the opposite.
How so? When you use government to force others to service something they don't want to, you are not asking for tolerance, you are asking for acceptance and condoning.
You're literally blaming the victims of intolerance for seeking the same goods and services as everyone else gets. Religiously motivated intolerance is neither their fault nor their responsibility.
Having to go to another baker does not make you a victim. Jesus H Christ people need to grow a freaking spine.
That is not the way it works. First, you have to get enough of the population to sympathize with you in order to get such a law passed. This means you have already attained acceptance by mainstream society. Once it is passed, it becomes a societal norm. If you are breaking the law it is the automatic assumption that you are in the wrong. So people who do break the law are outside the norm and, by definition, the one who fails to be accepted by mainstream society. That's human nature.
I think the mistake you are making is the assumption that in those areas where these laws exist your position is mainstream. It isn't.
Actually in this case you don't, because you are applying law that was meant to end something entirely different, i.e. perverse and systemic racial discrimination, and have mutated it to cover any "oppressed" group out there to make their butthurt more equal than someone else's butthurt.
When laws become so trivial that breaking them becomes a matter of course, (i.e pot laws) than one has to wonder if society is really benefiting from such laws, or do such laws only benefit people who feel the need to control every little facet of other people's lives.
No. Those laws specifically include sexual orientation or they couldn't be used. Whatever you might think was the intent doesn't matter. The wording of the law is what matters, and that wording did not just pop into existence on its own.
The question put forth by the OP was whether this negatively affects mainstream acceptance and I responded no. It clearly does not. Quite the opposite.
Sexual orientation was added, mostly in places where single party rule has been the norm for decades (with the occasional RHINO). They weren't added by popular demand, they were added because the elites wanted it, and they were in power.
Just wait until more lawsuits start up, and they start going after anything related to a Church. I know people don't think it will happen, but it will.
The thing with activists is there is always the next thing. Do you really expect them to stop at the church door?
Trends may well reverse, but I am not expecting that to happen. And yes, I expect them to stop at the church door regardless of what "activists" might want.
That's very naive of you.
I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.
Right? Seems reasonable to me.
Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?
1. you aren't the mainstream. you're a winger.
2. they don't care if you "accept" them.
3. they care about having the same rights as everyone else.
you're welcome.
Yes, they do. It's plain to see in everything going on. And I haven't found the right to a wedding cake from a specific baker in the constitution, no matter how hard I have looked.
Show in the Constitution where it says a wedding cake seller can refuse to sell a cake. I've searched it high and low and can't find "wedding cake" anywhere in it. So clearly wedding cakes shops are not covered under the Constitution.
The constitution only STOPS people from doing things two specific areas, 1) you can't own slaves and 2) you can't bring booze into a dry state/city/county.
That's it. Everything else is restrictions on government.
If something is not in the constitution it's either delegated to the States, or reserved by the people. The burden is on YOU to show where government has the right to force people to do things, not the other way around.
Were they changed by legislation or court action? In what proportion?Laws against discrimination have been changed to include LGBT. That is a very sound argument that the mainstream has accepted it. Those laws were not changed in a vacuum.Laws against discrimination were passed long before the LGBT issue grew to what it is today, and so you cannot soundly argue that laws against discrimination prove that the mainstream has accepted LGBT.That is not the way it works. First, you have to get enough of the population to sympathize with you in order to get such a law passed. This means you have already attained acceptance by mainstream society.
Good gravy.
No. Those laws specifically include sexual orientation or they couldn't be used. Whatever you might think was the intent doesn't matter. The wording of the law is what matters, and that wording did not just pop into existence on its own.
The question put forth by the OP was whether this negatively affects mainstream acceptance and I responded no. It clearly does not. Quite the opposite.
Sexual orientation was added, mostly in places where single party rule has been the norm for decades (with the occasional RHINO). They weren't added by popular demand, they were added because the elites wanted it, and they were in power.
Just wait until more lawsuits start up, and they start going after anything related to a Church. I know people don't think it will happen, but it will.
The thing with activists is there is always the next thing. Do you really expect them to stop at the church door?
I am sure there might be a small handful of militant assholes that file lawsuits against churches but those suits will be laughed out court. I am not aware of any successful suit against a church on the grounds they violated public accommodation laws.
Why not? the word Church actually isn't in the constitution, its the free exercise of religion that is protected. Evidently bakers can't do that now, why should churches be exempt?
Marty, our positions on public accommodations laws are almost identical. Why would I want to expand PA laws to churches when I feel they should be scrapped almost entirely?
It may be the only way to get rid of them, or at least return them to their original purpose.
I know "burn the village in order to save it " is a drastic tactic, but it may be the only way out.
Good gravy.
Sexual orientation was added, mostly in places where single party rule has been the norm for decades (with the occasional RHINO). They weren't added by popular demand, they were added because the elites wanted it, and they were in power.
Just wait until more lawsuits start up, and they start going after anything related to a Church. I know people don't think it will happen, but it will.
The thing with activists is there is always the next thing. Do you really expect them to stop at the church door?
I am sure there might be a small handful of militant assholes that file lawsuits against churches but those suits will be laughed out court. I am not aware of any successful suit against a church on the grounds they violated public accommodation laws.
Why not? the word Church actually isn't in the constitution, its the free exercise of religion that is protected. Evidently bakers can't do that now, why should churches be exempt?
This is an interesting new tactic. With conservatives trying to increase the impact of PA laws beyond their scope to include churches.......apparently to increase opposition to them.
Nope. Churches aren't commerce.
Why does commerce trump free exercise?
Because business isn't an inherent act of faith. And these are generally applicable laws that don't target religion.
It the responsibility of the religious to find a profession that is compatible with their faith. A Buddhist doesn't get hired at a slaughterhouse only to demand they stop killing animals because it violates his religion. Steve Young didn't demand the Superbowl be played on a Saturday because working on a Sunday violated his religion.
Its the responsibility of each religious individual to find a profession that is compatible with their faith. Not society's responsibility to bend itself around whatever religious belief they happen to have.
Good gravy.
Sexual orientation was added, mostly in places where single party rule has been the norm for decades (with the occasional RHINO). They weren't added by popular demand, they were added because the elites wanted it, and they were in power.
Just wait until more lawsuits start up, and they start going after anything related to a Church. I know people don't think it will happen, but it will.
The thing with activists is there is always the next thing. Do you really expect them to stop at the church door?
I am sure there might be a small handful of militant assholes that file lawsuits against churches but those suits will be laughed out court. I am not aware of any successful suit against a church on the grounds they violated public accommodation laws.
Why not? the word Church actually isn't in the constitution, its the free exercise of religion that is protected. Evidently bakers can't do that now, why should churches be exempt?
Marty, our positions on public accommodations laws are almost identical. Why would I want to expand PA laws to churches when I feel they should be scrapped almost entirely?
It may be the only way to get rid of them, or at least return them to their original purpose.
I know "burn the village in order to save it " is a drastic tactic, but it may be the only way out.
I think we know those laws would be slapped with an injunction and thrown out by the courts. I am not seeing any major push, in any statehouse, to get churches to follow PA laws. It isn't happening.
