The myth of discrimination against “gays” and lesbians

[emilynghiem]

You have to wonder why it is now...after those laws have been around for decades....that they start crying.

Why did gay couples start targeting, suing and harassing businesses where the owners declined to serve or attend at gay weddings they didn't believe in?

Didn't this wave start fairly recently, with the issue of Gay Marriage and Marriage Equality rising up to State legislatures and federal courts?

Now I would AGREE that some of this is backlash to the DOMA which Bill Clinton even admitted was unconstitutional and should not have been signed. Still, this points to a recent upsurge.

[Also, it shows how the LGBT has more money to lobby, and is less divided and more supported by Christians, so they can push to defend their interests (as a smaller minority) BETTER than Blacks who are divided politically left and right. Blacks don't have support of white congregations to the degree the LGBT lobby has won pro-gay sympathy and support for marriages and clergy within churches. Since this political influence isn't based on % of the population, it has to be based on money generated by this influence. Blacks are still in the back of the bus compared with LGBT who have been pushed to the forefront by buying their way politically as a favored minority to get the votes and fear of being attacked as a bigot in the media, while Blacks still divide their resources and support, left against right, backstabbing their own leadership. And they wonder why they can't get anywhere next to the LGBT who know how to work the system.]

 

[emilynghiem]

I know. The limp wristed faggots like to call America *extremist Christian*.

I tell you, it's time to cull the worthless losers of this country.

There is that good Christian love, shining for all to see, right?

Love and self-defense are fully compatible.

Well let's see what Christian scriptures say about the matter:

"but I say unto you, resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
-- Jesus; as quoted Mt 5:39

"it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing."
-- Romans 13:5-6

So you're saying that Christians should not resist evil, and simply allow it to abuse them ?

Dear Agit8r and protectionist
The best interpretation of turning the other cheek means to
REBUKE someone as an EQUAL PEER, not as a slave or noncitizen.

A slap by the left hand across the right cheek was reserved for slaves not considered equal. So the point is to demand to be addressed as an equal, on level ground.

The equivalent of this today is for people to petition each other equally as govt to redress grievances directly -- to respect and include all people's beliefs EQUALLY as protected by law, and mediate on that level, where all people and all views are valued EQUALLY.

NOT this business of putting down another group as having "invalid beliefs" that deserve to be overridden by majority rule.

The left is doing this with the right opposition to health care mandates based on beliefs on rights of states and people not to be usurped by federal govt without due process, vote and consent.

When the left protested against these Indiana laws that could be abused to go too far on the side of discrimination, the right LISTENED and RECEIVED that rebuke and leaders agreed to REVISE it to INCLUDE the objections of opposition.

Why doesn't the LEFT respect the opposing points of the RIGHT?

This shows there is political discrimination going on.

The Left expects the Right to submit to "equal protection of the laws" to include opposing views, but when the shoe is on the other foot, the left is imposing onesided agenda and the right protests, the left NEGATES discredits and excludes the Right as "invalid" and won't take those objections and points seriously into account!

Every time I've brought up Constitutional objections by the Right (and also moderates and the left) to ACA mandates, the political left shuts down that whole argument as invalid and refuses to listen "until and unless the arguments are made and passed through Congress or Courts first" and THEN it would be considered.

But here, again, with the Indiana law, the public protests alone influenced the process, and people LISTENED and pushed to revise the bill so it DIDN'T GO TOO FAR.

That's all I asked in the case of ACA -- to LISTEN to public objections and take those into account.

But when I bring this up, again, I get EXCUSES and "justifications" that the ACA is "different" and is valid law until and unless it goes through Courts first to change it.

The Governors and lawmakers in Indiana and Arkansas didn't wait for formal lawsuits and orders by a Judge before they endorsed the push to REVISE the bills to resolve such objections.

Am I the only one who sees this COULD be done with ACA instead of denying the objections as invalid and refusing to account for why half the nation has been contesting those laws, too!

WHY THE DOUBLE STANDARD

WHY DO THE SAME PEOPLE GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO DEFEND ACA MANDATES DESPITE CONSTANT OBJECTION THAT HAS NEVER WAVERED.
YET ATTACK THIS STATE LEGISLATION AS A NATIONAL ISSUE.

WHY THE SELECTIVE OUTRAGE, AND DEMONIZATION?

What a cowardly and dishonest political ploy: for the left who are opposed to ACA mandates to remain silent so only the rightwing opposition takes the beating in public for vocally and legally fighting this "as the bad guy." But when it comes to the RFRA laws, the same left SILENTLY USES the Christian support that fights for their agenda and again DEMONIZES the Christian Right in Public for political leverage. It does not help to applaud the Christian left for showing support, but only helps to ATTACK Christians as bigots to sway public opinion.

Always using the Christians and the Right for political advantage, never crediting but always slamming them as bigots because that is popular right now. Sick. No wonder so many opponents who can't stand this abusive blindsided bigotry considers liberals to be mentally ill.

If you are THAT blinded in perception, that can't be healthy and balanced.
Even if you think the fundies on the right are just as blindsided, two wrongs don't make a right.
Two sides in denial, projecting blame on each other are doubly sick, and both are equally off.

This really is sick. How can people only see their side, and can't see the other.
When I can see both sides struggling to defend their beliefs and interests from the other, I feel twice as sickened if not 3-4 times, knowing they don't see they are politically discriminating against each other. Why should I have to pay 4 times over for mistakes, lawsuits and other public costs from these conflicts escalating in legislatures and courts at taxpayer expense?

 

[emilynghiem]

The new Indiana law allows businesses to decline to sell products or to perform objectionable services for potential clients and customers, if the objection is based on legitimate religious beliefs. The is intended to address various rare situations where, for example, a religious-affiliated event venue might turn down a request for rental for a bachelor party where porn films are going to be shown.

So, if somebody refused to cater a pornographic event, what would happen without the Indiana law?

Why do you ask ? Just curious.

Rhetorical question. Because of course it violated no law to do so.

The question is whether the Chrisitian would be violating his Christain law.

It is violating Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights
to discriminate by creed, either way.

The proper way to include and protect all beliefs equally
is to have a consensus on policy or agree to separate.

I suggested before, for such service businesses to have clients sign
a waiver, agreeing to mediate all dispute by consensus. And if any conflict
cannot be resolved without incurring legal action or expenses, the parties
AGREE NOT TO DO BUSINESS TOGETHER.
This is saying the CONFLICT is the deciding factor, NOT placing a value
on one side's beliefs or the other; the fact they CONFLICT is enough
not to do business but to take it elsewhere that doesn't have these conflicts.

See Matthew 18:15-20
in case of trespass, then take the rebuke or grievance directly
to the person and try to establish truth to resolve the matter between the persons;
and if not, take witnesses. And if conflicts still cannot be
redressed, then tell it unto the church, or go public with the grievances.
And if that does not resolve it, then leaven the person ALONE.

If people cannot respect this process of respecting "consent and resolving conflicts to reach a consensus by free choice," but want to harass, force or coerce someone using political, social or legal pressure, then only do business with people who AGREE to be harassed, forced or coerced.

People have the right to follow the process of establishing justice by free will and agreement in truth.
So let businesses and customers sign waivers either agreeing to mediate,
and resolve conflicts by consensus, or part ways and not do business together if their values are different.
That's not discriminating against either one to acknowledge their beliefs don't match!

 

[emilynghiem]

I know. The limp wristed faggots like to call America *extremist Christian*.

I tell you, it's time to cull the worthless losers of this country.

Koshergrl does such a great job representing Christians

Like the horrible job you do, rightwinger, of representing the worst stereotypes of liberal politics?

 

[George Costanza]

I know. The limp wristed faggots like to call America *extremist Christian*.

I tell you, it's time to cull the worthless losers of this country.

Exactly! Much the same as Germany attempted to do in the late 1930's and first half of the 1940's.

 

[koshergrl]

I know. The limp wristed faggots like to call America *extremist Christian*.

I tell you, it's time to cull the worthless losers of this country.

Exactly! Much the same as Germany attempted to do in the late 1930's and first half of the 1940's.

The Nazis culled Christians and Jews. So you're absolutely right. It is the same, I've said so all along.

Remember..Nazis aren't reviled for their politics..they're reviled for their dehumanizing progressivism. "Nazi" was just a shield to hide what they were doing...eliminating religion and replacing it with something much, much worse.

 

[koshergrl]

"Of the 11 million people killed during the Holocaust, six million were Polish citizens. Three million were Polish Jews and another three million were Polish Christians and Catholics. Most of the remaining mortal victims were from other countries including Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, Russia, Holland, France and even Germany. "

"Every European country, even Germany, had those who did not believe in the Nazi ideology and who were willing to die for their beliefs. Perhaps no other group stood so firmly in their beliefs as the Jehovah Witnesses. Hitler felt particularly threatened by this strong group of Christians because they, from the very beginning, refused to recognize any God other than Jehovah. When asked to sign documents of loyalty to the Nazi ideology, they refused. Jehovah Witnesses were forced to wear purple armbands and thousands were imprisoned as "dangerous" traitors because they refused to take a pledge of loyalty to the Third Reich."

"Hitler wanted not only to conquer all of Europe, but Hitler also wanted to create a new religion and to replace Jesus Christ as a person to be worshipped. Hitler expected his followers to worship the Nazi ideology. Since Catholic priests and Christian pastors were often influential leaders in their community, they were sought out by the Nazis very early. Thousands of Catholic priests and Christian pastors were forced into concentration camps. A special barracks was set up at Dachau, the camp near Munich, Germany, for clergymen. A few survived; some were executed, but most were allowed to die slowly of starvation or disease. "

Non-Jewish Victims of the Holocaust 5 Million Often Forgotten

 

[xdangerousxdavex]

Personally I don't care about gays and lesbians, no discrimination. The only two points about that issue:

1. If a gay will harass me, I'd hit him.
2. I someone will tell my 12yo child about gay culture as normal, I'd hit him.

 

[Agit8r]

See Matthew 18:15-20
in case of trespass, then take the rebuke or grievance directly
to the person and try to establish truth to resolve the matter between the persons;
and if not, take witnesses. And if conflicts still cannot be
redressed, then tell it unto the church, or go public with the grievances.
And if that does not resolve it, then leaven the person ALONE.

We have civil laws. Ecclesiastical laws have no place in our legal system.

 

[Mr.Right]

But getting back to the threat and fear of discrimination, is it even conceivable that any gay person might be left without a possible wedding venue, or photographer, or wedding cake, or seat in a restaurant, or any desired product or service whatsoever, due to discrimination under this law?


Didn’t think so. It is all bullshit.

Is it even conceivable that this law is necessary to protect anyone's 'religious freedom's?

Didn't think so. It is all bullshit.

Dear Syriusly It was in response to the lawsuits where photography/bakery businesses
lost and/or were forced to pay fines.

Why are gays and transgender allowed to pass laws to protect themselves from backlash,
but Christians are not? What kind of political discrimination is that?

its called religious persecution. get used to it, because it's only going to get worse.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

DGS49 SAID:

“HOW can a restaurant discriminate against gay patrons?”

A same-sex couples wishing to celebrate a wedding anniversary is refused service.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I know. The limp wristed faggots like to call America *extremist Christian*.

I tell you, it's time to cull the worthless losers of this country.

Quoted above we see the ignorance, fear, hate, and stupidity that is proof that discrimination against gay Americans is in no way a 'myth.'

 

[emilynghiem]

See Matthew 18:15-20
in case of trespass, then take the rebuke or grievance directly
to the person and try to establish truth to resolve the matter between the persons;
and if not, take witnesses. And if conflicts still cannot be
redressed, then tell it unto the church, or go public with the grievances.
And if that does not resolve it, then leaven the person ALONE.

We have civil laws. Ecclesiastical laws have no place in our legal system.

Hi Agit8r
Religious freedom has to cover more than just organized religion or traditional "ecclesiastic" beliefs.
Otherwise, Atheists or Pagans would not be treated equally under laws as Christians or Muslims.

Just because your beliefs or you are not affiliated with a large world religion,
shouldn't mean those beliefs are treated differently! That would be discrimination by creed or affiliation!

Are you saying that if someone is Christian they can't impose a prolife or antidrug law based on Christian faith, but if a secular humanist pushes that SAME BELIEF that abortion or drugs are immoral and should be banned, without affiliation with a church, then Congress can pass it?

What? So the legality of the law depends on the religion of the person, if it's going to count as establishing a religious bias or not? I think not!

I would think it is the CONTENT or CONCEPT of that law, and whether it is pushing a BELIEF through govt where not all members of the public share that belief.

Isn't the issue whether the principle in the proposed law is based on "faith in a belief" that other people don't share. And "belief" can cover any religiously held belief that is NOT scientifically based, proven, or agreed upon but relies on "sharing that same faith or belief" REGARDLESS if the belief is secular or religious. Otherwise it's not fair to favor people with secular beliefs over people who are affiliated with major religions. That's discrimination by creed, class or religion.

 

[Agit8r]

See Matthew 18:15-20
in case of trespass, then take the rebuke or grievance directly
to the person and try to establish truth to resolve the matter between the persons;
and if not, take witnesses. And if conflicts still cannot be
redressed, then tell it unto the church, or go public with the grievances.
And if that does not resolve it, then leaven the person ALONE.

We have civil laws. Ecclesiastical laws have no place in our legal system.

Hi Agit8r
Religious freedom has to cover more than just organized religion or traditional "ecclesiastic" beliefs.
Otherwise, Atheists or Pagans would not be treated equally under laws as Christians or Muslims.

Just because your beliefs or you are not affiliated with a large world religion,
shouldn't mean those beliefs are treated differently! That would be discrimination by creed or affiliation!

Are you saying that if someone is Christian they can't impose a prolife or antidrug law based on Christian faith, but if a secular humanist pushes that SAME BELIEF that abortion or drugs are immoral and should be banned, without affiliation with a church, then Congress can pass it?

What? So the legality of the law depends on the religion of the person, if it's going to count as establishing a religious bias or not? I think not!

I would think it is the CONTENT or CONCEPT of that law, and whether it is pushing a BELIEF through govt where not all members of the public share that belief.

Isn't the issue whether the principle in the proposed law is based on "faith in a belief" that other people don't share. And "belief" can cover any religiously held belief that is NOT scientifically based, proven, or agreed upon but relies on "sharing that same faith or belief" REGARDLESS if the belief is secular or religious. Otherwise it's not fair to favor people with secular beliefs over people who are affiliated with major religions. That's discrimination by creed, class or religion.

The temporal laws in question fall upon the atheist bigot and the religious bigot equally.

 

[emilynghiem]

See Matthew 18:15-20
in case of trespass, then take the rebuke or grievance directly
to the person and try to establish truth to resolve the matter between the persons;
and if not, take witnesses. And if conflicts still cannot be
redressed, then tell it unto the church, or go public with the grievances.
And if that does not resolve it, then leaven the person ALONE.

We have civil laws. Ecclesiastical laws have no place in our legal system.

Hi Agit8r
Religious freedom has to cover more than just organized religion or traditional "ecclesiastic" beliefs.
Otherwise, Atheists or Pagans would not be treated equally under laws as Christians or Muslims.

Just because your beliefs or you are not affiliated with a large world religion,
shouldn't mean those beliefs are treated differently! That would be discrimination by creed or affiliation!

Are you saying that if someone is Christian they can't impose a prolife or antidrug law based on Christian faith, but if a secular humanist pushes that SAME BELIEF that abortion or drugs are immoral and should be banned, without affiliation with a church, then Congress can pass it?

What? So the legality of the law depends on the religion of the person, if it's going to count as establishing a religious bias or not? I think not!

I would think it is the CONTENT or CONCEPT of that law, and whether it is pushing a BELIEF through govt where not all members of the public share that belief.

Isn't the issue whether the principle in the proposed law is based on "faith in a belief" that other people don't share. And "belief" can cover any religiously held belief that is NOT scientifically based, proven, or agreed upon but relies on "sharing that same faith or belief" REGARDLESS if the belief is secular or religious. Otherwise it's not fair to favor people with secular beliefs over people who are affiliated with major religions. That's discrimination by creed, class or religion.

The temporal laws in question fall upon the atheist bigot and the religious bigot equally.

Thanks Agit8r And now I am trying to find which people on here
can treat the beliefs equally regarding homosexuality, gay marriage, etc.
Since no beliefs or perceptions/arguments about homosexuality have been proven true for all cases,
these remain faith based, on EITHER side, for or against. So if these are all "faith based beliefs," (about homosexuality,
gay marriage etc.) shouldn't the BELIEFS be treated equally under law? and not make laws favoring one over any other?

 

[Syriusly]

See Matthew 18:15-20
in case of trespass, then take the rebuke or grievance directly
to the person and try to establish truth to resolve the matter between the persons;
and if not, take witnesses. And if conflicts still cannot be
redressed, then tell it unto the church, or go public with the grievances.
And if that does not resolve it, then leaven the person ALONE.

We have civil laws. Ecclesiastical laws have no place in our legal system.

Hi Agit8r
Religious freedom has to cover more than just organized religion or traditional "ecclesiastic" beliefs.
Otherwise, Atheists or Pagans would not be treated equally under laws as Christians or Muslims.

Just because your beliefs or you are not affiliated with a large world religion,
shouldn't mean those beliefs are treated differently! That would be discrimination by creed or affiliation!

Are you saying that if someone is Christian they can't impose a prolife or antidrug law based on Christian faith, but if a secular humanist pushes that SAME BELIEF that abortion or drugs are immoral and should be banned, without affiliation with a church, then Congress can pass it?

What? So the legality of the law depends on the religion of the person, if it's going to count as establishing a religious bias or not? I think not!

I would think it is the CONTENT or CONCEPT of that law, and whether it is pushing a BELIEF through govt where not all members of the public share that belief.

Isn't the issue whether the principle in the proposed law is based on "faith in a belief" that other people don't share. And "belief" can cover any religiously held belief that is NOT scientifically based, proven, or agreed upon but relies on "sharing that same faith or belief" REGARDLESS if the belief is secular or religious. Otherwise it's not fair to favor people with secular beliefs over people who are affiliated with major religions. That's discrimination by creed, class or religion.

The temporal laws in question fall upon the atheist bigot and the religious bigot equally.

Thanks Agit8r And now I am trying to find which people on here
can treat the beliefs equally regarding homosexuality, gay marriage, etc.
Since no beliefs or perceptions/arguments about homosexuality have been proven true for all cases,
these remain faith based, on EITHER side, for or against. So if these are all "faith based beliefs," (about homosexuality,
gay marriage etc.) shouldn't the BELIEFS be treated equally under law? and not make laws favoring one over any other?

All beliefs are treated equally under the law.

But business's are required to follow the law, regardless of their beliefs.

 

[paperview]

"Of the 11 million people killed during the Holocaust, six million were Polish citizens. Three million were Polish Jews and another three million were Polish Christians and Catholics. Most of the remaining mortal victims were from other countries including Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, Russia, Holland, France and even Germany. "
....

You forgot to mention Hitler killed the gays and lesbians.

Like you said you'd like to do.