Transgender, Non-Binary, and all the Ridiculousness in Between...

[Moonglow]

he, she , him, her, guy, girl are all social concepts. Male and Female, which is a person sex, are biological.

Read and learn.

Brain development: Is the difference between boys and girls all in their heads? | BabyCenter


Mark

whats your point with that link?

That gender is as much a part of a person as the physical parts. Studies on babies show that there are major differences between how the sexes view life from their earliest days of existence.

Mark

Even hermaphrodites?

What is it with the left? They will find some tiny little anomaly and try to use it as "proof" that denies the bulk of logical, rational, sane human existence.

The question was, is gender ingrained or taught. It is most certainly ingrained.

Mark

The bulk, which means your groups views,, and everyone else must abide by them or you shall be an outcast in society , ostracized, stigmatized, subjugated and killed...
Sieg Heil...

 

[Moonglow]

I am all for freedom. I'll ask the same question I asked earlier. Should a transabled be able to remove an arm that he thinks he should not have? Or should we encourage a bulimic to keep on dieting because she believes herself to be fat?

Mark

The brain develops by the chemicals produced in our body, and all humans do not develop the same...There is no freedom if you subjugate a minority because of your perception from how your brain developed...

They say that pedophiles are born that way. Do they get their freedom as well?

Mark

No one is born a pedophile | Fox News

The American Psychiatric Association doesn't agree.

Mark

You did not follow though

>>
APA, Liberty Counsel noted, now states “sexual orientation” is an error and should read instead, “sexual interest.”

On Thursday, APA released a statement regarding what it referred to as a “text error” in DSM-5:

In the case of pedophilic disorder, the diagnostic criteria essentially remained the same as in DSM-IV-TR. Only the disorder name was changed from “pedophilia” to “pedophilic disorder” to maintain consistency with the chapter’s other disorder listings.

“Sexual orientation” is not a term used in the diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder and its use in the DSM-5 text discussion is an error and should read “sexual interest.” In fact, APA considers pedophilic disorder a “paraphilia,” not a “sexual orientation.” This error will be corrected in the electronic version of DSM-5 and the next printing of the manual.

APA stands firmly behind efforts to criminally prosecute those who sexually abuse and exploit children and adolescents. We also support continued efforts to develop treatments for those with pedophilic disorder with the goal of preventing future acts of abuse.<<

He won't get the reference to manuals...

 

[80zephyr]

Read and learn.

Brain development: Is the difference between boys and girls all in their heads? | BabyCenter


Mark

whats your point with that link?

That gender is as much a part of a person as the physical parts. Studies on babies show that there are major differences between how the sexes view life from their earliest days of existence.

Mark

Even hermaphrodites?

What is it with the left? They will find some tiny little anomaly and try to use it as "proof" that denies the bulk of logical, rational, sane human existence.

The question was, is gender ingrained or taught. It is most certainly ingrained.

Mark

The bulk, which means your groups views,, and everyone else must abide by them or you shall be an outcast in society , ostracized, stigmatized, subjugated and killed...
Sieg Heil...

Reality isn't my view. It just is. And by fooling yourself into believing you can change it is a fools errand.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

I am all for freedom. I'll ask the same question I asked earlier. Should a transabled be able to remove an arm that he thinks he should not have? Or should we encourage a bulimic to keep on dieting because she believes herself to be fat?

Mark

The brain develops by the chemicals produced in our body, and all humans do not develop the same...There is no freedom if you subjugate a minority because of your perception from how your brain developed...

They say that pedophiles are born that way. Do they get their freedom as well?

Mark

No one is born a pedophile | Fox News

The American Psychiatric Association doesn't agree.

Mark

You did not follow though

>>
APA, Liberty Counsel noted, now states “sexual orientation” is an error and should read instead, “sexual interest.”

On Thursday, APA released a statement regarding what it referred to as a “text error” in DSM-5:

In the case of pedophilic disorder, the diagnostic criteria essentially remained the same as in DSM-IV-TR. Only the disorder name was changed from “pedophilia” to “pedophilic disorder” to maintain consistency with the chapter’s other disorder listings.

“Sexual orientation” is not a term used in the diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder and its use in the DSM-5 text discussion is an error and should read “sexual interest.” In fact, APA considers pedophilic disorder a “paraphilia,” not a “sexual orientation.” This error will be corrected in the electronic version of DSM-5 and the next printing of the manual.

APA stands firmly behind efforts to criminally prosecute those who sexually abuse and exploit children and adolescents. We also support continued efforts to develop treatments for those with pedophilic disorder with the goal of preventing future acts of abuse.<<

Yes, I did.

From your link:

In fact, APA considers pedophilic disorder a “paraphilia,” not a “sexual orientation.” This error will be corrected in the electronic version of DSM-5 and the next printing of the manual.

It was not a mistake. It was a position the APA took, and then when they got a backlash, called it a "mistake".

It wasn't a mistake. Reality dictates that if any sexual anomaly is deemed a sexual orientation, all others have to be as well.

Don't worry, they will again "correct" their error.

Mark

 

[aris2chat]

I am all for freedom. I'll ask the same question I asked earlier. Should a transabled be able to remove an arm that he thinks he should not have? Or should we encourage a bulimic to keep on dieting because she believes herself to be fat?

Mark

The brain develops by the chemicals produced in our body, and all humans do not develop the same...There is no freedom if you subjugate a minority because of your perception from how your brain developed...

They say that pedophiles are born that way. Do they get their freedom as well?

Mark

No one is born a pedophile | Fox News

The American Psychiatric Association doesn't agree.

Mark

Being sexual molested as child I have done much research on the subject.. and pedo's are made more than they are born.. Another item you are refusing to acknowledge is the history of the development of humans....
Humans had a shorter life span than they do now, it was 32 years old during the era of the Roman empire and was lower a thousand years earlier, so humans were doing the procreation dance at the moment of puberty..You know what that means? Dey was doing da nasty around the age of 9-10 for females.....Up to the age in the USA of the women's right movement in the later 1800's and early 1900's, the legal age for marriage and consent in many US states was 9-10...for females..Are you saying our founders of this nation were pedo's? Well day was, duh! And there was not a social moral against it..Females were not considered as valuable to an agrarian society and were thusly married off as soon as possible...
Now here we are today. millenia of human activity now considered illegal, and morally reprehensible...Yet the Bible does not agree...Thousands of years in human evolution does not agree....I have no interest in young females, and would die protecting them from harm, as I have vowed to do from my experience from abuse..But you just think humans can change in a few years what went on for a long time....
Now, stop being a dick and accusing people that debate you and take the con position as being pedo's......

>>Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth are more likely to have experienced sexual abuse than heterosexual youth. However, sexual abuse does not "cause" <heterosexual youth to become LGBTQ.13,14,15<<
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/publications-a-z/410-child-sexual-abuse-i-an-overview

 

[Moonglow]

The brain develops by the chemicals produced in our body, and all humans do not develop the same...There is no freedom if you subjugate a minority because of your perception from how your brain developed...

They say that pedophiles are born that way. Do they get their freedom as well?

Mark

No one is born a pedophile | Fox News

The American Psychiatric Association doesn't agree.

Mark

Being sexual molested as child I have done much research on the subject.. and pedo's are made more than they are born.. Another item you are refusing to acknowledge is the history of the development of humans....
Humans had a shorter life span than they do now, it was 32 years old during the era of the Roman empire and was lower a thousand years earlier, so humans were doing the procreation dance at the moment of puberty..You know what that means? Dey was doing da nasty around the age of 9-10 for females.....Up to the age in the USA of the women's right movement in the later 1800's and early 1900's, the legal age for marriage and consent in many US states was 9-10...for females..Are you saying our founders of this nation were pedo's? Well day was, duh! And there was not a social moral against it..Females were not considered as valuable to an agrarian society and were thusly married off as soon as possible...
Now here we are today. millenia of human activity now considered illegal, and morally reprehensible...Yet the Bible does not agree...Thousands of years in human evolution does not agree....I have no interest in young females, and would die protecting them from harm, as I have vowed to do from my experience from abuse..But you just think humans can change in a few years what went on for a long time....
Now, stop being a dick and accusing people that debate you and take the con position as being pedo's......

>>Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth are more likely to have experienced sexual abuse than heterosexual youth. However, sexual abuse does not "cause" <heterosexual youth to become LGBTQ.13,14,15<<
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/publications-a-z/410-child-sexual-abuse-i-an-overview

Did I screw up and say the opposite?

 

[Slade3200]

I think it is a combo of both... Many still refer to LGBT with very nasty and degrading labels... Just as the "N" word was widely used for Blacks by the haters during and before the civil rights movement. So language does have an effect. But I do agree it needs to be much more than just language to make a difference.

My argument is that language is a reflection / expression of a person's feelings. Changing what language they use isn't going to change how they feel. Taking the "n" word, that used to be a commonplace word for referring to blacks, not a derogatory term. However, feelings back then were very racially charged against the black community. So, people imagined that if they changed what they called them it would change the feelings towards them. This has proved to be false. The feelings remain, they have just altered the language they use. The "n" word is now a derogatory term...for one group of people, but seemingly commonplace by another group. Again, language doesn't mean much...fight the right battle not the misguided one.

I understand your point... It reminds me of the "Islamic Extremist" argument where the "Right" loved the fact the the "Left" refused to say those words and they exploited the shit out of it. It amused me that they were so angered by the fact that the Administration decided to not use language that offended Muslims. I understand that the facts do support the phrase... the terrorist follow an extreme sect of the Islam religion, but WE decide what to call and label it. We don't call the KKK Christian Extremists because that would be offensive to Christians so why can't we call the terrorist something more specific like Extreme Jihadists, so we aren't offending the 100's of millions that identify themselves with Islam?

Apologies for the tangent but it goes to my point that language is important and plays a factor. In this case, creating a more inclusive environment is very tricky as it can't simply be done with laws, it has to be done with education and exposure. Changing the language, is a step towards increasing awareness, changing an old way of thinking, and redefining a group in a way to cultivate a more accepting environment.

If the KKk used Christianity to kill blacks, you'd have a point. when one says Jesus Christ" as he cuts off a black persons head, let me know.

Mark

You miss the point... It isn't about how we label the loonies.. it's about how our language effects to the innocents that have nothing to do with the actions of the extremists... The ones we need to be working with... There are a ton of alternative phrases that can be used for the terrorist besides Islamic extremist... It is a very intentional point that the right is trying to make in degrading the Islamic religion by associating their ideology with that of the extremist.

Bullshit. If a person is a Christian extremist, he should be called what he is. Denying reality is not ever an answer.

Mark

It's not denying reality it's using language that doesn't offend, divide, belittle or misrepresent... For example the term illegal aliens or redskins are accurate by definition but when groups take offense it is an easy change to be more diplomatic and inclusive if that is your goal.

 

[rcfieldz]

I think people have started asking because obviously the world is not as binary as some would want it to be. Its complex and everchanging with too many variables and dynamics to ever give you comfortable footing due to your brainwashing. For example gender has nothing to do with your plumbing. Its what a person feels.

Some things really are binary, no matter how much those who are delusional might try to deny it. The distinction between male and female is such a thing.

Male 1
Female 0
Is that the answer?

 

[80zephyr]

My argument is that language is a reflection / expression of a person's feelings. Changing what language they use isn't going to change how they feel. Taking the "n" word, that used to be a commonplace word for referring to blacks, not a derogatory term. However, feelings back then were very racially charged against the black community. So, people imagined that if they changed what they called them it would change the feelings towards them. This has proved to be false. The feelings remain, they have just altered the language they use. The "n" word is now a derogatory term...for one group of people, but seemingly commonplace by another group. Again, language doesn't mean much...fight the right battle not the misguided one.

I understand your point... It reminds me of the "Islamic Extremist" argument where the "Right" loved the fact the the "Left" refused to say those words and they exploited the shit out of it. It amused me that they were so angered by the fact that the Administration decided to not use language that offended Muslims. I understand that the facts do support the phrase... the terrorist follow an extreme sect of the Islam religion, but WE decide what to call and label it. We don't call the KKK Christian Extremists because that would be offensive to Christians so why can't we call the terrorist something more specific like Extreme Jihadists, so we aren't offending the 100's of millions that identify themselves with Islam?

Apologies for the tangent but it goes to my point that language is important and plays a factor. In this case, creating a more inclusive environment is very tricky as it can't simply be done with laws, it has to be done with education and exposure. Changing the language, is a step towards increasing awareness, changing an old way of thinking, and redefining a group in a way to cultivate a more accepting environment.

If the KKk used Christianity to kill blacks, you'd have a point. when one says Jesus Christ" as he cuts off a black persons head, let me know.

Mark

You miss the point... It isn't about how we label the loonies.. it's about how our language effects to the innocents that have nothing to do with the actions of the extremists... The ones we need to be working with... There are a ton of alternative phrases that can be used for the terrorist besides Islamic extremist... It is a very intentional point that the right is trying to make in degrading the Islamic religion by associating their ideology with that of the extremist.

Bullshit. If a person is a Christian extremist, he should be called what he is. Denying reality is not ever an answer.

Mark

It's not denying reality it's using language that doesn't offend, divide, belittle or misrepresent... For example the term illegal aliens or redskins are accurate by definition but when groups take offense it is an easy change to be more diplomatic and inclusive if that is your goal.

Why do I want to make lawbreakers feel wanted? I don't. You shouldn't either.

Mark

 

[Slade3200]

I understand your point... It reminds me of the "Islamic Extremist" argument where the "Right" loved the fact the the "Left" refused to say those words and they exploited the shit out of it. It amused me that they were so angered by the fact that the Administration decided to not use language that offended Muslims. I understand that the facts do support the phrase... the terrorist follow an extreme sect of the Islam religion, but WE decide what to call and label it. We don't call the KKK Christian Extremists because that would be offensive to Christians so why can't we call the terrorist something more specific like Extreme Jihadists, so we aren't offending the 100's of millions that identify themselves with Islam?

Apologies for the tangent but it goes to my point that language is important and plays a factor. In this case, creating a more inclusive environment is very tricky as it can't simply be done with laws, it has to be done with education and exposure. Changing the language, is a step towards increasing awareness, changing an old way of thinking, and redefining a group in a way to cultivate a more accepting environment.

If the KKk used Christianity to kill blacks, you'd have a point. when one says Jesus Christ" as he cuts off a black persons head, let me know.

Mark

You miss the point... It isn't about how we label the loonies.. it's about how our language effects to the innocents that have nothing to do with the actions of the extremists... The ones we need to be working with... There are a ton of alternative phrases that can be used for the terrorist besides Islamic extremist... It is a very intentional point that the right is trying to make in degrading the Islamic religion by associating their ideology with that of the extremist.

Bullshit. If a person is a Christian extremist, he should be called what he is. Denying reality is not ever an answer.

Mark

It's not denying reality it's using language that doesn't offend, divide, belittle or misrepresent... For example the term illegal aliens or redskins are accurate by definition but when groups take offense it is an easy change to be more diplomatic and inclusive if that is your goal.

Why do I want to make lawbreakers feel wanted? I don't. You shouldn't either.

Mark

How are native Americans law breakers?

 

[80zephyr]

If the KKk used Christianity to kill blacks, you'd have a point. when one says Jesus Christ" as he cuts off a black persons head, let me know.

Mark

You miss the point... It isn't about how we label the loonies.. it's about how our language effects to the innocents that have nothing to do with the actions of the extremists... The ones we need to be working with... There are a ton of alternative phrases that can be used for the terrorist besides Islamic extremist... It is a very intentional point that the right is trying to make in degrading the Islamic religion by associating their ideology with that of the extremist.

Bullshit. If a person is a Christian extremist, he should be called what he is. Denying reality is not ever an answer.

Mark

It's not denying reality it's using language that doesn't offend, divide, belittle or misrepresent... For example the term illegal aliens or redskins are accurate by definition but when groups take offense it is an easy change to be more diplomatic and inclusive if that is your goal.

Why do I want to make lawbreakers feel wanted? I don't. You shouldn't either.

Mark

How are native Americans law breakers?

What are you talking about?

Mark

 

[Asclepias]

You miss the point... It isn't about how we label the loonies.. it's about how our language effects to the innocents that have nothing to do with the actions of the extremists... The ones we need to be working with... There are a ton of alternative phrases that can be used for the terrorist besides Islamic extremist... It is a very intentional point that the right is trying to make in degrading the Islamic religion by associating their ideology with that of the extremist.

Bullshit. If a person is a Christian extremist, he should be called what he is. Denying reality is not ever an answer.

Mark

It's not denying reality it's using language that doesn't offend, divide, belittle or misrepresent... For example the term illegal aliens or redskins are accurate by definition but when groups take offense it is an easy change to be more diplomatic and inclusive if that is your goal.

Why do I want to make lawbreakers feel wanted? I don't. You shouldn't either.

Mark

How are native Americans law breakers?

What are you talking about?

Mark

Redskins are not law breakers?

 

[Slade3200]

You miss the point... It isn't about how we label the loonies.. it's about how our language effects to the innocents that have nothing to do with the actions of the extremists... The ones we need to be working with... There are a ton of alternative phrases that can be used for the terrorist besides Islamic extremist... It is a very intentional point that the right is trying to make in degrading the Islamic religion by associating their ideology with that of the extremist.

Bullshit. If a person is a Christian extremist, he should be called what he is. Denying reality is not ever an answer.

Mark

It's not denying reality it's using language that doesn't offend, divide, belittle or misrepresent... For example the term illegal aliens or redskins are accurate by definition but when groups take offense it is an easy change to be more diplomatic and inclusive if that is your goal.

Why do I want to make lawbreakers feel wanted? I don't. You shouldn't either.

Mark

How are native Americans law breakers?

What are you talking about?

Mark

Redskins = native Americans

 

[martybegan]

it's not what I am made to do, it's what others are forced to do against their will. Unlike you idiots, I'm for rights in general, not just the ones I like.

So after saying you were on a ride now we find out you arent at all but you complained about being affected?

Uhh, ok....What are others forced to do against their will?

"bake that damn cake, peasant"

You mean follow anti discrimination laws? So breaking the laws would be best then. Got it

Bad laws are bad laws. Its amazing how dogmatic you idiots become when the law is on your side, even when it is wrong.

But its the law, soo? Hell, Speed Limits force me against my will but its still the law.

"the law is the law is the law" is the primordial ooze of debating, it just hashes over the how and not the why.

And if you actually drive the speed limit, you must have 20 people piled up behind you, honking like mad.

 

[martybegan]

Right now progressives are all about forcing acceptance, not tolerance.

How so?

"bake that damn cake, peasant"

What else besides the cake?

That's just the legal part of it. Its about forcing people out of certain positions when they have opposite views, its about the California AG trying to open up donor lists of organizations that go against PC.

Tolerance is live and let live. What progressives want is acceptance, or at least the veneer of it.

 

[Slade3200]

Right now progressives are all about forcing acceptance, not tolerance.

How so?

"bake that damn cake, peasant"

What else besides the cake?

That's just the legal part of it. Its about forcing people out of certain positions when they have opposite views, its about the California AG trying to open up donor lists of organizations that go against PC.

Tolerance is live and let live. What progressives want is acceptance, or at least the veneer of it.

Live and let live is easy to say when you are part of the privileged majority. Put yourself in the shoes of the oppressed minority and all of a sudden "living" is a much harder thing. There is nothing wrong with government intervention to make a safer and more inclusive environment, that is their job. They aren't forcing acceptance, thats not possible, but they can force inclusion in their policies. Discrimination and divisiveness goes against the principles that many Americans believe in.

 

[martybegan]

Right now progressives are all about forcing acceptance, not tolerance.

How so?

"bake that damn cake, peasant"

What else besides the cake?

That's just the legal part of it. Its about forcing people out of certain positions when they have opposite views, its about the California AG trying to open up donor lists of organizations that go against PC.

Tolerance is live and let live. What progressives want is acceptance, or at least the veneer of it.

Live and let live is easy to say when you are part of the privileged majority. Put yourself in the shoes of the oppressed minority and all of a sudden "living" is a much harder thing. There is nothing wrong with government intervention to make a safer and more inclusive environment, that is their job. They aren't forcing acceptance, thats not possible, but they can force inclusion in their policies. Discrimination and divisiveness goes against the principles that many Americans believe in.

So you are going with the "check your privilege" crap?

Government's job is not to pick sides in arguments that have no harm other than hurt feelings, and they NEVER have a job to make people think the way one side or another wants them to think, or even worse, pressure them to keep a public veneer to avoid being persecuted for political or other views.

You are taking laws that were designed to fight real, systemic discrimination, discrimination that was intrinsic to local governments, and mandated by state and local laws, to sever economic and political power from a class of people, and using these laws to have government pick sides in moral arguments where the only end result prior to government's intervention is hurt feelings by one party, or the other. Now with government taking a side, it gets to apply the force it has to either get acceptance, or ruin the people if they resist it.

 

[Slade3200]

How so?

"bake that damn cake, peasant"

What else besides the cake?

That's just the legal part of it. Its about forcing people out of certain positions when they have opposite views, its about the California AG trying to open up donor lists of organizations that go against PC.

Tolerance is live and let live. What progressives want is acceptance, or at least the veneer of it.

Live and let live is easy to say when you are part of the privileged majority. Put yourself in the shoes of the oppressed minority and all of a sudden "living" is a much harder thing. There is nothing wrong with government intervention to make a safer and more inclusive environment, that is their job. They aren't forcing acceptance, thats not possible, but they can force inclusion in their policies. Discrimination and divisiveness goes against the principles that many Americans believe in.

So you are going with the "check your privilege" crap?

Government's job is not to pick sides in arguments that have no harm other than hurt feelings, and they NEVER have a job to make people think the way one side or another wants them to think, or even worse, pressure them to keep a public veneer to avoid being persecuted for political or other views.

You are taking laws that were designed to fight real, systemic discrimination, discrimination that was intrinsic to local governments, and mandated by state and local laws, to sever economic and political power from a class of people, and using these laws to have government pick sides in moral arguments where the only end result prior to government's intervention is hurt feelings by one party, or the other. Now with government taking a side, it gets to apply the force it has to either get acceptance, or ruin the people if they resist it.

What are you talking about? You are going off on a tangent... how does your point apply to this situation?

 

[martybegan]

"bake that damn cake, peasant"

What else besides the cake?

That's just the legal part of it. Its about forcing people out of certain positions when they have opposite views, its about the California AG trying to open up donor lists of organizations that go against PC.

Tolerance is live and let live. What progressives want is acceptance, or at least the veneer of it.

Live and let live is easy to say when you are part of the privileged majority. Put yourself in the shoes of the oppressed minority and all of a sudden "living" is a much harder thing. There is nothing wrong with government intervention to make a safer and more inclusive environment, that is their job. They aren't forcing acceptance, thats not possible, but they can force inclusion in their policies. Discrimination and divisiveness goes against the principles that many Americans believe in.

So you are going with the "check your privilege" crap?

Government's job is not to pick sides in arguments that have no harm other than hurt feelings, and they NEVER have a job to make people think the way one side or another wants them to think, or even worse, pressure them to keep a public veneer to avoid being persecuted for political or other views.

You are taking laws that were designed to fight real, systemic discrimination, discrimination that was intrinsic to local governments, and mandated by state and local laws, to sever economic and political power from a class of people, and using these laws to have government pick sides in moral arguments where the only end result prior to government's intervention is hurt feelings by one party, or the other. Now with government taking a side, it gets to apply the force it has to either get acceptance, or ruin the people if they resist it.

What are you talking about? You are going off on a tangent... how does your point apply to this situation?

It goes to the reasons for Anti-discrimination laws, which were based in real, tangible economic and political dis-enfranchisement, most of it government mandated. They were not made to adjudicate between two parties where the only damage is hurt feelings, or a private backlash, i.e. a boycott.

 

[Slade3200]

What else besides the cake?

That's just the legal part of it. Its about forcing people out of certain positions when they have opposite views, its about the California AG trying to open up donor lists of organizations that go against PC.

Tolerance is live and let live. What progressives want is acceptance, or at least the veneer of it.

Live and let live is easy to say when you are part of the privileged majority. Put yourself in the shoes of the oppressed minority and all of a sudden "living" is a much harder thing. There is nothing wrong with government intervention to make a safer and more inclusive environment, that is their job. They aren't forcing acceptance, thats not possible, but they can force inclusion in their policies. Discrimination and divisiveness goes against the principles that many Americans believe in.

So you are going with the "check your privilege" crap?

Government's job is not to pick sides in arguments that have no harm other than hurt feelings, and they NEVER have a job to make people think the way one side or another wants them to think, or even worse, pressure them to keep a public veneer to avoid being persecuted for political or other views.

You are taking laws that were designed to fight real, systemic discrimination, discrimination that was intrinsic to local governments, and mandated by state and local laws, to sever economic and political power from a class of people, and using these laws to have government pick sides in moral arguments where the only end result prior to government's intervention is hurt feelings by one party, or the other. Now with government taking a side, it gets to apply the force it has to either get acceptance, or ruin the people if they resist it.

What are you talking about? You are going off on a tangent... how does your point apply to this situation?

It goes to the reasons for Anti-discrimination laws, which were based in real, tangible economic and political dis-enfranchisement, most of it government mandated. They were not made to adjudicate between two parties where the only damage is hurt feelings, or a private backlash, i.e. a boycott.

So back to my original question... besides the cake incident (cause we already debated about that and i don't want to get off topic) what other big government laws are being unjustly pushed down our throats to force acceptance as you claim?