When will we put LGBTQ issues behind us.?

[flacaltenn]

My posts are more referring to gay rights than transgender anyways. I really don't understand transgender at all, but I do know some very nice gay people who are just regular people and who just want to be able to go to the store and do their shopping in peace and not be discriminated against. They go to work every day, like anyone else. They are tired at the end of their day and don't want to have to drive 40 miles to go to the "Gay Mart" to do their shopping. Is that unreasonable?

That's my point. I'm only in the thread because the OP made a SPECIFIC POINT of lumping all those causes together like they are one quicky solution.. . Folks who do that -- cannot possibly have an appreciation of WHY there is push-back or dissent or lack of progress.

Lumping them all together CONSTANTLY in the media and politics does a disservice to some of the more legitimate causes. And encourages EVERY deviation from the norm to join the fray..

After awhile -- you run out of letters and "definitions" and we'll see polyamorists fighting with pedophiles for rights to the LETTER P and their color choice in the Rainbow Gay Flag..

Okay, I can agree that some seem to want to accept everything as being just a "variation of normal" but even if you think it is a mental illness or whatever, does that give people a "right" to be discriminatory? Pedophilia should not be brought into the discussion because that is a crime that hurts other people (children to be specific). Being gay or transgendered or whatever isn't hurting anyone else and is not a crime.

Pedophiles are totally convinced that there is no victim. That the little ones are willing and ready for "relationships". Pedos don't even have to sexually ACT on their impulses. They can just be abnormally "attracted to" children.. That argument (EXCUSE) has been made REPEATEDLY in the media. Were several Atlantic or Slate pieces on "harmless" pedophiles as an attempt to classify it not as a crime --- but as just an unfortunate "habit"..

All that probably is true for a large portion of folks suffering from this "deviation"..

The only way you BECOME discriminatory is because of law. Either the ABSENCE of law or the laws purposed to a particular class. We need to be MORE careful about WHO is IN that class and what side effects might occur..

It's easy to "separate" them. Those that are harming others and those who are not. Adult gay people are not harming anyone. Two consenting adults of the same sex are not harming anyone. A transgendered person is also not "harming" anyone (except for maybe him or herself).

I agree to that. With the EXCEPTION that transgender requires MORE than a simple "wake up in the morning after 30 yrs and declare yourself one".. Not gonna argue about class membership for gays. Too complex. But as I said BI-sexual is almost TOTALLY a self-declaration and a choice.

My only reason for being here --- is that I HATE when folks (on either side) lump all of these "issues" together",.
You will not get solutions or changes that way...

 

[ChrisL]

My posts are more referring to gay rights than transgender anyways. I really don't understand transgender at all, but I do know some very nice gay people who are just regular people and who just want to be able to go to the store and do their shopping in peace and not be discriminated against. They go to work every day, like anyone else. They are tired at the end of their day and don't want to have to drive 40 miles to go to the "Gay Mart" to do their shopping. Is that unreasonable?

That's my point. I'm only in the thread because the OP made a SPECIFIC POINT of lumping all those causes together like they are one quicky solution.. . Folks who do that -- cannot possibly have an appreciation of WHY there is push-back or dissent or lack of progress.

Lumping them all together CONSTANTLY in the media and politics does a disservice to some of the more legitimate causes. And encourages EVERY deviation from the norm to join the fray..

After awhile -- you run out of letters and "definitions" and we'll see polyamorists fighting with pedophiles for rights to the LETTER P and their color choice in the Rainbow Gay Flag..

Okay, I can agree that some seem to want to accept everything as being just a "variation of normal" but even if you think it is a mental illness or whatever, does that give people a "right" to be discriminatory? Pedophilia should not be brought into the discussion because that is a crime that hurts other people (children to be specific). Being gay or transgendered or whatever isn't hurting anyone else and is not a crime.

Pedophiles are totally convinced that there is no victim. That the little ones are willing and ready for "relationships". Pedos don't even have to sexually ACT on their impulses. They can just be abnormally "attracted to" children.. That argument (EXCUSE) has been made REPEATEDLY in the media. Were several Atlantic or Slate pieces on "harmless" pedophiles as an attempt to classify it not as a crime --- but as just an unfortunate "habit"..

All that probably is true for a large portion of folks suffering from this "deviation"..

The only way you BECOME discriminatory is because of law. Either the ABSENCE of law or the laws purposed to a particular class. We need to be MORE careful about WHO is IN that class and what side effects might occur..

It's easy to "separate" them. Those that are harming others and those who are not. Adult gay people are not harming anyone. Two consenting adults of the same sex are not harming anyone. A transgendered person is also not "harming" anyone (except for maybe him or herself).

I agree to that. With the EXCEPTION that transgender requires MORE than a simple "wake up in the morning after 30 yrs and declare yourself one".. Not gonna argue about class membership for gays. Too complex. But as I said BI-sexual is almost TOTALLY a self-declaration and a choice.

My only reason for being here --- is that I HATE when folks (on either side) lump all of these "issues" together",.
You will not get solutions or changes that way...

And so what? If a person wants to be or chooses to be a bisexual, why is that a problem for anyone else?

 

[flacaltenn]

Do try to follow what you said. You made that statement that "no one pretends to be transgendered".. HE obviously DOES.. So by your rules -- he would only be a self-declared PRETENDING transgender OR just another Tranvestite..

no. he's transgendered. again, your understanding here is nonexistent. there is a difference between a post op transgendered person and one who is not post op.

neither of those is the same as being a transvestite.

you really should look more into this because you're shooting from the hip without the slightest clue about what it means to be transgendered.

You're the one with the big hips. TRANS-gendered implies actively seeking REASSIGNMENT. Change of physical/societal/relationship factors. Not just waking up with an idea for a decrepit Reality Show and feeling like dressing like a woman. CALL ME if Bruce gets hot and sweaty with a male or has his hormone shots upped or chops his genitals..

I agree, some people would do just about ANYTHING to get attention. Sad, really. Some people might also just be confused. I can't say that I really understand the transgendered, and I can't help but to think it is a type of mental disorder. I suppose, in that case, they deserve sympathy.

I really don't know what to say about the "bathroom issues." I don't know the answer to that problem.

Almost certainly, out of all of those alphabet causes, transgender does USUALLY have a pretty clear medical/biological footprint. It really is a MEDICAL issue. I TOTALLY believe that some folks NEED gender reassignment. It is nowhere the Q's or it's got NOTHING to do with transvestites.

I don't know if it's a real medical issue or something wrong with them mentally. I don't think anyone really knows for sure.

I'd show you pictures -- but I'd have to check which forum we're in. Even in cases where it's not obvious in a photo or lab test -- there are biological/psychology reasons. And I don't mean "crazy" or mental..

Check it out. Folks are born or grow up with distinct biological reasons for wanting gender assignment..

 

[martybegan]

That's my point. I'm only in the thread because the OP made a SPECIFIC POINT of lumping all those causes together like they are one quicky solution.. . Folks who do that -- cannot possibly have an appreciation of WHY there is push-back or dissent or lack of progress.

Lumping them all together CONSTANTLY in the media and politics does a disservice to some of the more legitimate causes. And encourages EVERY deviation from the norm to join the fray..

After awhile -- you run out of letters and "definitions" and we'll see polyamorists fighting with pedophiles for rights to the LETTER P and their color choice in the Rainbow Gay Flag..

Okay, I can agree that some seem to want to accept everything as being just a "variation of normal" but even if you think it is a mental illness or whatever, does that give people a "right" to be discriminatory? Pedophilia should not be brought into the discussion because that is a crime that hurts other people (children to be specific). Being gay or transgendered or whatever isn't hurting anyone else and is not a crime.

Pedophiles are totally convinced that there is no victim. That the little ones are willing and ready for "relationships". Pedos don't even have to sexually ACT on their impulses. They can just be abnormally "attracted to" children.. That argument (EXCUSE) has been made REPEATEDLY in the media. Were several Atlantic or Slate pieces on "harmless" pedophiles as an attempt to classify it not as a crime --- but as just an unfortunate "habit"..

All that probably is true for a large portion of folks suffering from this "deviation"..

The only way you BECOME discriminatory is because of law. Either the ABSENCE of law or the laws purposed to a particular class. We need to be MORE careful about WHO is IN that class and what side effects might occur..

It's easy to "separate" them. Those that are harming others and those who are not. Adult gay people are not harming anyone. Two consenting adults of the same sex are not harming anyone. A transgendered person is also not "harming" anyone (except for maybe him or herself).

I agree to that. With the EXCEPTION that transgender requires MORE than a simple "wake up in the morning after 30 yrs and declare yourself one".. Not gonna argue about class membership for gays. Too complex. But as I said BI-sexual is almost TOTALLY a self-declaration and a choice.

My only reason for being here --- is that I HATE when folks (on either side) lump all of these "issues" together",.
You will not get solutions or changes that way...

And so what? If a person wants to be or chooses to be a bisexual, why is that a problem for anyone else?

it's a problem when they try to get a political or economic edge out of it, and when they try to force everyone to hold hands and proclaim "just like us!!!"

 

[Iceweasel]

no. he's transgendered. again, your understanding here is nonexistent. there is a difference between a post op transgendered person and one who is not post op.

neither of those is the same as being a transvestite.

you really should look more into this because you're shooting from the hip without the slightest clue about what it means to be transgendered.

If Bruce still has his willie he's still a boy. It's insanity to think you can be something you aren't. He wasn't born with a female brain, if that is even possible, and was a very successful male athlete.

 

[ChrisL]

no. he's transgendered. again, your understanding here is nonexistent. there is a difference between a post op transgendered person and one who is not post op.

neither of those is the same as being a transvestite.

you really should look more into this because you're shooting from the hip without the slightest clue about what it means to be transgendered.

You're the one with the big hips. TRANS-gendered implies actively seeking REASSIGNMENT. Change of physical/societal/relationship factors. Not just waking up with an idea for a decrepit Reality Show and feeling like dressing like a woman. CALL ME if Bruce gets hot and sweaty with a male or has his hormone shots upped or chops his genitals..

I agree, some people would do just about ANYTHING to get attention. Sad, really. Some people might also just be confused. I can't say that I really understand the transgendered, and I can't help but to think it is a type of mental disorder. I suppose, in that case, they deserve sympathy.

I really don't know what to say about the "bathroom issues." I don't know the answer to that problem.

Almost certainly, out of all of those alphabet causes, transgender does USUALLY have a pretty clear medical/biological footprint. It really is a MEDICAL issue. I TOTALLY believe that some folks NEED gender reassignment. It is nowhere the Q's or it's got NOTHING to do with transvestites.

I don't know if it's a real medical issue or something wrong with them mentally. I don't think anyone really knows for sure.

I'd show you pictures -- but I'd have to check which forum we're in. Even in cases where it's not obvious in a photo or lab test -- there are biological/psychology reasons. And I don't mean "crazy" or mental..

Check it out. Folks are born or grow up with distinct biological reasons for wanting gender assignment..

Show pictures of what? A feminine looking man? A manly looking woman? That doesn't prove anything. There are plenty of feminine looking men who are straight and manly looking women who are straight, so I don't get your point with the pictures thingy.

 

[ChrisL]

Okay, I can agree that some seem to want to accept everything as being just a "variation of normal" but even if you think it is a mental illness or whatever, does that give people a "right" to be discriminatory? Pedophilia should not be brought into the discussion because that is a crime that hurts other people (children to be specific). Being gay or transgendered or whatever isn't hurting anyone else and is not a crime.

Pedophiles are totally convinced that there is no victim. That the little ones are willing and ready for "relationships". Pedos don't even have to sexually ACT on their impulses. They can just be abnormally "attracted to" children.. That argument (EXCUSE) has been made REPEATEDLY in the media. Were several Atlantic or Slate pieces on "harmless" pedophiles as an attempt to classify it not as a crime --- but as just an unfortunate "habit"..

All that probably is true for a large portion of folks suffering from this "deviation"..

The only way you BECOME discriminatory is because of law. Either the ABSENCE of law or the laws purposed to a particular class. We need to be MORE careful about WHO is IN that class and what side effects might occur..

It's easy to "separate" them. Those that are harming others and those who are not. Adult gay people are not harming anyone. Two consenting adults of the same sex are not harming anyone. A transgendered person is also not "harming" anyone (except for maybe him or herself).

I agree to that. With the EXCEPTION that transgender requires MORE than a simple "wake up in the morning after 30 yrs and declare yourself one".. Not gonna argue about class membership for gays. Too complex. But as I said BI-sexual is almost TOTALLY a self-declaration and a choice.

My only reason for being here --- is that I HATE when folks (on either side) lump all of these "issues" together",.
You will not get solutions or changes that way...

And so what? If a person wants to be or chooses to be a bisexual, why is that a problem for anyone else?

it's a problem when they try to get a political or economic edge out of it, and when they try to force everyone to hold hands and proclaim "just like us!!!"

I don't think wanting to be treated equally is getting an "edge." Nobody is forcing you to do anything.

 

[martybegan]

Pedophiles are totally convinced that there is no victim. That the little ones are willing and ready for "relationships". Pedos don't even have to sexually ACT on their impulses. They can just be abnormally "attracted to" children.. That argument (EXCUSE) has been made REPEATEDLY in the media. Were several Atlantic or Slate pieces on "harmless" pedophiles as an attempt to classify it not as a crime --- but as just an unfortunate "habit"..

All that probably is true for a large portion of folks suffering from this "deviation"..

The only way you BECOME discriminatory is because of law. Either the ABSENCE of law or the laws purposed to a particular class. We need to be MORE careful about WHO is IN that class and what side effects might occur..

It's easy to "separate" them. Those that are harming others and those who are not. Adult gay people are not harming anyone. Two consenting adults of the same sex are not harming anyone. A transgendered person is also not "harming" anyone (except for maybe him or herself).

I agree to that. With the EXCEPTION that transgender requires MORE than a simple "wake up in the morning after 30 yrs and declare yourself one".. Not gonna argue about class membership for gays. Too complex. But as I said BI-sexual is almost TOTALLY a self-declaration and a choice.

My only reason for being here --- is that I HATE when folks (on either side) lump all of these "issues" together",.
You will not get solutions or changes that way...

And so what? If a person wants to be or chooses to be a bisexual, why is that a problem for anyone else?

it's a problem when they try to get a political or economic edge out of it, and when they try to force everyone to hold hands and proclaim "just like us!!!"

I don't think wanting to be treated equally is getting an "edge." Nobody is forcing you to do anything.

Except bake a cake someone doesn't want to bake.

You can say the force is acceptable, or even moral, but you can't deny the force is there and being used. Laws are force backed up by government's ability to punish you.

 

[ChrisL]

It's easy to "separate" them. Those that are harming others and those who are not. Adult gay people are not harming anyone. Two consenting adults of the same sex are not harming anyone. A transgendered person is also not "harming" anyone (except for maybe him or herself).

I agree to that. With the EXCEPTION that transgender requires MORE than a simple "wake up in the morning after 30 yrs and declare yourself one".. Not gonna argue about class membership for gays. Too complex. But as I said BI-sexual is almost TOTALLY a self-declaration and a choice.

My only reason for being here --- is that I HATE when folks (on either side) lump all of these "issues" together",.
You will not get solutions or changes that way...

And so what? If a person wants to be or chooses to be a bisexual, why is that a problem for anyone else?

it's a problem when they try to get a political or economic edge out of it, and when they try to force everyone to hold hands and proclaim "just like us!!!"

I don't think wanting to be treated equally is getting an "edge." Nobody is forcing you to do anything.

Except bake a cake someone doesn't want to bake.

You can say the force is acceptable, or even moral, but you can't deny the force is there and being used. Laws are force backed up by government's ability to punish you.

If you cannot stand to serve certain "groups" of people who are citizens of the US, then you have no business opening a business. That's all there is to it. You need to be able to separate business from personal dealings. If you cannot do that, that is your own problem.

 

[martybegan]

I agree to that. With the EXCEPTION that transgender requires MORE than a simple "wake up in the morning after 30 yrs and declare yourself one".. Not gonna argue about class membership for gays. Too complex. But as I said BI-sexual is almost TOTALLY a self-declaration and a choice.

My only reason for being here --- is that I HATE when folks (on either side) lump all of these "issues" together",.
You will not get solutions or changes that way...

And so what? If a person wants to be or chooses to be a bisexual, why is that a problem for anyone else?

it's a problem when they try to get a political or economic edge out of it, and when they try to force everyone to hold hands and proclaim "just like us!!!"

I don't think wanting to be treated equally is getting an "edge." Nobody is forcing you to do anything.

Except bake a cake someone doesn't want to bake.

You can say the force is acceptable, or even moral, but you can't deny the force is there and being used. Laws are force backed up by government's ability to punish you.

If you cannot stand to serve certain "groups" of people who are citizens of the US, then you have no business opening a business. That's all there is to it. You need to be able to separate business from personal dealings. If you cannot do that, that is your own problem.

Why? If there is no actual harm, if there are equivalent services easily available, does a person have to decide between their desired livelihood and broaching their own moral code? So what you are saying, in the absence of actual harm, one side (the side you like) gets what they want, and the other (the side you don't like) has to suck it up?

Why does government get to pick who's feelings are more important?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Thank you for admitting that it is just an opinion. You say “ that a person OUGHT TO have the right to do or not do anything he chooses as long as he doesn't violate the property or body of someone else” But, what does that mean exactly? You seem to be saying that your opposed to allowing anything that violates another’s rights but you have adopted a narrowly tailored definition of what might constitute a violation. If a person walks into a place of business and has every reason to be treated with as much professionalism and respect as the next person, and is, instead turned away, humiliated and inconvenienced -THAT is a violation! And I will add, that any violation of another will indeed justify the use of “force” against the perpetrator, be it my neighbor or anyone else.

Ahhh.. thank you for this post. Now we're getting to the heart of the matter, the real disagreement. I can't speak for Centinel, but I assume they see this as I do. None of us has a right to be treated in any particular way by anyone else. To begin with, it doesn't even fit the definition an inalienable right. What you're describing is the power to force another person to serve you, not an innate liberty. You and I don't have the right to be treated equally to the person who walked in a store before us, and even civil rights laws don't pretend otherwise. They're not mandating that everyone be treated equally, they're simply banning certain kinds of unpopular biases. Anything else is fair game.

Of course you don’t see it in what he is writing. You don’t see it in your own writing. You don’t want to see it or your just being dishonest. I keep hearing this crap that “None of us has a right to be treated in any particular way by anyone else” but where exactly is that coming from? You guys are just making it up. Of course people have a right to be treated equally! If they didn’t, it would open the door to all sorts of discrimination -AS I HAVE PREVIOUSLY POINTED OUT.

 

[ChrisL]

And so what? If a person wants to be or chooses to be a bisexual, why is that a problem for anyone else?

it's a problem when they try to get a political or economic edge out of it, and when they try to force everyone to hold hands and proclaim "just like us!!!"

I don't think wanting to be treated equally is getting an "edge." Nobody is forcing you to do anything.

Except bake a cake someone doesn't want to bake.

You can say the force is acceptable, or even moral, but you can't deny the force is there and being used. Laws are force backed up by government's ability to punish you.

If you cannot stand to serve certain "groups" of people who are citizens of the US, then you have no business opening a business. That's all there is to it. You need to be able to separate business from personal dealings. If you cannot do that, that is your own problem.

Why? If there is no actual harm, if there are equivalent services easily available, does a person have to decide between their desired livelihood and broaching their own moral code? So what you are saying, in the absence of actual harm, one side (the side you like) gets what they want, and the other (the side you don't like) has to suck it up?

Why does government get to pick who's feelings are more important?

Discrimination has been determined to be a harmful business practice. Your "moral code" applies to your own personal dealings and not business dealings.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It appears that you have not given your position much critical thought. Your mindset is geared towards defending someone who chooses not to serve someone who offends their sensibilities by invoking some bogus religious freedom claim-specifically LBGT people. But if we allow that, what is to stop anyone from using the same tactic to refuse to serve anyone else that they disapprove of, whether it be Jews, Catholics, Muslims, blacks – and the list goes on. Your "opinion” does not make sense.

Again, not to speak for Centinel, but I don't see that attitude in any of his/her posts. And it's certainly not my position. Standing up for freedom and equal rights often means "defending" people you disagree with, even people you find repugnant. In a democracy, in fact, it's usually the case. The majority rarely votes to squelch it's own rights; the minorities are usually the first to take the hit.

But if we allow that, what is to stop anyone from using the same tactic to refuse to serve anyone else that they disapprove of, whether it be Jews, Catholics, Muslims, blacks – and the list goes on. Your "opinion” does not make sense.

Nothing is to stop them from doing that. That's the point. They should be allowed to do that.

Let me ask you this - do you think we should be allowed to express our political opinions via our economic decisions? Should we be allowed to boycott businesses, or services, or individuals we disapprove of? Should I be allowed to refuse to shop at, or refuse a job offer from, Chic-fil-a because I disagree with their public position on homosexuality?

Ah the way it should be!! I see, so if you have a lunch counter you should be able to refuse to serve a black or a Muslim. Got ya!! As far as boycotts go, I really don't know where you're going with that. It has noting to do with anything that has been going on here. It's just another one of your logical fallacies ....this time a red herring.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And so what? If a person wants to be or chooses to be a bisexual, why is that a problem for anyone else?

it's a problem when they try to get a political or economic edge out of it, and when they try to force everyone to hold hands and proclaim "just like us!!!"

I don't think wanting to be treated equally is getting an "edge." Nobody is forcing you to do anything.

Except bake a cake someone doesn't want to bake.

You can say the force is acceptable, or even moral, but you can't deny the force is there and being used. Laws are force backed up by government's ability to punish you.

If you cannot stand to serve certain "groups" of people who are citizens of the US, then you have no business opening a business. That's all there is to it. You need to be able to separate business from personal dealings. If you cannot do that, that is your own problem.

Why? If there is no actual harm, if there are equivalent services easily available, does a person have to decide between their desired livelihood and broaching their own moral code? So what you are saying, in the absence of actual harm, one side (the side you like) gets what they want, and the other (the side you don't like) has to suck it up?

Why does government get to pick who's feelings are more important?

That's right big guy! Suck it up .Of course there is harm! Geeze! Discrimination is harm! Discrimination is wrong and discrimination in the name of some made up religious liberty excrement is wrong, stupid and dishonest. Moral code my ass!

 

[martybegan]

it's a problem when they try to get a political or economic edge out of it, and when they try to force everyone to hold hands and proclaim "just like us!!!"

I don't think wanting to be treated equally is getting an "edge." Nobody is forcing you to do anything.

Except bake a cake someone doesn't want to bake.

You can say the force is acceptable, or even moral, but you can't deny the force is there and being used. Laws are force backed up by government's ability to punish you.

If you cannot stand to serve certain "groups" of people who are citizens of the US, then you have no business opening a business. That's all there is to it. You need to be able to separate business from personal dealings. If you cannot do that, that is your own problem.

Why? If there is no actual harm, if there are equivalent services easily available, does a person have to decide between their desired livelihood and broaching their own moral code? So what you are saying, in the absence of actual harm, one side (the side you like) gets what they want, and the other (the side you don't like) has to suck it up?

Why does government get to pick who's feelings are more important?

Discrimination has been determined to be a harmful business practice. Your "moral code" applies to your own personal dealings and not business dealings.

Again, why, and more importantly, determined by who? The actual harm in previous instances, i.e. Jim Crow was the economic and political surpression, the discrimination at the point of sale was a symptom, not a cause.

Where is the harm to these couples? You don't seem to be able to answer that.

Who says a moral code doesn't apply to business dealings? Where is that written?

 

[martybegan]

it's a problem when they try to get a political or economic edge out of it, and when they try to force everyone to hold hands and proclaim "just like us!!!"

I don't think wanting to be treated equally is getting an "edge." Nobody is forcing you to do anything.

Except bake a cake someone doesn't want to bake.

You can say the force is acceptable, or even moral, but you can't deny the force is there and being used. Laws are force backed up by government's ability to punish you.

If you cannot stand to serve certain "groups" of people who are citizens of the US, then you have no business opening a business. That's all there is to it. You need to be able to separate business from personal dealings. If you cannot do that, that is your own problem.

Why? If there is no actual harm, if there are equivalent services easily available, does a person have to decide between their desired livelihood and broaching their own moral code? So what you are saying, in the absence of actual harm, one side (the side you like) gets what they want, and the other (the side you don't like) has to suck it up?

Why does government get to pick who's feelings are more important?

That's right big guy! Suck it up .Of course there is harm! Geeze! Discrimination is harm! Discrimination is wrong and discrimination in the name of some made up religious liberty excrement is wrong, stupid and dishonest. Moral code my ass!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I don't think wanting to be treated equally is getting an "edge." Nobody is forcing you to do anything.

Except bake a cake someone doesn't want to bake.

You can say the force is acceptable, or even moral, but you can't deny the force is there and being used. Laws are force backed up by government's ability to punish you.

If you cannot stand to serve certain "groups" of people who are citizens of the US, then you have no business opening a business. That's all there is to it. You need to be able to separate business from personal dealings. If you cannot do that, that is your own problem.

Why? If there is no actual harm, if there are equivalent services easily available, does a person have to decide between their desired livelihood and broaching their own moral code? So what you are saying, in the absence of actual harm, one side (the side you like) gets what they want, and the other (the side you don't like) has to suck it up?

Why does government get to pick who's feelings are more important?

Discrimination has been determined to be a harmful business practice. Your "moral code" applies to your own personal dealings and not business dealings.

Again, why, and more importantly, determined by who? The actual harm in previous instances, i.e. Jim Crow was the economic and political surpression, the discrimination at the point of sale was a symptom, not a cause.

Where is the harm to these couples? You don't seem to be able to answer that.

Who says a moral code doesn't apply to business dealings? Where is that written?

It is interesting and telling that just about every anti gay bigot that I ever came across claims to not be a racist and decries Jim Crow laws. I don't doubt that many of them would be directing their wrath at blacks even now had it not become relatively unacceptable. Haters have to hate and gays and Muslims have become the target of convenience.

 

[dannyboys]

it's a problem when they try to get a political or economic edge out of it, and when they try to force everyone to hold hands and proclaim "just like us!!!"

I don't think wanting to be treated equally is getting an "edge." Nobody is forcing you to do anything.

Except bake a cake someone doesn't want to bake.

You can say the force is acceptable, or even moral, but you can't deny the force is there and being used. Laws are force backed up by government's ability to punish you.

If you cannot stand to serve certain "groups" of people who are citizens of the US, then you have no business opening a business. That's all there is to it. You need to be able to separate business from personal dealings. If you cannot do that, that is your own problem.

Why? If there is no actual harm, if there are equivalent services easily available, does a person have to decide between their desired livelihood and broaching their own moral code? So what you are saying, in the absence of actual harm, one side (the side you like) gets what they want, and the other (the side you don't like) has to suck it up?

Why does government get to pick who's feelings are more important?

That's right big guy! Suck it up .Of course there is harm! Geeze! Discrimination is harm! Discrimination is wrong and discrimination in the name of some made up religious liberty excrement is wrong, stupid and dishonest. Moral code my ass!

I've had enough of your 'fag' bullshit!
Mankind evolved because their were/are males and females as in every other fucking species.
If some 'male' hadn't fucked some 'female' you wouldn't be here.
There is a natural revulsion in our DNA to see two of the same species attempt to fuck each other. For what purpose??????
If you like getting your asshole fucked by another male that's up to you.
Or sucking another mans cock that's up to you.
I think the US population has gone about as far as they are willing to go accommodating you fags.
Be VERY careful. Keep sticking your fag demands in other people's faces too much and you may well be very sorry.
The pendulum is always swinging.

 

[jillian]

It's easy to "separate" them. Those that are harming others and those who are not. Adult gay people are not harming anyone. Two consenting adults of the same sex are not harming anyone. A transgendered person is also not "harming" anyone (except for maybe him or herself).

I agree to that. With the EXCEPTION that transgender requires MORE than a simple "wake up in the morning after 30 yrs and declare yourself one".. Not gonna argue about class membership for gays. Too complex. But as I said BI-sexual is almost TOTALLY a self-declaration and a choice.

My only reason for being here --- is that I HATE when folks (on either side) lump all of these "issues" together",.
You will not get solutions or changes that way...

And so what? If a person wants to be or chooses to be a bisexual, why is that a problem for anyone else?

it's a problem when they try to get a political or economic edge out of it, and when they try to force everyone to hold hands and proclaim "just like us!!!"

I don't think wanting to be treated equally is getting an "edge." Nobody is forcing you to do anything.

Except bake a cake someone doesn't want to bake.

You can say the force is acceptable, or even moral, but you can't deny the force is there and being used. Laws are force backed up by government's ability to punish you.

stop whining, marty

jim crow is dead

 

[martybegan]

Except bake a cake someone doesn't want to bake.

You can say the force is acceptable, or even moral, but you can't deny the force is there and being used. Laws are force backed up by government's ability to punish you.

If you cannot stand to serve certain "groups" of people who are citizens of the US, then you have no business opening a business. That's all there is to it. You need to be able to separate business from personal dealings. If you cannot do that, that is your own problem.

Why? If there is no actual harm, if there are equivalent services easily available, does a person have to decide between their desired livelihood and broaching their own moral code? So what you are saying, in the absence of actual harm, one side (the side you like) gets what they want, and the other (the side you don't like) has to suck it up?

Why does government get to pick who's feelings are more important?

Discrimination has been determined to be a harmful business practice. Your "moral code" applies to your own personal dealings and not business dealings.

Again, why, and more importantly, determined by who? The actual harm in previous instances, i.e. Jim Crow was the economic and political surpression, the discrimination at the point of sale was a symptom, not a cause.

Where is the harm to these couples? You don't seem to be able to answer that.

Who says a moral code doesn't apply to business dealings? Where is that written?

It is interesting and telling that just about every anti gay bigot that I ever came across claims to not be a racist and decries Jim Crow laws. I don't doubt that many of them would be directing their wrath at blacks even now had it not become relatively unacceptable. Haters have to hate and gays and Muslims have become the target of convenience.

if you have read my posts, you would know I support legislative action to make marriage cover gays (just not judicial action) and have stated that I have no desire or need to discriminate against anyone.

My issue is I don't see government as a good tool to decide who's hurt feelings deserve protection, and who's hurt feelings deserve punishment.