When will we put LGBTQ issues behind us.?

[Silhouette]

When will we put LGBTQ issues behind us.?

The title of this thread is meant to ask people to become fatigued with fighting the good fight..."just give up...you've lost already...just stop fighting". It speaks of Georgia Governor caving in to LGBT gestapo-pressures.

We'll put LGBT issues behind us when Obergefell is overturned because it failed to have all parties to the marriage contract's proposed revision present or represented at the Hearing. Obergefell systematically swept away children's unique and implied rights to both a mother and father in marriage...the reason marriage was created over a thousand years ago. *Poof*, with the sweep of five hands, children's rights were obliterated in marriage. New York vs Ferber, a USSC case, found that an adult may not enjoy a constitutional right, even an expressed one (nor a newly created one for just some deviant sex behaviors but not others) if that expression results in the physical or mental harm to children.

Being stripped of even the hope of having either a mother or father for life is intolerable oppression to children. They need both for their best adjustment. You cannot change a contract that previously helped their best interest, even if they themselves consented to that change...which they didn't...but I'm just illustrating the potency of infants, necessities and contract law.

 

[Centinel]

If you open up a public accommodation business, then you'd better be prepared to serve the "public." That includes "the gays."

Chris, I hope you know that I'm not in this conversation because I am in any way anti-gay. This is a property rights issue. The store is the property of the baker. The ingredients are the property of the baker. The baker's own body is his property.

It's a simple matter of liberty. A person ought to be free to use his property as he wishes, as long as he does so peacefully and doesn't violate the property of others.

 

[martybegan]

Gay people pay taxes and they are American citizens. No, you do not have any right to discriminate against them when it comes to business matters. Like I said earlier, if you want to be a bigoted ass in your personal life, that is still your right.

What does paying taxes have to do with it? Government has to be neutral, and government can impose neutrality when there is a compelling government interest due to some economic harm, but hurt feelings are not harm.

The whole concept of PA laws wasn't to protect the feelings of blacks, it was to end economic and political discrimination that is the end goal of all those lunch counter, water fountain, movie theater, and bus laws.

A baker not wanting to bake a cake does not even come close to that standard.

States have determined that it is in fact economically harmful to discriminate.

The "States" are pulling dingleberries out of their ass and calling it "harm".

Show me the harm besides hurt feelings from all of this that trumps another persons 1st amendment rights.

 

[martybegan]

Gay people pay taxes and they are American citizens. No, you do not have any right to discriminate against them when it comes to business matters. Like I said earlier, if you want to be a bigoted ass in your personal life, that is still your right.

What does paying taxes have to do with it? Government has to be neutral, and government can impose neutrality when there is a compelling government interest due to some economic harm, but hurt feelings are not harm.

The whole concept of PA laws wasn't to protect the feelings of blacks, it was to end economic and political discrimination that is the end goal of all those lunch counter, water fountain, movie theater, and bus laws.

A baker not wanting to bake a cake does not even come close to that standard.

Perhaps this might help you to understand the laws and why they exist.

Civil Rights Act of 1964: Public Accommodation

Again, PA discrimination was a symptom of the attempt to keep down economically and politically a whole class of people. This wasn't about hurt feelings, which is what the current cases are about.

 

[jc456]

We are fresh off of a victory in Georgia where the governor vetoed a homophobic and quite frankly stupid bill that targeted LGBT people in the name of ”religious liberty” He caved to pressure from local businesses while never acknowledging the true intent of the bill.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/religious-liberty-bill-could-get-surprise-vote-wed/nqmkF/


However, the anti-equality forces are still hard at work in the south and elsewhere. They are spending countless hours and millions of dollars that could be spent on addressing the real- instead of imagined problems facing the nation. Cases in point:

North Carolina:

http://www.hrc.org/blog/voices-of-north-carolina-the-transgender-community-speaks-out

This week, HRC is lifting up the voices of North Carolinians whose lives are affected by the dangerous and discriminatory bill (HB 2) that North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory signed into law last week.

The first of those stories is from Madeline Goss, an openly transgender woman from Raleigh and former HRC Board of Governors member. Last week, she testified about the harmful impact HB 2 would have on her life and the transgender community.

“I can't use the men's room. I won't go back to the men's room. It is unsafe for me there. People like me die in there," Goss said.

On March 23, Governor McCrory signed into law an outrageous and unprecedented anti-LGBT bill that eliminates existing municipal non-discrimination protections for LGBT people; prevents such provisions from being passed by cities in the future; and forces transgender students in public schools to use restrooms and other facilities inconsistent with their gender identity, putting 4.5 billion dollars in federal funding under Title IX at risk. Read more about how this bill puts federal funding at risk here.

And South Carolina:

http://www.hrc.org/blog/south-carolina-senate-committee-advances-anti-marriage-equality-bill

Last week, a handful of conservative state Senators in South Carolina voted to advance S.31, a bill calling on the US Congress to amend the United States Constitution to allow states to roll back marriage equality on a state by state basis, but ultimately the bill has little chance of passing this session.

S.31 was introduced last year by conservative Senator Larry Grooms, but the bill has been stuck in limbo in the Senate Judiciary Committee since last April. Finally, after months of skipping over the bill - a clear sign that committee members have no appetite for it - S.31 was amended and advanced with a vote of 17 to 3. HRC thanks the three Democrats on the committee, Senators Sabb, Bright-Matthews, and Hutto, for voting against this bill.

Seeking to undermine the historic marriage equality ruling last year by the Supreme Court of the United States ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, S.31 calls on Congress to host a constitutional convention to amend the Constitution of the United States to allow all states to determine their own definitions of marriage. If the Constitution were to be amended in this way, it would give states the ability to roll back marriage equality if they oppose it,, effectively stripping away years of progress and placing millions of same-sex marriages in jeopardy.

Where will it end? When can we get over it and move on to other things? To come together as a nation and, yes, make America Great by being a nation that is all inclusive and accepting of all people? When can we get past this religious and fear based bigotry and start treating our neighbors with the dignity that they deserve? When!!??

I'll tell you when.. When there are no legislated protected dicks in my daughter's locker room... That's when...

First of all, if those transgender people still have dicks, they have no interest in your daughter. But more importantly, and what seems to be beyond your intellectual capacity to grasp, is that the issues that I raised go far beyond transgender and locker room matters.

no, you're right, it is about you forcing someone's beliefs on another and dude that ain't america. end of discussion.

 

[bodecea]

Never. We have gone beyond coming together as one nation. If you are afraid to wag your dick in the men's room, the solution is to make you terrified to wag your dick in the women's room.

You don't deserve jack shit.

What a silly post.

 

[bodecea]

"When will we put LGBTQ issues behind us.?"


As soon as they shut the fuck up !

Uppity Gays!

 

[Silhouette]

If you open up a public accommodation business, then you'd better be prepared to serve the "public." That includes "the gays."

Chris, I hope you know that I'm not in this conversation because I am in any way anti-gay. This is a property rights issue. The store is the property of the baker. The ingredients are the property of the baker. The baker's own body is his property.

It's a simple matter of liberty. A person ought to be free to use his property as he wishes, as long as he does so peacefully and doesn't violate the property of others.

You forgot one, the MIND and FREE SPEECH OF the property owner are also his, protected to use as he wishes. To take it to the extreme, if he wanted to only bake and sell cakes that say "I hate N*ggers" on them, that would be his protected right to do so. To simply and politely decline to be involved in promoting behaviors that one cannot promote "as married' (Jude 1, New Testament), is not an act of hate. It is an act of passive obedience to one's faith. As such the Christian has harmed nothing but the feelings of homosexuals trying to get him to participate. If they saw a "Christian establishment" sign outside the shop and went in insisting that the proprietor oblige them, they couldn't profess to have hurt feelings even when he turned them down. But a person can't use hurt feelings as a means of shutting down someone else's civil and Constitutional rights.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

When will we put LGBTQ issues behind us?

No matter how hard the gays try, the harsh reality is they will NEVER be fully accepted in America.

There will ALWAYS be others who do not accept their lifestyle, it's a fact.

Neither will racial minorities, women, Jews, Muslims or Catholics.......and certainly not those who choose the bigoted LIFESTYLE> Now THAT is a choice.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

We are fresh off of a victory in Georgia where the governor vetoed a homophobic and quite frankly stupid bill that targeted LGBT people in the name of ”religious liberty” He caved to pressure from local businesses while never acknowledging the true intent of the bill.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/religious-liberty-bill-could-get-surprise-vote-wed/nqmkF/


However, the anti-equality forces are still hard at work in the south and elsewhere. They are spending countless hours and millions of dollars that could be spent on addressing the real- instead of imagined problems facing the nation. Cases in point:

North Carolina:

http://www.hrc.org/blog/voices-of-north-carolina-the-transgender-community-speaks-out

This week, HRC is lifting up the voices of North Carolinians whose lives are affected by the dangerous and discriminatory bill (HB 2) that North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory signed into law last week.

The first of those stories is from Madeline Goss, an openly transgender woman from Raleigh and former HRC Board of Governors member. Last week, she testified about the harmful impact HB 2 would have on her life and the transgender community.

“I can't use the men's room. I won't go back to the men's room. It is unsafe for me there. People like me die in there," Goss said.

On March 23, Governor McCrory signed into law an outrageous and unprecedented anti-LGBT bill that eliminates existing municipal non-discrimination protections for LGBT people; prevents such provisions from being passed by cities in the future; and forces transgender students in public schools to use restrooms and other facilities inconsistent with their gender identity, putting 4.5 billion dollars in federal funding under Title IX at risk. Read more about how this bill puts federal funding at risk here.

And South Carolina:

http://www.hrc.org/blog/south-carolina-senate-committee-advances-anti-marriage-equality-bill

Last week, a handful of conservative state Senators in South Carolina voted to advance S.31, a bill calling on the US Congress to amend the United States Constitution to allow states to roll back marriage equality on a state by state basis, but ultimately the bill has little chance of passing this session.

S.31 was introduced last year by conservative Senator Larry Grooms, but the bill has been stuck in limbo in the Senate Judiciary Committee since last April. Finally, after months of skipping over the bill - a clear sign that committee members have no appetite for it - S.31 was amended and advanced with a vote of 17 to 3. HRC thanks the three Democrats on the committee, Senators Sabb, Bright-Matthews, and Hutto, for voting against this bill.

Seeking to undermine the historic marriage equality ruling last year by the Supreme Court of the United States ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, S.31 calls on Congress to host a constitutional convention to amend the Constitution of the United States to allow all states to determine their own definitions of marriage. If the Constitution were to be amended in this way, it would give states the ability to roll back marriage equality if they oppose it,, effectively stripping away years of progress and placing millions of same-sex marriages in jeopardy.

Where will it end? When can we get over it and move on to other things? To come together as a nation and, yes, make America Great by being a nation that is all inclusive and accepting of all people? When can we get past this religious and fear based bigotry and start treating our neighbors with the dignity that they deserve? When!!??

When the bat shit crazy fuckers quit wanting special treatment. Dumbass

What "special treatment " would that be bubba?

 

[dblack]

The gay people pay taxes and are US citizens, therefore, there is no "right" for you to discriminate when doing business. If the government was forcing you to have personal relationships with these people, then you might have a point.

Sorry but have no right to discriminate when it comes to doing business against certain GROUPS of people because of your religious beliefs.

All of us have right to discriminate - both in the inalienable sense, and as a politically protected freedom. Even civil rights legislation doesn't take that right from us, but it does limit it. It does this with the claim that biases based on certain traits, can't be a reason for discrimination. Any other reason, or any other biases based on traits not on the protected classes list, are fair game.

 

[ChrisL]

If you open up a public accommodation business, then you'd better be prepared to serve the "public." That includes "the gays."

Chris, I hope you know that I'm not in this conversation because I am in any way anti-gay. This is a property rights issue. The store is the property of the baker. The ingredients are the property of the baker. The baker's own body is his property.

It's a simple matter of liberty. A person ought to be free to use his property as he wishes, as long as he does so peacefully and doesn't violate the property of others.

You forgot one, the MIND and FREE SPEECH OF the property owner are also his, protected to use as he wishes. To take it to the extreme, if he wanted to only bake and sell cakes that say "I hate N*ggers" on them, that would be his protected right to do so. To simply and politely decline to be involved in promoting behaviors that one cannot promote "as married' (Jude 1, New Testament), is not an act of hate. It is an act of passive obedience to one's faith. As such the Christian has harmed nothing but the feelings of homosexuals trying to get him to participate. If they saw a "Christian establishment" sign outside the shop and went in insisting that the proprietor oblige them, they couldn't profess to have hurt feelings even when he turned them down. But a person can't use hurt feelings as a means of shutting down someone else's civil and Constitutional rights.

Your "faith" does not trump another person's individual liberties.

 

[Silhouette]

Neither will racial minorities, women, Jews, Muslims or Catholics.......and certainly not those who choose the bigoted LIFESTYLE> Now THAT is a choice.

"LIfestyle" You mean like the homosexual lifestyle? *searches the US Constitution*... I can't find anything here protecting sex acts as a lifestyle. If polygamy isn't protected to be married like "gay", can you please point me to where you claim your gay lifestyle comes with protections while other sex behaviors don't? Thanks!

I can, however, point you in the direction of the 1st Amendment right of free speech, free religion and freedom to associate, or not associate with people who do and say certain things. "Do...and....say.." Verbs, not nouns like "race, gender, Christian, Norweigan"..

 

[ChrisL]

Gay people pay taxes and they are American citizens. No, you do not have any right to discriminate against them when it comes to business matters. Like I said earlier, if you want to be a bigoted ass in your personal life, that is still your right.

What does paying taxes have to do with it? Government has to be neutral, and government can impose neutrality when there is a compelling government interest due to some economic harm, but hurt feelings are not harm.

The whole concept of PA laws wasn't to protect the feelings of blacks, it was to end economic and political discrimination that is the end goal of all those lunch counter, water fountain, movie theater, and bus laws.

A baker not wanting to bake a cake does not even come close to that standard.

Perhaps this might help you to understand the laws and why they exist.

Civil Rights Act of 1964: Public Accommodation

Again, PA discrimination was a symptom of the attempt to keep down economically and politically a whole class of people. This wasn't about hurt feelings, which is what the current cases are about.

No, you are always wrong. Must get tiresome.

 

[ChrisL]

If you open up a public accommodation business, then you'd better be prepared to serve the "public." That includes "the gays."

Chris, I hope you know that I'm not in this conversation because I am in any way anti-gay. This is a property rights issue. The store is the property of the baker. The ingredients are the property of the baker. The baker's own body is his property.

It's a simple matter of liberty. A person ought to be free to use his property as he wishes, as long as he does so peacefully and doesn't violate the property of others.

But when you open up a "public accommodation" business, you have agreed to the rules and regulations put forth by your respective state!!! If you cannot abide them, then don't open up a public accommodation business. Simple.

 

[dblack]

If you open up a public accommodation business, then you'd better be prepared to serve the "public." That includes "the gays."

Chris, I hope you know that I'm not in this conversation because I am in any way anti-gay. This is a property rights issue. The store is the property of the baker. The ingredients are the property of the baker. The baker's own body is his property.

It's a simple matter of liberty. A person ought to be free to use his property as he wishes, as long as he does so peacefully and doesn't violate the property of others.

But when you open up a "public accommodation" business, you have agreed to the rules and regulations put forth by your respective state!!! If you cannot abide them, then don't open up a public accommodation business. Simple.

Heh.. Obey!

 

[bodecea]

Well, I feel that here in America, we are all to be treated equally, and that is an important part of being an American. It shouldn't be of any consequence to a store owner whether or not a person is gay, or black or whatever. They are still human beings and should be treated as such. I don't think a business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve people based on their sexual orientation, the color of their skin and other silly reasons. I have no problem with public accommodation laws. If you want to open up a business, you have to follow the rules and regulations put forth by your respective state.

To me, that's pretty fucked up. The whole idea of equal rights is based on equal treatment by government. The idea that everyone else has to treat you equally is a completely different prospect, and basically obliterates personal preference and freedom of choice.

Then don't open a public accommodation business.

Because why? Because a 'public accommodation business' is own by the ubiquitous state?

So, you don't have to follow health and safety laws with a public accommodation business either?

 

[bodecea]

Well, I feel that here in America, we are all to be treated equally, and that is an important part of being an American. It shouldn't be of any consequence to a store owner whether or not a person is gay, or black or whatever. They are still human beings and should be treated as such. I don't think a business owner should be allowed to refuse to serve people based on their sexual orientation, the color of their skin and other silly reasons. I have no problem with public accommodation laws. If you want to open up a business, you have to follow the rules and regulations put forth by your respective state.

To me, that's pretty fucked up. The whole idea of equal rights is based on equal treatment by government. The idea that everyone else has to treat you equally is a completely different prospect, and basically obliterates personal preference and freedom of choice.

You are entitled to be an ignorant ass in your personal life still.

My work is as personal as it gets. What you want is state authority over freedom of association. Fuck you and your fascist friends.

So..."fuck you" to any health and safety laws that put state authority over your business?

 

[ChrisL]

If you open up a public accommodation business, then you'd better be prepared to serve the "public." That includes "the gays."

Chris, I hope you know that I'm not in this conversation because I am in any way anti-gay. This is a property rights issue. The store is the property of the baker. The ingredients are the property of the baker. The baker's own body is his property.

It's a simple matter of liberty. A person ought to be free to use his property as he wishes, as long as he does so peacefully and doesn't violate the property of others.

But when you open up a "public accommodation" business, you have agreed to the rules and regulations put forth by your respective state!!! If you cannot abide them, then don't open up a public accommodation business. Simple.

Heh.. Obey!

Yes, you have to obey laws. Mr. Whiny Pants.

 

[Centinel]

But when you open up a "public accommodation" business, you have agreed to the rules and regulations put forth by your respective state!!! If you cannot abide them, then don't open up a public accommodation business. Simple.

Yes, those are the laws I'm arguing against and am saying should be eliminated. It's unjust to place a business owner into such servitude, punishable by force.

As long as a person acts in a peaceful manner, he ought to be able to use his body and property any way he wishes. To forcibly restrict him from doing so is clearly a violation of his liberty and is therefore unjust.