CDZ Why do people hate Gays ?

[Tommy Tainant]

Because gays dont go about their business. They feel compelled to demand overt endorsement and support in every setting and from every group, and they think they should be able to dictate the terms of faith to people. Live your own lives. I dont particularly care what you do...but don't do it in public, then insist everybody applaud.

As if on cue…

This is an example of the ignorance and stupidity common to those with an unwarranted hatred of gays.

Its deeply rooted.

 

[koshergrl]

Because gays dont go about their business. They feel compelled to demand overt endorsement and support in every setting and from every group, and they think they should be able to dictate the terms of faith to people. Live your own lives. I dont particularly care what you do...but don't do it in public, then insist everybody applaud.

As if on cue…

This is an example of the ignorance and stupidity common to those with an unwarranted hatred of gays.

Its deeply rooted.

I think you just like to say "deeply rooted"...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Because gays dont go about their business. They feel compelled to demand overt endorsement and support in every setting and from every group, and they think they should be able to dictate the terms of faith to people. Live your own lives. I dont particularly care what you do...but don't do it in public, then insist everybody applaud.

As if on cue…

This is an example of the ignorance and stupidity common to those with an unwarranted hatred of gays.

Its deeply rooted.

And you must thank the conservative subscribers to this thread for proving your premise to be true.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Here we go again....

I don't know about you, but I never realized that many angels could even fit on the head of a pin, much less dance the way he describes.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Because gays dont go about their business. They feel compelled to demand overt endorsement and support in every setting and from every group, and they think they should be able to dictate the terms of faith to people. Live your own lives. I dont particularly care what you do...but don't do it in public, then insist everybody applaud.

Could you give examples of this. I dont see it.

There's been enough prominent examples in the news, lately, of small businesses being forced by law to provide service sand goods in direct support of sick homosexual mockeries of weddings, in violation of the owner's moral beliefs against such sickness; or being punished for refusing to produce such support.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Because gays dont go about their business. They feel compelled to demand overt endorsement and support in every setting and from every group, and they think they should be able to dictate the terms of faith to people. Live your own lives. I dont particularly care what you do...but don't do it in public, then insist everybody applaud.

Could you give examples of this. I dont see it.

There's been enough prominent examples in the news, lately, of small businesses being forced by law to provide service sand goods in direct support of sick homosexual mockeries of weddings, in violation of the owner's moral beliefs against such sickness; or being punished for refusing to produce such support.

Moral beliefs my arse. They just hate Gays. There is no other group discrtiminated against in this way.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

We live in a country where we have to abide by the laws or be punished.
Not much choice.
Jail, fines or follow the law.

You never HAVE to endorse anything, you just might have to pay a price for not doing it

The First Amendment is the law. As part of the Constitution, it trumps all lesser laws.

And the freedom of speech which it explicitly affirms, necessarily includes a right not to endorse what one finds disagreeable.

Why is it OK for corrupt public servants to enact and enforce lesser laws which violate this highest law, and for people to be punished under those lesser laws for exercising a right which this highest law explicitly affirms?

Why should it not be the corrupt public servants who are held accountable for their malfeasance; and subjected to fines and prison time, for violating the highest law?

 

[Katzndogz]

Gays should mind their own business and leave other people alone. No one hates gays, we do hate what they do, such as lie about being the victims of attacks,

 

[320 Years of History]

Because gays dont go about their business. They feel compelled to demand overt endorsement and support in every setting and from every group, and they think they should be able to dictate the terms of faith to people. Live your own lives. I dont particularly care what you do...but don't do it in public, then insist everybody applaud.

Could you give examples of this. I dont see it.

There's been enough prominent examples in the news, lately, of small businesses being forced by law to provide service sand goods in direct support of sick homosexual mockeries of weddings, in violation of the owner's moral beliefs against such sickness; or being punished for refusing to produce such support.

While I don't at all think being gay rises to the level of being a racial minority in the U.S., I cannot deny the great similarity between the remarks made about gays, businesses serving them, etc. and those made by bigoted whites with regard to blacks, not only in the civil rights era, but even today.

• Veterans of the Civil Rights Movement -- History & Timeline, 1960
  
• SC Restaurant Owner Refuses To Serve Blacks, Cites Religious Beliefs

People are trying to make the case that their religious beliefs supercede the laws of the nation, particularly when it comes to Christian beliefs. Those very same people, however, will get their panties in a bunch the instant a Muslim wants to use Sharia Law to settle their divorce. Well, it cannot work both ways. As Sally Kohn wrote:

You may have heard that the government is forcing businesses not to discriminate. It isn’t. If you chose to run a business, you have to follow the laws. If you don’t, that’s a choice—and you choose to suffer the consequences.​

Still, in the wake of the controversy surrounding Indiana’s law, conservatives don’t see it that way. Even potential Republican presidential candidates are getting in on the assertions. Rick Santorum recently said:

If you’re a print shop and you are a gay man, should you be forced to print ‘God Hates Fags’ for the Westboro Baptist Church because they hold those signs up? Should the government—and this is really the case here — should the government force you to do that? This is about the government coming in and saying, “No, we’re going to make you do this.” And this is where I think we just need some space to say let’s have some tolerance, be a two-way street.
​

There are two problems with Santorum’s reasoning. The first is that a printer doesn’t have to make such signs, under any law, because refusing to do so is not discrimination in any legally prohibited sense. A print shop can also refuse to print a poster that says, for instance, “F*ck Rick Santorum,” either because it disagrees with the language or the sentiment. Both are entirely legally permissible decisions any business can rightfully make.

But let’s say the printer is asked to make a communion sign or a gay wedding sign. In this case—especially in states that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation as well as religion—refusing to print such a sign would indeed be illegal. The government isn’t forcing that business to do anything other than follow the law. Which is what we expect of all businesses, equally.

This issue of government force is a funny one. You could also argue that the government is forcing you to drive below the speed limit or wear a seatbelt in your car. But it’s not. There isn’t a police officer holding a gun to your head literally forcing you to buckle up. In fact, you are 100 percent free to speed and not wear your seatbelt—and simply deal with the consequences if you’re pulled over. Is the threat of the fine for breaking the law amount to “forcing” you to follow the law? No.

And more to the point, the government certainly isn’t forcing you to drive. If you don’t like the speed limit and seatbelt rules, and don’t want to be subject to the consequences of breaking them, then you can not drive. Whether to drive or not is your choice.

This all seems simple when we talk about driving, but somehow a fringe set of rightwing conservatives want us all to believe that hapless business owners are somehow being forced, against their will, to serve pizza to gay people. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you don’t want to serve pizza to gay people, by all means, don’t—which, by the way, is legal in Indiana and 28 other states, but even where it is illegal, you’re still free to do so and deal with the consequences of breaking the law. That, pizza shop owner, is your choice. And if you don’t want to deal with those consequences, well, no one is forcing you to be in the pizza business. You’re free to do something else.

In the wake of the Loving v. Virginia ruling in 1967, Bob Jones University, a Christian college in South Carolina that explicitly denied admissions to black students, maintained its policy against interracial dating and marriage, citing the Bible. So the school suffered the consequences. In 1983, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Internal Revenue Service to revoke Bob Jones University’s tax-exempt status. But the university was still free to continue its discriminatory practices. In fact, while the school did start admitting African-Americans in the 1970s, the ban on interracial dating was only lifted in 2000.

In the United States, private businesses get all kinds of government support—a functional monetary system, police that safeguard private property, roads that help deliver customers and goods, public schools that educate workers, telecommunications infrastructure, legal protections against copyright and patent infringement, tax benefits for business expenses and employee health care, legal shields for owners and more. No one is forcing businesses to take advantage of all those benefits, nor forcing you to start a business to begin with nor forcing you to do so in a state with non-discrimination laws or in the United States to begin with.

Don’t like following the laws that apply to businesses—including serving all customers equally? Then don’t start a business. That’s your choice.​

And therein one sees the issue with so many folks, most especially conservatives: they want things their way, until they don't, but most especially they don't want one to have anything one's own way.

 

[320 Years of History]

We live in a country where we have to abide by the laws or be punished.
Not much choice.
Jail, fines or follow the law.

You never HAVE to endorse anything, you just might have to pay a price for not doing it

The First Amendment is the law. As part of the Constitution, it trumps all lesser laws.

And the freedom of speech which it explicitly affirms, necessarily includes a right not to endorse what one finds disagreeable.

Why is it OK for corrupt public servants to enact and enforce lesser laws which violate this highest law, and for people to be punished under those lesser laws for exercising a right which this highest law explicitly affirms?

Why should it not be the corrupt public servants who are held accountable for their malfeasance; and subjected to fines and prison time, for violating the highest law?

Red:
It does. One can express oneself however one wants. The 1st Amendment, however, is but one of the nation's laws. It does not trump all others. One is free to express oneself by electing not to serve gays, but if one does so in a place where doing so isn't legal, then one must suffer the consequence of expressing oneself by not serving gay folks.

The very same principle applies to non-violent (or violent, for that matter) civil protesters. Hundreds of non-violent protesters have been arrested and known they were going to be arrested. They expressed themselves in a way that violated a law other than the 1st Amendment and they suffered the consequence of doing so. They went to jail and now have criminal records as a result, unless the charges were dismissed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Because gays dont go about their business. They feel compelled to demand overt endorsement and support in every setting and from every group, and they think they should be able to dictate the terms of faith to people. Live your own lives. I dont particularly care what you do...but don't do it in public, then insist everybody applaud.

Could you give examples of this. I dont see it.

There's been enough prominent examples in the news, lately, of small businesses being forced by law to provide service sand goods in direct support of sick homosexual mockeries of weddings, in violation of the owner's moral beliefs against such sickness; or being punished for refusing to produce such support.

Wrong.

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional, as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

And the religious/moral beliefs of citizens are not ‘justification’ to ignore or violate just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws.

Any attempt to portray business owners who violate public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation as ‘victims’ is nothing but a lie.

The fear, ignorance, and hate reflected in this post reaffirms the fact that public accommodations laws are very much needed, and once again demonstrates the OP’s premise is correct.

 

[320 Years of History]

I'm pro-gay marriage, but understanding what conservatives are talking about doesn't require much intellectual elasticity.

A screamingly obvious example are gay pride parades, where it's not terribly difficult to understand that decency laws are being (at least) stretched just to shove a person's sexuality in the face of an opponent.

An honest conversation on this topic does require honesty.

My hope is that, once time has gone by and gays have access to marriage, they'll calm down and stop behaving like this.
.

Is being as tiresome as possible your actual goal here?

No.

You get personal with people and then issue petulant little warnings if they dare to act in similar ways as you.

I bid you go look at my posts. In then you will not find any statements I made asserting anything as a fact about Mac or you. You will note that I routinely ask questions or make statements qualified by something akin to "I suppose," "I suspect," "I guess," etc. to make it clear that I'm not accusing someone of something. Contrast that with your own remarks about me, they even as you don't know a thing about me other than what I've shared in the forum. To refresh your memory of exactly what you asserted without knowing me:

• you are wishing to discuss me rather than the subject here

  
  

  You read nothing he actually says and imagine him to be something he isn't.

  
  

  you have never actually known any gay people

The fact of the matter is that it is you who make assertions about others and don't know whether they are true or not. Mac1958 didn't do that. I didn't do that. You are the one who "gets personal" with their remarks, and the three quotes above are evidence of that fact.

Ugh. Against my better judgement, I'll wade back into this tedious conversation temporarily.

In post 73, you said the following:

• ...you and your ilk...
• If you were able to see the verity of human existence from any standpoint other than your own...
• ...you really need to get out more.
• Do you understand anything at all about identity groups and identity politics?
• Have you ever attempted, as a part of an objective effort to examine your own views on identity groups, bothered to get such an understanding?
• I know ignorance is at times blissful, perhaps even comforting and vindicating, and that can make one feel "in the right,"...

All in one post.

I have no doubt that you will not admit those comments are a mixture of condescension and thinly veiled insults. Dogmaphobe has it right, you're arguing with (and insulting) a ghost, and I'm under no obligation to enable such behavior. You're certainly welcome to try it on someone else
.

Is being as tiresome as possible your actual goal here?

No.

You get personal with people and then issue petulant little warnings if they dare to act in similar ways as you.

I bid you go look at my posts. In then you will not find any statements I made asserting anything as a fact about Mac or you. You will note that I routinely ask questions or make statements qualified by something akin to "I suppose," "I suspect," "I guess," etc. to make it clear that I'm not accusing someone of something. Contrast that with your own remarks about me, they even as you don't know a thing about me other than what I've shared in the forum. To refresh your memory of exactly what you asserted without knowing me:

• you are wishing to discuss me rather than the subject here

  
  

  You read nothing he actually says and imagine him to be something he isn't.

  
  

  you have never actually known any gay people

The fact of the matter is that it is you who make assertions about others and don't know whether they are true or not. Mac1958 didn't do that. I didn't do that. You are the one who "gets personal" with their remarks, and the three quotes above are evidence of that fact.

Ugh. Against my better judgement, I'll wade back into this tedious conversation temporarily.

In post 73, you said the following:

• ...you and your ilk...
• If you were able to see the verity of human existence from any standpoint other than your own...
• ...you really need to get out more.
• Do you understand anything at all about identity groups and identity politics?
• Have you ever attempted, as a part of an objective effort to examine your own views on identity groups, bothered to get such an understanding?
• I know ignorance is at times blissful, perhaps even comforting and vindicating, and that can make one feel "in the right,"...

All in one post.

I have no doubt that you will not admit those comments are a mixture of condescension and thinly veiled insults. Dogmaphobe has it right, you're arguing with (and insulting) a ghost, and I'm under no obligation to enable such behavior. You're certainly welcome to try it on someone else
.

LHFM....read this:

• Moods in Verbs
• Impersonal Pronouns - GrammarBank
  
• Direct and Indirect Objects | Write.com

As go the specific citations you made:

• .you and your ilk...
  Object of the verb -- True, I used the words "you" and "your" -- Read the rest of the sentence...doing so, you'll see that what I wrote is that the folks in the parade aren't thinking about "you and your ilk." That is not at all making a personal assertion about you; indeed, it isn't about you in any way, shape or form. It's an assertion about what Gay Pride parade participants think, or don't, namely that you aren't among the thing they are thinking while they are parading and enjoying the parade.
• If you were able to see the verity of human existence from any standpoint other than your own...
  Subjunctive mood + conditional mood -- the mood that expresses doubt or uncertainty about that which is stated.
• ...you really need to get out more.
  Conditional mood.
• Do you understand anything at all about identity groups and identity politics?
  A question, not an assertion. (interrogative mood)
• Have you ever attempted, as a part of an objective effort to examine your own views on identity groups, bothered to get such an understanding?
• A question, not an assertion. (interrogative mood)
• I know ignorance is at times blissful, perhaps even comforting and vindicating, and that can make one feel "in the right,"...
  No reference to you or anyone at all. I deliberately used the impersonal pronoun "one" so as not to make it a personal affront.

I'm beginning to believe that what you and Dogmaphobe have been writing may not even be indicative of what you actually hold as your stances on the matter. I am beginning to believe that because by your citing the things you have above, it is clear that you don't comprehend the full meaning that is implicit, in conjunction with the literal word meanings, in the mood(s) of the statements I made.

Believe it or not, I, on this forum, read and write in standard English and I do so with the assumption that the other party(s) to the conversation/discussion has completed high school English, that is, they have either graduated from high school or passed the GED. If someone tells me they have not, I will accord them the benefit of the doubt as goes mastery of the skills and conventions of English reading and writing that are taught in American schools. Absent their making that revelation, I read and write with the assumption as noted, and, among other things, that means I assume readers and writers here, being adults, understand mood, subjects and objects, and pronouns.

I can't read one's mind and know what they mean, but I can read their words and know what they mean as presented and in accordance with standard English grammar. I even made a recent post wherein I could tell that another member likely made a simple typo, but even there, I made a point to confirm that my interpretation in that regard was accurate.

[I presume you meant "grade school" not "grad school?" I adjusted your statement accordingly in this post.]

I can do that and will, but I cannot do that for the entire meanings of whole sentences and posts.

Truly, Mac1958, in light of your initially having written that you support gay marriage, I fully expected you to clarify your remarks found in the same post, that is, the ones with which I took exception...That's not, however, what you did. You "doubled down" on the fallacious assertions you made, and that's what led to the line of discussion and contretemps ensued.

 

[koshergrl]

We live in a country where we have to abide by the laws or be punished.
Not much choice.
Jail, fines or follow the law.

You never HAVE to endorse anything, you just might have to pay a price for not doing it

The First Amendment is the law. As part of the Constitution, it trumps all lesser laws.

And the freedom of speech which it explicitly affirms, necessarily includes a right not to endorse what one finds disagreeable.

Why is it OK for corrupt public servants to enact and enforce lesser laws which violate this highest law, and for people to be punished under those lesser laws for exercising a right which this highest law explicitly affirms?

Why should it not be the corrupt public servants who are held accountable for their malfeasance; and subjected to fines and prison time, for violating the highest law?

Red:
It does. One can express oneself however one wants. The 1st Amendment, however, is but one of the nation's laws. It does not trump all others. One is free to express oneself by electing not to serve gays, but if one does so in a place where doing so isn't legal, then one must suffer the consequence of expressing oneself by not serving gay folks.

The very same principle applies to non-violent (or violent, for that matter) civil protesters. Hundreds of non-violent protesters have been arrested and known they were going to be arrested. They expressed themselves in a way that violated a law other than the 1st Amendment and they suffered the consequence of doing so. They went to jail and now have criminal records as a result, unless the charges were dismissed.

Actually, any policy or law that violates the first amendment is invalid.

You idiots think that all the code and policies and case law that has been pushed over on you counts as "constitutionally sound" and you're so, so wrong.

You cannot require a business owner to commit sacrilege as a price of doing business. Can't do it. It's unconstitutional. And no matter how much back door legislation and crappy case law you drag up to try to subvert it, it doesn't matter. Because those laws are MEANINGLESS (as are all laws) if they are not constitutional.

And they are not.

 

[Katzndogz]

Even if public accommodation laws are necessary and proper, the demands of the gay mafia go way beyond public accommodation.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

We live in a country where we have to abide by the laws or be punished.
Not much choice.
Jail, fines or follow the law.

You never HAVE to endorse anything, you just might have to pay a price for not doing it

The First Amendment is the law. As part of the Constitution, it trumps all lesser laws.

And the freedom of speech which it explicitly affirms, necessarily includes a right not to endorse what one finds disagreeable.

Why is it OK for corrupt public servants to enact and enforce lesser laws which violate this highest law, and for people to be punished under those lesser laws for exercising a right which this highest law explicitly affirms?

Why should it not be the corrupt public servants who are held accountable for their malfeasance; and subjected to fines and prison time, for violating the highest law?

Red:
It does. One can express oneself however one wants. The 1st Amendment, however, is but one of the nation's laws. It does not trump all others. One is free to express oneself by electing not to serve gays, but if one does so in a place where doing so isn't legal, then one must suffer the consequence of expressing oneself by not serving gay folks.

The very same principle applies to non-violent (or violent, for that matter) civil protesters. Hundreds of non-violent protesters have been arrested and known they were going to be arrested. They expressed themselves in a way that violated a law other than the 1st Amendment and they suffered the consequence of doing so. They went to jail and now have criminal records as a result, unless the charges were dismissed.

Actually, any policy or law that violates the first amendment is invalid.

You idiots think that all the code and policies and case law that has been pushed over on you counts as "constitutionally sound" and you're so, so wrong.

You cannot require a business owner to commit sacrilege as a price of doing business. Can't do it. It's unconstitutional. And no matter how much back door legislation and crappy case law you drag up to try to subvert it, it doesn't matter. Because those laws are MEANINGLESS (as are all laws) if they are not constitutional.

And they are not.

So its ok to set up Sharia Law ?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Even if public accommodation laws are necessary and proper, the demands of the gay mafia go way beyond public accommodation.

No they dont. There isnt a Gay mafia either.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We live in a country where we have to abide by the laws or be punished.
Not much choice.
Jail, fines or follow the law.

You never HAVE to endorse anything, you just might have to pay a price for not doing it

The First Amendment is the law. As part of the Constitution, it trumps all lesser laws.

And the freedom of speech which it explicitly affirms, necessarily includes a right not to endorse what one finds disagreeable.

Why is it OK for corrupt public servants to enact and enforce lesser laws which violate this highest law, and for people to be punished under those lesser laws for exercising a right which this highest law explicitly affirms?

Why should it not be the corrupt public servants who are held accountable for their malfeasance; and subjected to fines and prison time, for violating the highest law?

Because, again, public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation are Constitutional, and in no way violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Indeed, Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence has never recognized requiring citizens to obey a just and proper law perceived to ‘violate’ religious dogma as an ‘infringement’ on religious liberty.

 

[Bonzi]

If you are a Christian and want to stand for what you believe God is saying in the Bible etc., if you have to go to jail for doing that, you should be HAPPY to do it. Instead of whining. Jesus himself said Christians would be persecuted. Why is this such a shock?

 

[koshergrl]

We live in a country where we have to abide by the laws or be punished.
Not much choice.
Jail, fines or follow the law.

You never HAVE to endorse anything, you just might have to pay a price for not doing it

The First Amendment is the law. As part of the Constitution, it trumps all lesser laws.

And the freedom of speech which it explicitly affirms, necessarily includes a right not to endorse what one finds disagreeable.

Why is it OK for corrupt public servants to enact and enforce lesser laws which violate this highest law, and for people to be punished under those lesser laws for exercising a right which this highest law explicitly affirms?

Why should it not be the corrupt public servants who are held accountable for their malfeasance; and subjected to fines and prison time, for violating the highest law?

Red:
It does. One can express oneself however one wants. The 1st Amendment, however, is but one of the nation's laws. It does not trump all others. One is free to express oneself by electing not to serve gays, but if one does so in a place where doing so isn't legal, then one must suffer the consequence of expressing oneself by not serving gay folks.

The very same principle applies to non-violent (or violent, for that matter) civil protesters. Hundreds of non-violent protesters have been arrested and known they were going to be arrested. They expressed themselves in a way that violated a law other than the 1st Amendment and they suffered the consequence of doing so. They went to jail and now have criminal records as a result, unless the charges were dismissed.

Actually, any policy or law that violates the first amendment is invalid.

You idiots think that all the code and policies and case law that has been pushed over on you counts as "constitutionally sound" and you're so, so wrong.

You cannot require a business owner to commit sacrilege as a price of doing business. Can't do it. It's unconstitutional. And no matter how much back door legislation and crappy case law you drag up to try to subvert it, it doesn't matter. Because those laws are MEANINGLESS (as are all laws) if they are not constitutional.

And they are not.

So its ok to set up Sharia Law ?

Hmm....killing women in the public square...vs maintaining gender specific bathrooms.

I see, they're just the same! People are killed all the time because of gender specific bathrooms!!!

 

[koshergrl]

Even if public accommodation laws are necessary and proper, the demands of the gay mafia go way beyond public accommodation.

No they dont. There isnt a Gay mafia either.

There's also no such thing as being born a fag.