Anyone here against the 'T' in LGBT?

[martybegan]

The balkanization continues, and the more sane members of the gay community will start realizing the radicals have gone too far.

No, you just lack the emotional maturity to accept that there are people radically different from you. I’m not LGBT but I know the basics of respect for others.

I don't care what people do or who they bugger, but when they force others to care OR ELSE than I have an issue.

Do you accept that some religious people don't want to bake cakes for gay weddings? Yes? No?

Respect is to be earned, not forced at the end of a government dagger or browbeaten into by public bullying.

Do you realIze just how many rules the Bible has? How ridiculous so many of them are? Imagine if a Christian baker followed ALL of those rules. How many rights as a consumer would you lose? People harp on homosexuality and ignore the other rules because they are bigots. It’s blatant cherry picking.

I don't care, and considering we are talking about a contracted, non-essential service, the government shouldn't either.

Again, its people being forced to ACCEPT, not TOLERATE, and that is wrong.

Dear martybegan and Billy000
can either of you explain to me why it's okay
to refuse and protest displays of the national flag and anthem
even publicly on TV to disrupt broadcasts of programs,
but not okay to refuse to recognize LGBT as a status?

What is wrong with people?

If the Flag and Anthem don't represent the same things
to people, why keep pushing LGBT beliefs and marriage that don't mean the
same things to people either! Why impose any of that on people,
then yell and scream and turn ugly when it's your turn to be imposed upon.

I don't care if people protest the flag. I call them idiots and I am done with it. I don't boycott, I don't threaten not to watch. I just call them a bunch of wankers and that's it.

I personally don't boycott things, but I can see why people do it. My issue is when government tries to take sides where there is no real compelling government interest, just favored butthurt against unfavored butthurt.

 

[martybegan]

I don't care what people do or who they bugger, but when they force others to care OR ELSE than I have an issue.

Do you accept that some religious people don't want to bake cakes for gay weddings? Yes? No?

Respect is to be earned, not forced at the end of a government dagger or browbeaten into by public bullying.

Do you realIze just how many rules the Bible has? How ridiculous so many of them are? Imagine if a Christian baker followed ALL of those rules. How many rights as a consumer would you lose? People harp on homosexuality and ignore the other rules because they are bigots. It’s blatant cherry picking.

I don't care, and considering we are talking about a contracted, non-essential service, the government shouldn't either.

Again, its people being forced to ACCEPT, not TOLERATE, and that is wrong.

You don’t have to accept anything. Just stop supporting keeping these people from having the same rights as you and I.

Dear Billy000
if you want gay marriage and LGBT beliefs endorsed by states and public institutions
are you okay with Christian prayers, beliefs, crosses and Bibles
endorsed and displayed in govt and public institutions?

If you want the right to health care sponsored through govt as a required mandate to pay for,
are you okay with everyone paying for right to life programs
by Christians and spiritual healing to diagnose and cure diseases
in order to afford health care for more people.

Are you okay with prolife and spiritual healing mandates
if that's better for the "general welfare" and allows
resources to provide for the greater population at lower costs?

There is constitutional precedent for separation of church and state so no. The constitution says nothing at all about being gay.

What the constitution actually says is congress cannot establish a religion or prevent free exercise.

 

[TNHarley]

I have a friend that is a lesbian and she doesnt support anything LGBT because trannies took over the movement and people now equate the two totally different lifestyles.

Lol that is so dumb.

homophobe. You must be a CONservative

 

[Billy000]

I have a friend that is a lesbian and she doesnt support anything LGBT because trannies took over the movement and people now equate the two totally different lifestyles.

Lol that is so dumb.

homophobe. You must be a CONservative

No one ever claimed a gay person can’t be dumb. Duh.

 

[TNHarley]

I have a friend that is a lesbian and she doesnt support anything LGBT because trannies took over the movement and people now equate the two totally different lifestyles.

Lol that is so dumb.

homophobe. You must be a CONservative

No one ever claimed a gay person can’t be dumb. Duh.

IMO, her reasoning makes sense.
Being gay and transgender are two totally different things. They dont equate at all.
She still supports the gay community, she just rolls her eyes when someone talks about a gay pride parade or the LGBT community. We havent talked about it, but considering people are adding 45 letters to it, her disdain is probably getting worse.

 

[emilynghiem]

I

I don't care, and considering we are talking about a contracted, non-essential service, the government shouldn't either.

Again, its people being forced to ACCEPT, not TOLERATE, and that is wrong.

You don’t have to accept anything. Just stop supporting keeping these people from having the same rights as you and I.

Where is there a right to the exact wedding cake you want, and more importantly why does that right even if it exists (it doesn't) supercede someone's free exercise rights?

It’s the same law that guarantees you the same rights. This has nothing to do with special treatment.

We have the Constitutional rights to property.

we have not right to be on anothers property.


I know you don't get that b/c you don't get the difference between freedom and tyranny

I would have one caveat to that. When you invite the public as a whole to purchase point of sale items, or rent rooms in your hotel, or sit in your restaurant, or watch a movie in your theater you are truly creating a public accommodation, and thus the government has a limited ability to tell you how to interact with the public IN THAT CONTEXT ONLY.

Once you get to contracted services, or limit access to certain goods or services, then the rules should change to your ability to interact with who you want to.

So as an example, a hotel/motel shouldn't be able to turn away gay people that want to rent a room, but could refuse to allow use of one of their rental spaces for say a wedding, or a gay rights event.

Public Accommodation vs contracted service.

Agree with the distinction you make here martybegan
Thank you!

I would add an arbitration/mediation waiver to either settle conflicts amicably by consensus or agree not to conduct business together if disputes can't be settled that way. Because there are always gray areas.

For example in hotels, smoking guests or people with children or servicedogs may not be able to rent rooms near other guests. Whichever person is easier to move to resolve the conflict may cause other issues, so it's important that businesses pay attention and consider specifying a protective disclaimer or waiver regarding disputes where parties agree in advance to avoid legal action or fees.

Even some accommodations situations are bound to get in conflict.

As for renting spaces for gay weddings, what I suggest to businesses who don't believe in catering or being associated with gay weddings is require an agreement in advance not to take any photos or promote any publicity connecting the venue to gay weddings or couples since that's against the owners beliefs to promote that in public. It's okay for private use only. So the renters can invite friends and anyone else in private but can't publicize post or photograph for public distribution. And sign a licensing agreement restricting this to private only including no photos or video film footage, and specify the costs of using the site for media production should this happen
Again if the customers and site owners can't agree on rental costs and terms then a waiver should specify they cease to do business together in order to avoid legal expenses or actions

 

[martybegan]

I

You don’t have to accept anything. Just stop supporting keeping these people from having the same rights as you and I.

Where is there a right to the exact wedding cake you want, and more importantly why does that right even if it exists (it doesn't) supercede someone's free exercise rights?

It’s the same law that guarantees you the same rights. This has nothing to do with special treatment.

We have the Constitutional rights to property.

we have not right to be on anothers property.


I know you don't get that b/c you don't get the difference between freedom and tyranny

I would have one caveat to that. When you invite the public as a whole to purchase point of sale items, or rent rooms in your hotel, or sit in your restaurant, or watch a movie in your theater you are truly creating a public accommodation, and thus the government has a limited ability to tell you how to interact with the public IN THAT CONTEXT ONLY.

Once you get to contracted services, or limit access to certain goods or services, then the rules should change to your ability to interact with who you want to.

So as an example, a hotel/motel shouldn't be able to turn away gay people that want to rent a room, but could refuse to allow use of one of their rental spaces for say a wedding, or a gay rights event.

Public Accommodation vs contracted service.

Agree with the distinction you make here martybegan
Thank you!

I would add an arbitration/mediation waiver to either settle conflicts amicably by consensus or agree not to conduct business together if disputes can't be settled that way. Because there are always gray areas.

For example in hotels, smoking guests or people with children or servicedogs may not be able to rent rooms near other guests. Whichever person is easier to move to resolve the conflict may cause other issues, so it's important that businesses pay attention and consider specifying a protective disclaimer or waiver regarding disputes where parties agree in advance to avoid legal action or fees.

Even some accommodations situations are bound to get in conflict.

As for renting spaces for gay weddings, what I suggest to businesses who don't believe in catering or being associated with gay weddings is require an agreement in advance not to take any photos or promote any publicity connecting the venue to gay weddings or couples since that's against the owners beliefs to promote that in public. It's okay for private use only. So the renters can invite friends and anyone else in private but can't publicize post or photograph for public distribution. And sign a licensing agreement restricting this to private only including no photos or video film footage, and specify the costs of using the site for media production should this happen
Again if the customers and site owners can't agree on rental costs and terms then a waiver should specify they cease to do business together in order to avoid legal expenses or actions

Why make it more complicated than it has to be? They just don't host those things. Then they can deal with the public fallout as it happens.

If they go out of business because of a private boycott, I don't care, my only issue is when government gets involved.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't care what people do or who they bugger, but when they force others to care OR ELSE than I have an issue.

Do you accept that some religious people don't want to bake cakes for gay weddings? Yes? No?

Respect is to be earned, not forced at the end of a government dagger or browbeaten into by public bullying.

Do you realIze just how many rules the Bible has? How ridiculous so many of them are? Imagine if a Christian baker followed ALL of those rules. How many rights as a consumer would you lose? People harp on homosexuality and ignore the other rules because they are bigots. It’s blatant cherry picking.

I don't care, and considering we are talking about a contracted, non-essential service, the government shouldn't either.

Again, its people being forced to ACCEPT, not TOLERATE, and that is wrong.

You don’t have to accept anything. Just stop supporting keeping these people from having the same rights as you and I.

Dear Billy000
if you want gay marriage and LGBT beliefs endorsed by states and public institutions
are you okay with Christian prayers, beliefs, crosses and Bibles
endorsed and displayed in govt and public institutions?

If you want the right to health care sponsored through govt as a required mandate to pay for,
are you okay with everyone paying for right to life programs
by Christians and spiritual healing to diagnose and cure diseases
in order to afford health care for more people.

Are you okay with prolife and spiritual healing mandates
if that's better for the "general welfare" and allows
resources to provide for the greater population at lower costs?

There is constitutional precedent for separation of church and state so no. The constitution says nothing at all about being gay.

Dear Billy000
the argument over "gay" status is if it is
* inborn and unchangeable like race
* a choice like choice of BELIEF similar to spiritual or religious affiliation or practice

For conservatives who believe LGBT identity/orientation is a choice of behavior,
this is not a protected class, and people have a right to refuse behavior they disagree with.

The Liberals/LGBT belief is that "homosexual" or "transgender" orientation/identity
is like RACE and should be protected as a CLASS.

That is a BELIEF.
It is NOT proven by science, and is infact contested
as NOT inborn or genetic which science does show.
For example, in twins, the rate of matching orientation is NOT 100%
so it shows it is NOT genetic. But race is, and that is why race is treated as a
factor that can't be discriminated against.

with LGBT identity, this is FAITH BASED.
NOT proven to be inborn, NOT proven to be "not a choice"
but proven that some people HAVE changed identity
similar to changing what religious affiliation you identify with.

Religious affiliation, faith and practice IS protected
under the First Amendment
BUT CAN'T BE MANDATED ESTABLISHED OR REGULATED BY GOVT.

So that's why I am arguing that LGBT beliefs
should be protected either way, for or against,
beliefs that is natural or unnatural,
beliefs that it is a choice or not a choice,
the same as religious and spiritual beliefs are.

The govt cannot prohibit this nor can it establish this.
It must remain free choice of people to believe or
change their minds if they see proof, but they
can't be forced to change or be penalized
for their beliefs which remain FAITH BASED.

Understood? Is this more clear?
Thanks Billy

 

[MindWars]

They won't drop the T , they're just going to add a P....................and then some
LGBTQPZX....................ppl are getting real sick of that bs esp from those rejects who got this " they and thi" zi, XI bs going on.... refer to them as " THEY" are you freaking serious................................

 

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd says if ya take the T outta BLT...

... den all ya left with is a BL.

 

[lucky17]

Hey. I also support sexual minorities. I don't mind T. In many countries, especially Muslim, such people are prosecuted. They have to seek political asylum in other countries. In Canada, new LGBTQI Guidelines have been adopted that help immigrants obtain refugee status. Canada approved 69 percent of asylum claims classified as “sexual orientation and gender minorities” in last year, compared with an average of 61 percent in the preceding four years.

 

[miketx]

I have a friend that is a lesbian and she doesnt support anything LGBT because trannies took over the movement and people now equate the two totally different lifestyles.

Lol that is so dumb.

homophobe. You must be a CONservative

No one ever claimed a gay person can’t be dumb. Duh.

IMO, her reasoning makes sense.
Being gay and transgender are two totally different things. They dont equate at all.
She still supports the gay community, she just rolls her eyes when someone talks about a gay pride parade or the LGBT community. We havent talked about it, but considering people are adding 45 letters to it, her disdain is probably getting worse.

That's not possible. The alphabet only has 36 letters.

 

[justinacolmena]

Lesbians and Gay men only tolerate Bisexuals with difficulty, and they unfortunately tend to HATE the Transgender even more than straight folks do.

The men with the men and the women with the women are definitely not going to accept a transgression of their ultra-strict gender separation.

Certainly no more than the general population at any rate.