When will we put LGBTQ issues behind us.?

[Mac1958]

Those who push Identity Politics will never stop as long as they perceive political advantage in dividing people.

Specific issue irrelevant.
.

 

[Iceweasel]

We are fresh off of a victory in Georgia where the governor vetoed a homophobic

LOL. You are why the issue won't die. Nobody likes being told they are monsters and we must accept perversion as the new norm or else. Fuck that. The governor caved under pressure by business lobbied by the perverts, not because it was the right thing to do.

Humans got here via gender, like all mammals and only fools pretend it's irrelevant. When will everybody become fools? Hopefully never.

 

[Centinel]

Depends on the State and the basis of their offense.

Well, no. They no longer have the right to disagree. A gay caterer, by law, must service a straight pride event. They can't discriminate against the event organizers because of their sexual orientation.

It's stupid that the state can force you to engage in trade with someone you don't want to.

Commerce is the state government's business? Why?

Intrastate commerce is a power retained by the State. Thus, its their business if they decide it is and it doesn't violate rights. See Article 1, Section 8 Clause 3....along with the 10th amendment. Its perfectly constitutional.

As long as no fraud or violence has occurred, and as long as the state gets it's extortion money, er, I mean taxes, why should LGBTQ issues by any concern of the state?

Because they decide it is.

Let's hope they don't decide it's double-plus good to crucify all redheads. Because I guess if they decided to do so, that law would be just too.

The rights that are protected by a State aren't limited to federally protected rights. Many States can and do have far more extensive protections for people than the federal government recognizes. And that's totally within the power of a People of a State to do.

Federal Protections establish the baseline minimum of rights. Not the maximum. And if the people of State decide that you have a right to be free from discrimination based on sexual orientation when conducting acts of commerce, they have every authority to protect that right.

The only thing that could practically trump them would be federal amendment......or a violation of federal rights. Neither of which are an issue with PA laws.

The government should, you know...govern.

And per the people of some states, protecting rights to freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation (or race, or sex, or religion, or ethnicity) in acts of commerce is governing.

And as long as they don't violate individual rights or the constitution, they have every authority to do so. That you 'don't think they should' is immaterial. What matters is what the relevant majority thinks.....constrained by the constitution and individual rights. Within those limitations, in any contest between you and the relevant majority of the State, the relevant majority wins.

That's our constitutional republic. If you don't like it, convince the relevant majority to change it.

That's what I'm doing.

Not terribly well. As your argument ignores exploitation, wild disparities of power, injustice, and harm that people recognize and can see. And you're pretending that they either don't exist.....or that they aren't something that society should use government to fix.

Society overwhelmingly disagrees. Most rational people recognize that any concentration of power left unchecked will be abused. And just because that concentration of power is in private hands doesn't make it any less capable of being abused, or any less exploitative or unjust.

Most people have a sense of fairness that would extend preventing such exploitation and injustice. And under our constitution, within their state, and within the bounds of individual rights.....they most definitely have the authority to prevent it.

Insisting that they shouldn't......isn't a particularly compelling argument.

It's the baker's shop. It's the bakers ingredients. It's the baker's body. How is it just to force him to use his own resources against his will. How is that different than slavery?

It ought to be legal for a person to do (or not do) anything he wishes with his own property, unless and until he violates the property of someone else. Any law counter to this principle must be unjust, as it results in punishing a peaceful person who has harmed no one.

 

[Iceweasel]

Progressives do not respect private property (unless it's their own). They believe businesses are part of the collective in society that government allows them to operate in. That comes from their top down way of thinking. Conservatives tend to see the opposite and see their property and efforts are their own and government can't say no without a compelling reason. Of course there's room for compromise, we don't want some jackoff polluting the water supply to make a buck but as government has grown the balance is way out of whack.

 

[dblack]

It's the baker's shop. It's the bakers ingredients. It's the baker's body. How is it just to force him to use his own resources against his will. How is that different than slavery?

We seem to be adopting the perspective that government is a tool for forcing one's will on others, rather than a means of preventing it.

 

[Centinel]

It's the baker's shop. It's the bakers ingredients. It's the baker's body. How is it just to force him to use his own resources against his will. How is that different than slavery?

We seem to be adopting the perspective that government is a tool for forcing one's will on others, rather than a means of preventing it.

Very good point. Government ought to be protecting, not violating, person and property.

But the authoritarians can't get their way if people are free to act in whatever peaceful manner they choose.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

As somebody pointed out earlier in the thread it will die out over time. It is generally a generational thing.
The constitutional issue is a red herring.
You only have to read some of the comments on this thread to see that the opponents of decency do not see gay people as "normal". From that it is a short hop to denying them the rights that everybody else enjoys.
Once you have de-humanised people then you can pretty much do anything you want to them.I believe that there are several historical precedents to that.
The religious angle is laughable. The Bible has harsh words for many things but I cant recall adulterers being refused service in a cake shop. Its just bigotry.
I suspect that these people have led sheltered lives in out of the way places. Gays from those places have probably gravitated to more diverse communities to escape the poison.
I dont know if it is the same in the US but in the UK we have laws to root out these people from positions in which they can exercise power over Gay people.
Should homophobic teachers be trusted with educating our youth ? Absolutely not.

 

[martybegan]

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!!??

Right around the same time the Gun Control and Abortion Debates end.

For some issues there is no such thing as a Clauswitzian victory, only one side being on the offensive, and the other side being on the defensive.

 

[Iceweasel]

As somebody pointed out earlier in the thread it will die out over time. It is generally a generational thing.
The constitutional issue is a red herring.
You only have to read some of the comments on this thread to see that the opponents of decency do not see gay people as "normal". From that it is a short hop to denying them the rights that everybody else enjoys.
Once you have de-humanised people then you can pretty much do anything you want to them.I believe that there are several historical precedents to that.
The religious angle is laughable. The Bible has harsh words for many things but I cant recall adulterers being refused service in a cake shop. Its just bigotry.
I suspect that these people have led sheltered lives in out of the way places. Gays from those places have probably gravitated to more diverse communities to escape the poison.
I dont know if it is the same in the US but in the UK we have laws to root out these people from positions in which they can exercise power over Gay people.
Should homophobic teachers be trusted with educating our youth ? Absolutely not.

The problem is people like you feel morally superior and what you think should be the standard for all. Nobody dehumanized gays, you made that up to try to buttress your emotional appeal.

Contrary to your beliefs, there really is a normal. Look around. Gays and transgenders are a very small minority. You have laws to root people out who can exercise power over homosexuals? What does that even mean? A religious litmus test? Sounds like something in Cuba, not the UK.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

As somebody pointed out earlier in the thread it will die out over time. It is generally a generational thing.
The constitutional issue is a red herring.
You only have to read some of the comments on this thread to see that the opponents of decency do not see gay people as "normal". From that it is a short hop to denying them the rights that everybody else enjoys.
Once you have de-humanised people then you can pretty much do anything you want to them.I believe that there are several historical precedents to that.
The religious angle is laughable. The Bible has harsh words for many things but I cant recall adulterers being refused service in a cake shop. Its just bigotry.
I suspect that these people have led sheltered lives in out of the way places. Gays from those places have probably gravitated to more diverse communities to escape the poison.
I dont know if it is the same in the US but in the UK we have laws to root out these people from positions in which they can exercise power over Gay people.
Should homophobic teachers be trusted with educating our youth ? Absolutely not.

The problem is people like you feel morally superior and what you think should be the standard for all. Nobody dehumanized gays, you made that up to try to buttress your emotional appeal.

Contrary to your beliefs, there really is a normal. Look around. Gays and transgenders are a very small minority. You have laws to root people out who can exercise power over homosexuals? What does that even mean? A religious litmus test? Sounds like something in Cuba, not the UK.

Nope,you are wrong. I can buy a cake anywhere I want to.So why cant gay people ?

 

[ChrisL]

Those who push Identity Politics will never stop as long as they perceive political advantage in dividing people.

Specific issue irrelevant.
.

Serving everyone equally is not identity politics. Gay people are just people. No reason to be afraid about making them a cake unless you are a little bit on the loopy side. No, your religious beliefs do not afford you any right to be discriminatory when it comes to your business practices.

 

[ChrisL]

It's the baker's shop. It's the bakers ingredients. It's the baker's body. How is it just to force him to use his own resources against his will. How is that different than slavery?

We seem to be adopting the perspective that government is a tool for forcing one's will on others, rather than a means of preventing it.

Very good point. Government ought to be protecting, not violating, person and property.

But the authoritarians can't get their way if people are free to act in whatever peaceful manner they choose.

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

 

[ChrisL]

Those who push Identity Politics will never stop as long as they perceive political advantage in dividing people.

Specific issue irrelevant.
.

The dividers amongst us are usually the religious folks.

 

[Iceweasel]

As somebody pointed out earlier in the thread it will die out over time. It is generally a generational thing.
The constitutional issue is a red herring.
You only have to read some of the comments on this thread to see that the opponents of decency do not see gay people as "normal". From that it is a short hop to denying them the rights that everybody else enjoys.
Once you have de-humanised people then you can pretty much do anything you want to them.I believe that there are several historical precedents to that.
The religious angle is laughable. The Bible has harsh words for many things but I cant recall adulterers being refused service in a cake shop. Its just bigotry.
I suspect that these people have led sheltered lives in out of the way places. Gays from those places have probably gravitated to more diverse communities to escape the poison.
I dont know if it is the same in the US but in the UK we have laws to root out these people from positions in which they can exercise power over Gay people.
Should homophobic teachers be trusted with educating our youth ? Absolutely not.

The problem is people like you feel morally superior and what you think should be the standard for all. Nobody dehumanized gays, you made that up to try to buttress your emotional appeal.

Contrary to your beliefs, there really is a normal. Look around. Gays and transgenders are a very small minority. You have laws to root people out who can exercise power over homosexuals? What does that even mean? A religious litmus test? Sounds like something in Cuba, not the UK.

Nope,you are wrong. I can buy a cake anywhere I want to.So why cant gay people ?

They can. But like someone celebrating their three mistresses someone may refuse to help commemorate the occasion. There's nothing in the constitution to prevent such freedoms, that's why areas have forced accommodations laws onto citizens.

The error is all yours.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You guys do know that you cant catch "Gay" right ?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

As somebody pointed out earlier in the thread it will die out over time. It is generally a generational thing.
The constitutional issue is a red herring.
You only have to read some of the comments on this thread to see that the opponents of decency do not see gay people as "normal". From that it is a short hop to denying them the rights that everybody else enjoys.
Once you have de-humanised people then you can pretty much do anything you want to them.I believe that there are several historical precedents to that.
The religious angle is laughable. The Bible has harsh words for many things but I cant recall adulterers being refused service in a cake shop. Its just bigotry.
I suspect that these people have led sheltered lives in out of the way places. Gays from those places have probably gravitated to more diverse communities to escape the poison.
I dont know if it is the same in the US but in the UK we have laws to root out these people from positions in which they can exercise power over Gay people.
Should homophobic teachers be trusted with educating our youth ? Absolutely not.

The problem is people like you feel morally superior and what you think should be the standard for all. Nobody dehumanized gays, you made that up to try to buttress your emotional appeal.

Contrary to your beliefs, there really is a normal. Look around. Gays and transgenders are a very small minority. You have laws to root people out who can exercise power over homosexuals? What does that even mean? A religious litmus test? Sounds like something in Cuba, not the UK.

Nope,you are wrong. I can buy a cake anywhere I want to.So why cant gay people ?

They can. But like someone celebrating their three mistresses someone may refuse to help commemorate the occasion. There's nothing in the constitution to prevent such freedoms, that's why areas have forced accommodations laws onto citizens.

The error is all yours.

Why do you need to create a ridiculous scenario to support the unsupporable ? Oh..................

 

[Mac1958]

Those who push Identity Politics will never stop as long as they perceive political advantage in dividing people.

Specific issue irrelevant.
.

The dividers amongst us are usually the religious folks.

So you don't see the American Left dividing people into grievance groups of skin color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, income.

Okay.
.

 

[ChrisL]

Those who push Identity Politics will never stop as long as they perceive political advantage in dividing people.

Specific issue irrelevant.
.

The dividers amongst us are usually the religious folks.

So you don't see the American Left dividing people into grievance groups of skin color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, income.

Okay.
.

How are they dividing people? By trying to make the ignorant amongst us see that they are still PEOPLE and HUMANS who deserve to be treated as such? I'm never going to buy into this type of ignorance.

 

[Mac1958]

Those who push Identity Politics will never stop as long as they perceive political advantage in dividing people.

Specific issue irrelevant.
.

The dividers amongst us are usually the religious folks.

So you don't see the American Left dividing people into grievance groups of skin color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, income.

Okay.
.

How are they dividing people? By trying to make the ignorant amongst us see that they are still PEOPLE and HUMANS who deserve to be treated as such? I'm never going to buy into this type of ignorance.

I absolutely believe that you're being absolutely honest when you say you don't see it.

So we agree.
.

 

[SeniorChief_Polock]

President Trump will put the LGBT issue behind us alright. Right into the fucking shitcan, where it belongs. The first step will be overturning that ridiculous gays in the military bullshit. Obama and his team of idiots have been using our brave men and women to experiment with their sick social experiments, much like we exposed troops to radiation in the 1940s. After he rids the military of the fudge packers, it's out into the civilian world. I realize rounding up all of these degenerates for transfer to GITMO is a stretch, but it should be a point worth considering.