Workplace Discrimination based on Seual Orientation and Gender Identity Must End

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Federal PA laws are unconstitutional.

Really Professor?? Based on......?

The bit where it says you can freely exercise your religion.

Only if you have a warped idea of what it means to practice your religion

 

[Tilly]

hahahahhahahahah
15 out of 100 is not a high rate
that's a real, scientific ACCURATE ''study'' !!! anywhere between 15 and 43 % !!???!!
I've just been applying for jobs and there are NO questions about gay/hetero/etc !!!!!!!!
no more questions--you've proved the ''study'' [ ] is very inaccurate/biased/etc

Hey, I don't care if you accept the findings or think that the percentages are high enough to warrant concern. Discrimination exists. The fact that you mentioned no question about sexual orientation on the job applications speaks volumes to you ignorance of the top and what is actually happening

Affirmative Action is discrimination, yet I bet you just love that.

Red Herring Logical Fallacy. I did not take a stand on affirmative action and your just brining it up as a means of avoiding the argument that I'm presenting

Well do you, or do you not, agree with affirmative action?

 

[Tilly]

hahahahhahahahah
15 out of 100 is not a high rate
that's a real, scientific ACCURATE ''study'' !!! anywhere between 15 and 43 % !!???!!
I've just been applying for jobs and there are NO questions about gay/hetero/etc !!!!!!!!
no more questions--you've proved the ''study'' [ ] is very inaccurate/biased/etc

Hey, I don't care if you accept the findings or think that the percentages are high enough to warrant concern. Discrimination exists. The fact that you mentioned no question about sexual orientation on the job applications speaks volumes to you ignorance of the top and what is actually happening

Affirmative Action is discrimination, yet I bet you just love that.

Red Herring Logical Fallacy. I did not take a stand on affirmative action and your just brining it up as a means of avoiding the argument that I'm presenting

Your ‘argument’ (such as it is) is about discrimination. AA is about discrimination. Try again.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If you are a man or a woman and think you are the other gender, you need psychological help and should be kept out of jobs where your mental issues could endanger others or jeopardize the business.

Really?

LGTBQ do appear to be more mentally unstable/mental problems

• LGB youth seriously contemplate suicide at almost three times the rate of heterosexual youth.2
• LGB youth are almost five times as likely to have attempted suicide compared to heterosexual youth.2

more LGTBQ suicide facts:
Facts About Suicide – The Trevor Project

Yes because of people like you

 

[Tilly]

Federal PA laws are unconstitutional.

Really Professor?? Based on......?

The bit where it says you can freely exercise your religion.

Only if you have a warped idea of what it means to practice your religion

You don’t get to tell other people their beliefs and how they practise them are warped - particularly since you believe in limitless genders and are trying to force such idiocy on others.

 

[K9Buck]

While many states have laws against workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, many others do not. For employers to be able to fire someone for posting his or her wedding photos on social media is a travesty. In that Congress is paralyses, and the fact that it will likely take decades longer for some states to come around and offer protections, it is imperative that the federal courts step in now.

Here is the current situation

https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/06/pdf/state_nondiscrimination.pdf

Fortunately, issue is being brought to the forefront by a number of groups , spearheaded by View attachment 183879

47 Businesses, States, EEOC and Civil Rights Groups Urge Federal Court to End Sexual Orientation Employment Discrimination

47 businesses, attorneys general from 15 states and the District of Columbia, the nation’s leading LGBT rights organizations, and several other organizations submitted friend-of-the-court briefs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in support of Lambda Legal client Mark Horton, a gay man whose job offer from a St. Louis-based health management organization was withdrawn after the company’s owners learned Horton is gay.

“

The nation’s top corporations recognize that discrimination is bad for business. Our economy cannot thrive unless all people are welcome both as employees and customers,” said Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, Lambda Legal Staff Attorney. “Companies across all industries know that when an employee like Mark can bring their whole selves to work without fear of retaliation, they can focus on their jobs and succeed. Mark was recruited because of his recognized skills, which is what matters – and not his sexual orientation.”

There is a growing consensus among business leaders, government officials, and scholars, that discrimination against LGBT employees is not just wrong, but counter-productive,” Lambda Legal Employment Fairness Project Director Greg Nevins added.

Links to the various cases appear throughout the article.

Actually, I think America would be better off to do away with anti-discrimination laws. They do more harm than good, and they dissuade small businesses from hiring minorities due to the complications they will encounter IF they have to fire said minority. Besides, supposedly free people should be free to discriminate, if that's why they choose to do. The reality is that it would be rare for an organization to do so.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

hahahahhahahahah
15 out of 100 is not a high rate
that's a real, scientific ACCURATE ''study'' !!! anywhere between 15 and 43 % !!???!!
I've just been applying for jobs and there are NO questions about gay/hetero/etc !!!!!!!!
no more questions--you've proved the ''study'' [ ] is very inaccurate/biased/etc

Hey, I don't care if you accept the findings or think that the percentages are high enough to warrant concern. Discrimination exists. The fact that you mentioned no question about sexual orientation on the job applications speaks volumes to you ignorance of the top and what is actually happening

Affirmative Action is discrimination, yet I bet you just love that.

Red Herring Logical Fallacy. I did not take a stand on affirmative action and your just brining it up as a means of avoiding the argument that I'm presenting

Well do you, or do you not, agree with affirmative action?

I am not going to let you suck me into a topic that is arguably related but different than the issue at had that you obviously dod not want to deal with honestly

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

While many states have laws against workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, many others do not. For employers to be able to fire someone for posting his or her wedding photos on social media is a travesty. In that Congress is paralyses, and the fact that it will likely take decades longer for some states to come around and offer protections, it is imperative that the federal courts step in now.

Here is the current situation

https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/06/pdf/state_nondiscrimination.pdf

Fortunately, issue is being brought to the forefront by a number of groups , spearheaded by View attachment 183879

47 Businesses, States, EEOC and Civil Rights Groups Urge Federal Court to End Sexual Orientation Employment Discrimination

47 businesses, attorneys general from 15 states and the District of Columbia, the nation’s leading LGBT rights organizations, and several other organizations submitted friend-of-the-court briefs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in support of Lambda Legal client Mark Horton, a gay man whose job offer from a St. Louis-based health management organization was withdrawn after the company’s owners learned Horton is gay.

“

The nation’s top corporations recognize that discrimination is bad for business. Our economy cannot thrive unless all people are welcome both as employees and customers,” said Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, Lambda Legal Staff Attorney. “Companies across all industries know that when an employee like Mark can bring their whole selves to work without fear of retaliation, they can focus on their jobs and succeed. Mark was recruited because of his recognized skills, which is what matters – and not his sexual orientation.”

There is a growing consensus among business leaders, government officials, and scholars, that discrimination against LGBT employees is not just wrong, but counter-productive,” Lambda Legal Employment Fairness Project Director Greg Nevins added.

Links to the various cases appear throughout the article.

Actually, I think America would be better off to do away with anti-discrimination laws. They do more harm than good, and they dissuade small businesses from hiring minorities due to the complications they will encounter IF they have to fire said minority. Besides, supposedly free people should be free to discriminate, if that's why they choose to do. The reality is that it would be rare for an organization to do so.

Another Libertarian heard from. Anarchy light.

 

[Tilly]

hahahahhahahahah
15 out of 100 is not a high rate
that's a real, scientific ACCURATE ''study'' !!! anywhere between 15 and 43 % !!???!!
I've just been applying for jobs and there are NO questions about gay/hetero/etc !!!!!!!!
no more questions--you've proved the ''study'' [ ] is very inaccurate/biased/etc

Hey, I don't care if you accept the findings or think that the percentages are high enough to warrant concern. Discrimination exists. The fact that you mentioned no question about sexual orientation on the job applications speaks volumes to you ignorance of the top and what is actually happening

Affirmative Action is discrimination, yet I bet you just love that.

Red Herring Logical Fallacy. I did not take a stand on affirmative action and your just brining it up as a means of avoiding the argument that I'm presenting

Well do you, or do you not, agree with affirmative action?

I am not going to let you suck me into a topic that is arguably related but different than the issue at had that you obviously dod not want to deal with honestly

You keep saying you are against discrimination and it MUST STOP!
But what you really mean is you support discrimination unless you perceive it to be against gays?
OK. Thanks. Can’t say I’m surprised!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

There is nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment—nor anywhere else in the Constitution—which supports your position.

The 14th extends the bill of rights to the states meaning that state law must comply with the bill of rights and that the tenth is not to be interpreted to mean that the states can violate federally mandated civil rights . I am fully aware of the fact that some of you entertain a "Texturalist of Originalist interpretation of the constitution ala Scalia but most constitutional scholars would agree with me.. Try getting 5 Scalias on SCOTUS and you might get some place with that horseshit

Nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment overrides the Tenth. Nothing in it authorizes the federal government to usurp any power not explicitly delegated to it in the Constitution.

Nothing in the Fourth Amendment, nor anywhere else in the Constitution, authorizes the federal government to dictate to any individual, organization, or business, in any circumstances, with whom one may or must associate.

And courts ruling that the Constitution says what it clearly does not say do not make it so; they only demonstrate how corrupt the court system has become.

Here is more:

T

he process of using the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to state governments is called "incorporation.". The process the US Supreme Court has chosen to follow… is called "selective incorporation," because the Bill of Rights is being applied to the states on Clause or Amendment at a time.
Which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ended up …

14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress)
Primary Documents in American History
14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed. In addition, it forbids states from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” By directly mentioning the role of the states, the 14th Amendment greatly expanded the protection of civil rights to all Americans and is cited in more litigation than any other amendment.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You know, I might actually have some respect for you…

Spare me the ridiculous, patronizing lies.

I am an honest man, and you have made it clear that you have nothing but the most extreme contempt for honesty.

I am a man with religious faith, and you have made it clear that you have nothing but the most extreme contempt for religious faith.

I hold to basic standards of morality and decency, and you have made it clear that you have nothing but extreme contempt for such standards.

There is nothing about me that you would respect, and to be respected by such immoral, evil subhuman filth as you would be an insult.

The only way you would respect me would be for me to be a sexually-perverted, mentally-diseased, morally-degenerate scumbag such as yourself.

…if you if you did some research to back up your rants, instead of just falling back on logical fallacies in the form of appeals to ignorance as in " it's true because I said so and you have to just swallow it whole

This is what I have. Get off your anti intellectual, lazy ass and find something to counter it:

Supremacy Clause Versus the Tenth Amendment - United States Constitution

A series of cases followed in which the Court refused to construct any state immunity from regulation when Congress acted pursuant to a delegated power.32 The culmination of this series had been thought to be Maryland v. Wirtz,33 in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of applying the federal wage and hour law to nonprofessional employees of state-operated schools and hospitals. In an opinion by Justice Harlan, the Court saw a clear connection between working conditions in these institutions and interstate commerce. Labor conditions in schools and hospitals affect commerce; strikes and work stoppages involving such employees interrupt and burden the flow across state lines of goods purchased by state agencies, and the wages paid have a substantial effect. The Commerce Clause being thus applicable, the Justice wrote, Congress was not constitutionally required to "yield to state sovereignty in the performance of governmental functions. This argument simply is not tenable. There is no general 'doctrine implied in the Federal Constitution that "the two governments, national and state, are each to exercise its powers so as not to interfere with the free and full exercise of the powers of the other."' . . . t is clear that the Federal Government when acting within a delegated power, may override countervailing state interests whether these be described as 'governmental' or 'proprietary' in character.... [V]alid general regulations of commerce do not cease to be regulations of commerce because a State is involved. If a State is engaging in economic activities that are validly regulated by the Federal Government when engaged in by private persons, the State too may be forced to conform its activities to federal regulation."34

And this:

The Importance of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitu

The importance of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is such that some have called it the amendment that “completed the Constitution.” When it was ratified on July 9th, 1868, the amendment became one of legislative cornerstones of the Reconstruction Era, a time in which the Radical Republicans, led by John A. Bingham and Thaddeus Stevens, promulgated a legislative program focused on providing racial equality before the law. Among the laws passed in the Reconstruction Era, the Fourteenth Amendment was one of the most controversial, with one Republican congressman, Representative A.J. Rogers of New Jersey saying that it was, “…but another attempt to…consolidate in the Federal Government, by the action of Congress, all the powers claimed by the Czar of Russia, or the Emperor of the French.” The Fourteenth Amendment did indeed constitute the largest expansion of federal power since the ratification of the Constitution. The amendment was not born in a vacuum; the reason for this expansion of power, and for the amendment as a whole, is found in the broader context of the mid nineteenth-century South and the pervasive oppression of the free black population residing there. In considering the nature of Southern race relations, both before and after the Civil War, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment came to believe that nothing short of a radical expansion of the powers of the federal government over the states would enable them to “promote the general welfare” of, and “secure the Blessings of Liberty” to the African-American population of the United States.

Your [sic] up
In order to properly understand the original intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is necessary to understand its historical contex [sic]...

I do not need reams of “expert” opinion written to tell me how the Constitution does not mean what it very clearly, explicitly says.

The Tenth Amendment is clear—those powers not delegated in the Constitution to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people. This means that of the Constitution does not explicitly state that the federal government has a certain power, then the federal government does not have that power.

Nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment, nor anywhere else in the Constitution, changes this.

Nothing anywhere in the Constitution gives the federal government any power to violate any individual's or organization's freedom of association. Therefore, per the Tenth Amendment, the federal government has no such power, and is acting illegally in every instance where it attempts to exercise it.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

hahahahhahahahah
15 out of 100 is not a high rate
that's a real, scientific ACCURATE ''study'' !!! anywhere between 15 and 43 % !!???!!
I've just been applying for jobs and there are NO questions about gay/hetero/etc !!!!!!!!
no more questions--you've proved the ''study'' [ ] is very inaccurate/biased/etc

Hey, I don't care if you accept the findings or think that the percentages are high enough to warrant concern. Discrimination exists. The fact that you mentioned no question about sexual orientation on the job applications speaks volumes to you ignorance of the top and what is actually happening

Affirmative Action is discrimination, yet I bet you just love that.

He also defends Islamists.

Consistency is not his strong suit.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

same crap--sure there is discrimination but not nearly as much as you would have us believe

Thank you for admitting that discrimination exists but t

same crap--sure there is discrimination but not nearly as much as you would have us believe

The issue is not how much discrimination there is but the fact that it does exist, as you nobly admit. So, how much discrimination must there be before we take action? How much discrimination against straight white men must there be before we do something about it? If there was only one case of discrimination and the victim was you- would that be enough?

just one? no--not enough to try to make a big deal and change laws
very hard for me to believe there is a major chronic problem of people getting screwed over at work because they are gay
...lot's of people don't get advancements/bonuses/raises/etc ..takes a lot of evidence to prove a gay would be screwed over for gayness

It will be like the gaystapo v Christian Wedding Cake Bakers all over again. They want to destroy people’s livelihoods on the basis that they simply try to be faithful to their religious convictions, and they’ll be looking to do the same anytime an incompetent gay is legitimately fired.

I have no problems with homosexuality, my friend, and I think you know that. I have had employees who were gay who I thought were terrific and who I respected. Where I draw the line, and where you and I agree, is that I detest identity politics because it is little more than a system of privilege. Too often, a person being in a protected class takes advantage of it and I REALLY don't want a system where people are so protected that they can engage in any sort of behavior they wish and then claim they are being discriminated against when people react to the behavior.

If I have a black employee who has a shitty attitude, I want the ability to fire them because of their shitty attitude. If a gay employee has a shitty attitude, I want to be able to fire them due to their shitty attitude. Their identity should not be a bludgeon used to take away MY rights any more than I should have the right to treat them like shit because of their identity.

The pendulum has swung so far that the mere claim of being a member of an oppressed minority now gives people carte blanche to engage in behaviors they would not be allowed to engage in were it not for their identity.

 

[Leo123]

no. it's that what other consenting adults do is none of your freaking business. someone who talks about sex as being only for procreation clearly doesn't get any

bitter much?

I never said it was my business I am stating my opinion. I never said sex was 'only about procreation.' However sex between a male and female causes procreation and that is how human beings (and most every other species on the face of the Earth) survive. Homosexuals can have their fun I could really give a shit less, just don't try to tell me that disagreeing is some kind of discrimination or Constitutional violation and that I have to accept is as normal.

 

[K9Buck]

Another Libertarian heard from. Anarchy light.

Once upon a time anti-discrimination laws were needed. That is no longer the case.

Why do you believe we need to continue to expend big money suing bakers that don't want to make cakes?

 

[K9Buck]

more LGTBQ suicide facts:
Facts About Suicide – The Trevor Project

Bullying and suicide are horrific things. Nobody should be bullied for any reason.

That said, gays are notorious for bullying others. The gay community has an inordinate number of nasty, hateful bullies among their ranks. Many of them have no compunction about calling you out and smearing you if you don't adhere to their gay fascism. Yea, they are some nasty people.

 

[Leo123]

Discrimination of ANY kind is wrong if they arent hurting anyone. But people should have the right to discriminate.
We are all individuals. Not a collective.

Yes we are a collective and as such we have determined that discrimination is NOT ONLY wrong but that it should not be allowed. The idea that people have a right to discriminate is absurd and abhorrent. People have a right NOT TO BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.

I do not accept your neo-Marxist 'collective' language. America is a society of individuals who work individually to enhance their lives. If a faggot tries to force their aberrant lifestyle on the overwhelmingly heterosexual population that population has the duty to discriminate against them for the sake of human preservation.

 

[Tilly]

same crap--sure there is discrimination but not nearly as much as you would have us believe

Thank you for admitting that discrimination exists but t

same crap--sure there is discrimination but not nearly as much as you would have us believe

The issue is not how much discrimination there is but the fact that it does exist, as you nobly admit. So, how much discrimination must there be before we take action? How much discrimination against straight white men must there be before we do something about it? If there was only one case of discrimination and the victim was you- would that be enough?

just one? no--not enough to try to make a big deal and change laws
very hard for me to believe there is a major chronic problem of people getting screwed over at work because they are gay
...lot's of people don't get advancements/bonuses/raises/etc ..takes a lot of evidence to prove a gay would be screwed over for gayness

It will be like the gaystapo v Christian Wedding Cake Bakers all over again. They want to destroy people’s livelihoods on the basis that they simply try to be faithful to their religious convictions, and they’ll be looking to do the same anytime an incompetent gay is legitimately fired.

I have no problems with homosexuality, my friend, and I think you know that. I have had employees who were gay who I thought were terrific and who I respected. Where I draw the line, and where you and I agree, is that I detest identity politics because it is little more than a system of privilege. Too often, a person being in a protected class takes advantage of it and I REALLY don't want a system where people are so protected that they can engage in any sort of behavior they wish and then claim they are being discriminated against when people react to the behavior.

If I have a black employee who has a shitty attitude, I want the ability to fire them because of their shitty attitude. If a gay employee has a shitty attitude, I want to be able to fire them due to their shitty attitude. Their identity should not be a bludgeon used to take away MY rights any more than I should have the right to treat them like shit because of their identity.

The pendulum has swung so far that the mere claim of being a member of an oppressed minority now gives people carte blanche to engage in behaviors they would not be allowed to engage in were it not for their identity.

Exactly, Dogmaphobe. I don’t have a problem with homosexuals either, I DO have a problem with the militant gaystapo type who just can’t live and let live and are busy trying to bludgeon everyone over the head to get them thoroughly into line and more.
Of course the gaystapo make the most noise and therefore seem to be over represented among homosexuals, when they almost certainly aren’t.

The pendulum has indeed swung too far, and is still swinging in the wrong direction, and I’m mostly sick of them demanding respect and understanding when they give none.
I am not a religious person at all, but one would have to be deaf, dumb and blind to miss their relentless assault on Christianity whilst giving homo-deadly Islam a total pass.
It’s totally hypocritical and cowardly.

The way they go out of their way to destroy the lives of Christian bakers, photographers, dressmakers, Pastors etc who have the audacity to decide they themselves also have rights - ie the right NOT to be forced to disavow THIER own beliefs, and when there is no difficulty whatsoever of the gaystapo availing themselves of the service they want from non Christians, is pure nastiness and is everything but respectful of what others believe.

They already share the same laws everyone else has, yet they seek a succession of new legislation with the aim that it will become almost impossible for people to interact with them on an equal footing and with their own sincerely held beliefs intact.

Added to the fact they align themselves with people who not only believe they can be - and therefore are - any gender they choose (the number of which in PPs estimation is INFINITE) they insist we collude with this madness and endorse it by forcing us to use their preferred pronoun (which can change hourly) under penalty of law.

The militant fascist LGBTQ etc have absolutely no concept of live and let live, nor do they have the same respect for other peoples beliefs that they demand for their own.

People like PP and those of his ilk do the LGBTQetc a massive disservice imho, because they are completely intolerant, heartless, and cowardly in choosing to specifically and relentlessly attack and destroy those whom they perceive to be weak targets - Christians, whilst totally giving a pass to those who most certainly do not ‘love the sinner’, as evidenced by their treatment of homosexuals all over the islamic world.

As a result of their relentless and unnecessary attacks, the militant LGBTQetc like PP, are now pushing people who would normally have been supportive or simply indifferent away.
Rant over

 

[Marion Morrison]

same crap--sure there is discrimination but not nearly as much as you would have us believe

Thank you for admitting that discrimination exists but t

same crap--sure there is discrimination but not nearly as much as you would have us believe

The issue is not how much discrimination there is but the fact that it does exist, as you nobly admit. So, how much discrimination must there be before we take action? How much discrimination against straight white men must there be before we do something about it? If there was only one case of discrimination and the victim was you- would that be enough?

just one? no--not enough to try to make a big deal and change laws
very hard for me to believe there is a major chronic problem of people getting screwed over at work because they are gay
...lot's of people don't get advancements/bonuses/raises/etc ..takes a lot of evidence to prove a gay would be screwed over for gayness

It will be like the gaystapo v Christian Wedding Cake Bakers all over again. They want to destroy people’s livelihoods on the basis that they simply try to be faithful to their religious convictions, and they’ll be looking to do the same anytime an incompetent gay is legitimately fired.

I have no problems with homosexuality, my friend, and I think you know that. I have had employees who were gay who I thought were terrific and who I respected. Where I draw the line, and where you and I agree, is that I detest identity politics because it is little more than a system of privilege. Too often, a person being in a protected class takes advantage of it and I REALLY don't want a system where people are so protected that they can engage in any sort of behavior they wish and then claim they are being discriminated against when people react to the behavior.

If I have a black employee who has a shitty attitude, I want the ability to fire them because of their shitty attitude. If a gay employee has a shitty attitude, I want to be able to fire them due to their shitty attitude. Their identity should not be a bludgeon used to take away MY rights any more than I should have the right to treat them like shit because of their identity.

The pendulum has swung so far that the mere claim of being a member of an oppressed minority now gives people carte blanche to engage in behaviors they would not be allowed to engage in were it not for their identity.

Exactly, Dogmaphobe. I don’t have a problem with homosexuals either, I DO have a problem with the militant gaystapo type who just can’t live and let live and are busy trying to bludgeon everyone over the head to get them thoroughly into line and more.
Of course the gaystapo make the most noise and therefore seem to be over represented among homosexuals, when they almost certainly aren’t.

The pendulum has indeed swung too far, and is still swinging in the wrong direction, and I’m mostly sick of them demanding respect and understanding when they give none.
I am not a religious person at all, but one would have to be deaf, dumb and blind to miss their relentless assault on Christianity whilst giving homo-deadly Islam a total pass.
It’s totally hypocritical and cowardly.

The way they go out of their way to destroy the lives of Christian bakers, photographers, dressmakers, Pastors etc who have the audacity to decide they themselves also have rights - ie the right NOT to be forced to disavow THIER own beliefs, and when there is no difficulty whatsoever of the gaystapo availing themselves of the service they want from non Christians, is pure nastiness and is everything but respectful of what others believe.

They already share the same laws everyone else has, yet they seek a succession of new legislation with the aim that it will become almost impossible for people to interact with them on an equal footing and with their own sincerely held beliefs intact.

Added to the fact they align themselves with people who not only believe they can be - and therefore are - any gender they choose (the number of which in PPs estimation is INFINITE) they insist we collude with this madness and endorse it by forcing us to use their preferred pronoun (which can change hourly) under penalty of law.

The militant fascist LGBTQ etc have absolutely no concept of live and let live, nor do they have the same respect for other peoples beliefs that they demand for their own.

People like PP and those of his ilk do the LGBTQetc a massive disservice imho, because they are completely intolerant, heartless, and cowardly in choosing to specifically and relentlessly attack and destroy those whom they perceive to be weak targets - Christians, whilst totally giving a pass to those who most certainly do not ‘love the sinner’, as evidenced by their treatment of homosexuals all over the islamic world.

As a result of their relentless and unnecessary attacks, the militant LGBTQetc like PP, are now pushing people who would normally have been supportive or simply indifferent away.
Rant over

TPP got into that habit while we had a queer president. Most homosexuals see what the gay militants are doing and shake their heads. In the end, the militants make everyone mad at them and the non-gaystapo ones, too.

I don't care what you do in your bedroom, no really, I don't wanna hear about it. Yet here comes TPP saying "you have to accept my lifestyle".

That's where you're wrong. No, people do not.

You'd do better by not pushing, there will be more pushback now.

 

[jillian]

no. it's that what other consenting adults do is none of your freaking business. someone who talks about sex as being only for procreation clearly doesn't get any

bitter much?

I never said it was my business I am stating my opinion. I never said sex was 'only about procreation.' However sex between a male and female causes procreation and that is how human beings (and most every other species on the face of the Earth) survive. Homosexuals can have their fun I could really give a shit less, just don't try to tell me that disagreeing is some kind of discrimination or Constitutional violation and that I have to accept is as normal.

if you don't think people should have equal rights. if you spend your time denigrating people, then you are trying to make it your business.

so it's about procreation? women who can't have children shouldn't get married? older people shouldn't get married?

marriage is an emotional and economic partnership. it has little to do with "procreation".

I'm afraid you really don't get to "disagree" about what other people are born. it's not up for "agreement". that being the case, they are either treated equally or you oppress, abuse and subjugate them. decent people don't do that.