Conservatives, what pisses you off the most about homosexuals

[Bob Blaylock]

Wrong.

The Supreme Court has held that public accommodations laws are perfectly Constitutional and consistent with the Commerce Clause, in no manner violating religious liberty.

The Supreme Court once ruled that a tomato is not a fruit.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Maybe you ought to examine your priorities.

Maybe you oughtta learn me?

Bull Ring is that way ---------->

I'll be in the neighborhood. Just whistle. I like to learn.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Interesting.

So how in the hell would you know what an ordinary gay or bisexual person in America needs from their society?

Repression, in all forms, flies in the face of freedom.

Curious


So would it count as repression if I went into a Christian establishment demanded they cater to my sexual orientation, then threatened them with legal and financial ruin if they didn't?

Would I not be trampling on their freedoms too?

Not if they are operating a public business.

Unless while you were placing your order as a customer does in public businesses you hindered their right to attend the place of worship of their choice.

Sigh.

One is prohibited by law, the other isn't.

If the Constitution says I have a right to express my religion in the 1st Amendment, wouldn't that make public accommodation laws unconstitutional? As in, prohibitive of free expression of religion? Business owners must accommodate the public, but the public needn't not accommodate the religious beliefs of the business owner. Is that fair?

From where I sit, the laws crafted to give equal rights to gay people took rights away from Christians wanting to express their faith through entrepreneurial means.

If a law, in spite of its good intent, stops me from practicing my faith when and where I choose to, that is repression.

I posit that public accommodation laws are repressive.

Wrong.

The Supreme Court has held that public accommodations laws are perfectly Constitutional and consistent with the Commerce Clause, in no manner violating religious liberty.

Hold your tongue parrot. Stating facts may make you feel superior, but the intricacies of this issue escape you entirely.

By the way, how does this not violate religious liberty? If I am not allowed to use elements of my faith to implement my business, am I not being prevented from exercising (at liberty) my faith? I call that a violation of my religious liberty.

You may think it is funny, but it isn't.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Freedom is not a zero sum game

It should be.

Either both sides have it... or both sides don't. It isn't fair to give one side all the leverage.

 

[Nosmo King]

in an effort to better understand your political ideology, I'm asking a series of questions.

Please list your primary point of offense about homosexuals.

I'm old enough to remember when their cry was “Don't force your morality on us!”

All that they wanted—or so they claimed—was to be allowed to practice their sick perversions in peace and privacy.

Foolishly, as a society, we granted them that. We gave them that inch, and they took a mile. Now, they force their immorality on all of us, on society as a whole, and even on children. And those of us who object to having this sickness forced on us are told that we're the once with whom something is very wrong.

They are forcing you to be gay?? You should be more careful about who you let walk up behind you.

The LGBT lobby wants to impose on society in general a "tolerant" attitude towards their lifestyle. When a lefty says tolerance, what they mean is submission.

Do you have reasons you are intolerant? What form does your intolerance take? Would you repress homosexuals for a reason, and if so, what is that reason.

Have you found it better to be intolerant of other groups? Should intolerance be considered virtuous?

Society should be intolerant of indecent behavior, yes.

What is the noble purpose behind it ntolerance? What are the virtues rof intolerance? Why is it good?

 

[g5000]

Turning sexual proclivities into a political issue is the problem. Policing people's thoughts and criminalizing dissent is the problem. Some of us don't want to see two dudes blowing one another in public but that sort of thing happens at gay pride parades.

Chicks blowing dudes happens at Mardi Gras parades.

Your point?

 

[g5000]

For the record, I'm not Gay.

Interesting.

So how in the hell would you know what an ordinary gay or bisexual person in America needs from their society?

Repression, in all forms, flies in the face of freedom.

Curious


So would it count as repression if I went into a Christian establishment demanded they cater to my sexual orientation, then threatened them with legal and financial ruin if they didn't?

Would I not be trampling on their freedoms too?

If a so-called Christian establishment lived by biblical standards, then I would support them not baking a cake for homosexuals.

But we all know these so-called Christian establishments do NOT operate their businesses by biblical standards or we would have heard about divorcees not being able to get a cake for their second, third, fourth, or fifth marriages by now.

These so-called Christian businesses are nothing more than hateful hypocrites.

You know it, and I know it. Everyone knows it.

 

[Foxfyre]

What you are demanding is "special rights." You are not entitled to that.

Uh no.

What I am demanding is that both sides get the same treatment under public accommodation laws. That or craft legislation giving accommodations to business owners who are people of faith. Or fashion the laws in such a way that it appeases both sides without taking rights from one or the other.

I never said I was entitled to anything.

What "sides" are these? One is a sexual orientation and one is some religious group. Apples and oranges. I'm a heterosexual. Does this put me on a "side" of some sort? This is just plain silly.

You are not on a "side" because of your sexual orientation whatever that is. You are, however, almost certainly on the side of various issues, causes, moral concepts, various values etc. not because of your sexual orientation but because of who you are, what you believe, what is important to you.

What Templor is arguing for is that EVERYBODY be allowed his/her thoughts, dreams, values, moral evaluations, opinions, etc. regardless of what they are so long as that person is not prohibiting or trying to deny that liberty to anybody else even if that somebody else is on the opposite side of the argument.

Nobody should be forced to physically or materially participate in ANY way or in ANY respect with something he/she chooses not to participate in.

 

[g5000]

It's funny to listen to homophobic Trump supporters talk about morality.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm old enough to remember when their cry was “Don't force your morality on us!”

All that they wanted—or so they claimed—was to be allowed to practice their sick perversions in peace and privacy.

Foolishly, as a society, we granted them that. We gave them that inch, and they took a mile. Now, they force their immorality on all of us, on society as a whole, and even on children. And those of us who object to having this sickness forced on us are told that we're the once with whom something is very wrong.

They are forcing you to be gay?? You should be more careful about who you let walk up behind you.

The LGBT lobby wants to impose on society in general a "tolerant" attitude towards their lifestyle. When a lefty says tolerance, what they mean is submission.

Do you have reasons you are intolerant? What form does your intolerance take? Would you repress homosexuals for a reason, and if so, what is that reason.

Have you found it better to be intolerant of other groups? Should intolerance be considered virtuous?

Society should be intolerant of indecent behavior, yes.

What is the noble purpose behind it ntolerance? What are the cirturof intolerance? Why is it good?

Intolerance for that which is harmful to oneself and/or others is a very good thing. Intolerance for people who do not share our beliefs, opinions, values, behavior, however, when such requires no contribution or partcipation by anybody else, is an entirely different thing and is pretty intolerable in itself.

 

[impuretrash]

It's funny to listen to homophobic Trump supporters talk about morality.

It's funny to hear the "anything goes" left talk about morality.

 

[g5000]

Heterosexuals destroyed morality long before gays began demanding equal rights.


Long, long, long before.

Vote Trump Family Values, but for God's sake don't bake a cake for a homo!

 

[g5000]

It's funny to listen to homophobic Trump supporters talk about morality.

It's funny to hear the "anything goes" left talk about morality.

I'm neither a leftie nor an "anything goes" person.

That's why I hate Trump.

 

[g5000]

 

[g5000]

You can be a serial adulterer and get a cake for your fourth wedding.

But you can't get one for your gay wedding, because gays are not bible-compliant and are destroying marriage.


Ooooooookaaaaaaayyyy...

 

[impuretrash]

This thread is not about Trump or Limbaugh. It's about this:

 

[g5000]

See if you can identify...the people who are destroying the institution of marriage.

I did not want to derail the topic about the Oregon hillbillies who wouldn't bake a cake for a lesbian couple who were getting married, so I started this one.

Ready? It's quiz time!

Is it this couple?

 

[g5000]

How about this family? Newt Gingrich with his first wife and kids:

Newt cheated on his first wife with this woman, who he then made his second wife:

Well, once you get on an adultery roll, it is hard to stop. Newt cheated on his second wife with this hoot owl, and then made her his third wife:

And while Newt was cheating on his second wife, he was impeaching Bill Clinton for a blowjob!

 

[g5000]

How about this couple? The Clintons:

Slick Willy couldn't keep his zipper up, and god only knows how many times he cheated on his wife.

Here are some of them:

 

[g5000]

Here is The Donald with his first wife:

Maybe there was a language barrier, I don't know. But Trump fooled around on her a lot. He said the 80s were his "personal Vietnam", sex-wise.

So he made this mistress his second wife. I think the "Trump Family Values" thing on the cover is a real treat, don't you?

Trump's second wife was an American, but he went back on a big outsourcing kick again, and dumped her so he could marry this woman:

You gotta love immigrants. Doing the hard work Americans won't do. She's gotta let this obese monster 30 years her senior climb on top of her.