Finally someone said it:Why should Group demand minority status based on what they do in the bedroom

[Divine Wind]

So how come nobody is going after the FEDERAL law that requires a business owner to serve Christians, women, blacks, etc?

I wish they would. It's symptomatic of a overly dominating authoritarian state to dictate to the point of getting into the pants of "We, the People". Once that power is given to such a government, it's very difficult to control it.

Example; many Christian RWers believe the dominant religion of the land should rule and be part of our law. I'm sure you've noticed these efforts. The problem with that is, if they go their way, it sets a precedent, so that whatever a future dominant religion may be, it' rules. This would probably be Catholicism but could also be Islam. Probably not the future these Evangelicals are envisioning. The same goes for any group that seeks to chip away at the Constitution for short-term goals.

 

[emilynghiem]

WHAT special rights ? An example please.

Dear Timmy:
Example A:
Houston passed a bathroom policy where Transgender people could not even be questioned in the restroom or that could count as harassment and incur a fine up to $5,000.

No other group would have this special rights protection against harassment where someone couldn't question them in the restroom.

So other people lose their free speech to ask questions to make sure it is safe for someone of male appearance to be in the women's restroom.

So the LGBT have protected status that other people don't have, at the expense of the equal civil rights of other members of the public.

Example B:
When states passed laws banning same sex marriage and only recognizing traditional marriage, that violated constitutional laws and was struck down.

But when laws were passed imposing same sex marriage through the state govt, against the beliefs of people this violates, that is enforced as law.

Thus the beliefs of LGBT are enforced through govt against the beliefs of those who are in conflict; but when the beliefs in traditional marriage were imposed in conflict with LGBT, that was struck down.

Again, along with PENALTIES against business owners who can be forced to attend gay weddings against their beliefs if this is a recognized status.

So that is discriminating against people for their beliefs.

A. the people OF LGBT beliefs are favored by govt
B. the people of other beliefs are penalized by govt

that is taking sides, and not neutral.

If govt was fair, it would be disallowed for groups to be forced
to do business together who have conflicting beliefs,
so that both are equally protected from the other.

Again, like Hindus and Muslims. Govt would never be used to defend one belief from persecution by the other, where one side is penalized and the other side is defended as a special class. Common sense would tell us to separate these groups if they disagree so much, mind their own business, and don't impose on each other if they can't work it out civilly. But not force one belief on the other THROUGH GOVT.

Actually . Having. "Men" and "women" bathrooms is special status . You lose .

No, Timmy because the LGBT still recognize
the same Male/Female segregation or else they would
ask for all neutral restrooms. But they aren't.

They are asking for LGBT men to use the women's
restroom instead of the men's. They are asking for that distinction.

Many schools and many cases have settled this issue
by gender neutral and unisex facilities.

If that were accepted by the LGBT, we wouldn't have this issue!!!

What does LGBT stand for exactly?

LGBT = Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender.
Asclepias

But LGBT Party stands for
Libertarian Green Bipartisan Tea Party.

These two should not be confused.

But if you want to include Confused people, then
use LGBTQ, for Questioning added at the end!

 

[emilynghiem]

I think to cover all cases, why not offer a policy to people in business relations (whether employer/employee or company/customer) to sign agreements in advance on mediation and arbitration to avoid lawsuits and costs.

Either people agree to resolve any disputes freely by mediation and consensus, or in cases they can't resolve, submit to arbitration where all decisions are final; or agree NOT TO DO BUSINESS TOGETHER and not to hold either party at fault.

If these conditions cannot be met or agreed on in advance, then agree to REFRAIN FROM RELATIONSHIPS.

This is like a marriage relationship, where you either agree to work out all issues and stay married, or you DON'T GET INVOLVED IF YOU CAN'T WORK THINGS OUT WITH EACH OTHER.

People can choose who to conduct business with, based on whether they can agree to sign such an agreement. And avoid people they can't sustain working relations with. to avoid lawsuits that cost public resources.

Divine.Wind

Why force businesses to sign anything? It's their business. If they don't like an employee, they shouldn't be forced to keep them or hire them. It doesn't matter if they are gay, Christian, female, whatever. Requiring "special" rules to protect women, gays, races, age, etc is bullshit. If you and I don't like how a business is run, we're free to protest it, boycott it or avoid it. Why all this crap about signing papers, laws and such?

Yes, Divine.Wind
And THIS WOULD BE the best way to protect businesses from lawsuits over such conflicts.

The business makes sure all employees or customers sign waivers agreeing to either mediation/consensus to resolve conflicts, or arbitration as chosen by the business. So any conflicts either get resolved, or the agreement says they don't do business together.

If they don't agree to such conditions with that business, then they stay away. SO the business only deals with customers or employees who agree to resolve conflicts without legal action or expense, or don't interact at all.

Get it? You don't even have to spell out what the conflicts are. Either people agree to resolve them, whatever conflicts arise, or stay away from each other and dissolve relations, cease and desist.

so yes, the business can tell the person **up front** if they are not going to be able to resolve conflicts and thus cannot conduct relations with that person.

Sorry, but not a fan of lawyers. The simpler we make the law the better.

If a business owner doesn't want to hire women, gays, etc, they shouldn't be required to do so. Having laws about it just mucks up the legal system.

So how come nobody is going after the FEDERAL law that requires a business owner to serve Christians, women, blacks, etc?

Seawytch:
Yes, prolife and proGod advocates HAVE been suing, lobbying and legislating
for laws to quit discriminating against prolife Christians, MOTHERHOOD, and beliefs in prayer creation and Bibles.

They even went overboard and passed unconstitutional legislation protecting traditional marriage
and/or banning same sex marriage in attempts to defend their beliefs.

They've been lobbying against abortion and the mandates on birth control.
This HAS been condemned as dangerous to women's lives and health.

Where have you been?

This has been going on and multiplied the backlash against Christians.

As for Blacks, YES the Conservative opponents of Democratic Black politics
HAVE BEEN DECRYING EXPLOITATION OF the poor Black vote.
DENOUNCING BLM and Black victimhood politics
as enabling and rewarding criminal behavior keeping Blacks poor and dependent on govt welfare.

This is blamed on govt, party and media run by liberal agenda.
So that's the equivalent of what you are asking.
And yes it has been going on and still is!!!

 

[emilynghiem]

I think to cover all cases, why not offer a policy to people in business relations (whether employer/employee or company/customer) to sign agreements in advance on mediation and arbitration to avoid lawsuits and costs.

Either people agree to resolve any disputes freely by mediation and consensus, or in cases they can't resolve, submit to arbitration where all decisions are final; or agree NOT TO DO BUSINESS TOGETHER and not to hold either party at fault.

If these conditions cannot be met or agreed on in advance, then agree to REFRAIN FROM RELATIONSHIPS.

This is like a marriage relationship, where you either agree to work out all issues and stay married, or you DON'T GET INVOLVED IF YOU CAN'T WORK THINGS OUT WITH EACH OTHER.

People can choose who to conduct business with, based on whether they can agree to sign such an agreement. And avoid people they can't sustain working relations with. to avoid lawsuits that cost public resources.

Divine.Wind

Why force businesses to sign anything? It's their business. If they don't like an employee, they shouldn't be forced to keep them or hire them. It doesn't matter if they are gay, Christian, female, whatever. Requiring "special" rules to protect women, gays, races, age, etc is bullshit. If you and I don't like how a business is run, we're free to protest it, boycott it or avoid it. Why all this crap about signing papers, laws and such?

Yes, Divine.Wind
And THIS WOULD BE the best way to protect businesses from lawsuits over such conflicts.

The business makes sure all employees or customers sign waivers agreeing to either mediation/consensus to resolve conflicts, or arbitration as chosen by the business. So any conflicts either get resolved, or the agreement says they don't do business together.

If they don't agree to such conditions with that business, then they stay away. SO the business only deals with customers or employees who agree to resolve conflicts without legal action or expense, or don't interact at all.

Get it? You don't even have to spell out what the conflicts are. Either people agree to resolve them, whatever conflicts arise, or stay away from each other and dissolve relations, cease and desist.

so yes, the business can tell the person **up front** if they are not going to be able to resolve conflicts and thus cannot conduct relations with that person.

Sorry, but not a fan of lawyers. The simpler we make the law the better.

If a business owner doesn't want to hire women, gays, etc, they shouldn't be required to do so. Having laws about it just mucks up the legal system.

Again Divine.Wind
To make it as SIMPLE as possible, just cite the "irreconcileable conflicts" as grounds for ceasing relationships with the business.
No need to spell out WHICH conflicts (over race, gender, etc.) or factors are protected, or why, or under what conditions.

If both parties are not equally willing to settle a conflict,
that's grounds enough to part company without further legal action or expense.

So that description covers "all possible cases of conflict" without having to spell them out.
(Which is how the other laws got in trouble, by trying to spell out terms that people contest on both sides.)

 

[Seawytch]

So how come nobody is going after the FEDERAL law that requires a business owner to serve Christians, women, blacks, etc?

I wish they would. It's symptomatic of a overly dominating authoritarian state to dictate to the point of getting into the pants of "We, the People". Once that power is given to such a government, it's very difficult to control it.

Example; many Christian RWers believe the dominant religion of the land should rule and be part of our law. I'm sure you've noticed these efforts. The problem with that is, if they go their way, it sets a precedent, so that whatever a future dominant religion may be, it' rules. This would probably be Catholicism but could also be Islam. Probably not the future these Evangelicals are envisioning. The same goes for any group that seeks to chip away at the Constitution for short-term goals.

If wishes were horses even beggars would ride.

They don't go after Federal law because it's not about PA laws for most of the folks bitching about them, it's about hating gays.

 

[Divine Wind]

If wishes were horses even beggars would ride.

They don't go after Federal law because it's not about PA laws for most of the folks bitching about them, it's about hating gays.

Keep wishing. Maybe you'll get to ride that hate horse all the way to the barn.

No doubt there are assholes who hate gays and wish to dictate how others should live just like there are asshole Liberals who wish to dictate what others should believe and how they should think.

 

[emilynghiem]

So how come nobody is going after the FEDERAL law that requires a business owner to serve Christians, women, blacks, etc?

I wish they would. It's symptomatic of a overly dominating authoritarian state to dictate to the point of getting into the pants of "We, the People". Once that power is given to such a government, it's very difficult to control it.

Example; many Christian RWers believe the dominant religion of the land should rule and be part of our law. I'm sure you've noticed these efforts. The problem with that is, if they go their way, it sets a precedent, so that whatever a future dominant religion may be, it' rules. This would probably be Catholicism but could also be Islam. Probably not the future these Evangelicals are envisioning. The same goes for any group that seeks to chip away at the Constitution for short-term goals.

If wishes were horses even beggars would ride.

They don't go after Federal law because it's not about PA laws for most of the folks bitching about them, it's about hating gays.

Dear Seawytch
Again the double standard.
Even if the only interest that Atheists have in suing to remove Christian references in schools
is because of personal issues even hatred of Christianity,
nevertheless,
it is still a "violation of separation of church and state"
to have school or public institution IMPOSE prayer, whether these participants
agree or disagree, love or even hate Christianity.

Principles are principles

If you and I are going to be CONSISTENT about not imposing
faith based beliefs through public institutions and govt,
then faith based beliefs about orientation and gender identity
should be treated EQUALLY as faith based beliefs whether
religious or political etc.

Religious freedom should apply to all people,
regardless if we agree or disagree love or hate that belief.

If people don't consent but have religious differences
we have the right to protect them all equally - from each other.

Your beliefs in favor of homosexual and transgender tolerance
are equally protected as beliefs that these are behaviors and not accepted.
NEITHER sides beliefs regarding orientation and gender identity
should be endorsed by govt at the expense of the other -- or else that
is govt taking sides and establishing and favoring one belief MORE than the other.
So that is not equal protection but violating establishment and discrimination laws.

People are not required to tolerate a Christian prayer or Christian marriage
ENDORSED by govt under PENALTY for refusing to comply participate and approve!

So the same with imposing same sex marriage or LGBT beliefs
on people through Govt under penalty of law if they reject these.

People have the right to reject Chrisitianity and it's considered religious freedom to be
atheist or otherwise nonchristian.

You aren't penalized for that. So why penalize people who
don't believe homosexual or transgender orientation is natural?
That's faith based and nobody should be forced by law to change their beliefs.

Even if it is hate based you have the right to choose
as part of religious freedom govt cannot regulate much less penalize.

Atheists can hate Christianity and that doesn't dismiss
their right to petition to remove crosses or references to
prayer and creation etc. from public institutions.

As long as it is faith based and they argue they can't be forced to accept that
faith based concept or principle, then it can't be imposed by govt or public institutions.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Dear TheOldSchool
Even so, even if they are persecuted as Christians and Muslims
have been, does that give them (or Christians or Muslims) the right
to demand special recognition and treatment by govt?

So because Christians are persecuted, they can demand that govt recognize they have been harassed for their beliefs, and demand that govt PUNISH anyone who rejects Christianity? Really?

Is that an appropriate response?

I'm not saying it's acceptable to persecute anyone,
but I'm saying that ALL sides and beliefs should be respected and protected.

But that's not what is happening with govt and laws enforced.
People are being punished for their beliefs in conflict with LGBT,
instead of protecting all people of all beliefs equally. The govt is abused to take sides.

If we did this with Hindus and Muslims, and sided/defending the Hindus
while punishing the Muslims for rejecting them, that would clearly be
unconstitutional for govt to enforce any such onesided policy.

Why are we taking sides with bathroom policy or marriage policies?
If people don't agree why is the govt forcing one policy for all people?

*****HAPPY SMILE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

To be honest those two statements are full of ignorance. No one is demanding minority status based on what they do in the bedroom. Its based on their sexual preference which is obvious in alot of cases due to social norms.

Then it shouldn't matter how other mature willing companions wish to arrange their marriages. No matter how many or who so long as all involved are mature willing companions. The government needs to get out of everyone's bedrooms.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[emilynghiem]

whos discriminating on what people do in the bedroom ?

Dear Timmy:
he's saying that people shouldn't have special rights
just because they are gay or transgender.

Biological men having the right to use the women's and girl's facilities,
and to PENALIZE schools or public institutions who refuse
this access, is giving them special rights over the rights of others
who feel violated and unsafe.

So the convenience and preference of those who WANT that LGBT policy is placed ABOVE the equal rights of others who want a different bathroom policy. Thus that is discriminating where people with LGBT beliefs are favored while those who believe in traditional policy are
punished and harassed for their beliefs, which should be treated equally.

Right?

Shouldn't govt be NEUTRAL and not take sides putting one
before the other, and even PENALIZING people for their beliefs?

Why do religious groups get special rights?

Dear bodecea
That's why I am saying ALL Beliefs (that are faith based)
should be treated equally by law, people of ALL creeds.

If we only protect religious freedom for people
who "belong to an organized labeled group or recognized religious denomination"
that's not equal protection for people like
Atheists or LGBT who aren't recognized as a "religious" group.

I really wish we could teach everyone to respect
the consent/free choice of others, especially
regarding BELIEFS whether these are religious, political,
spiritual or secular beliefs. Then we wouldn't fight so
hard to defend this one or that one against "discrimination by creed."

 

[emilynghiem]

While a lot of the reaction to LGBT politics from the religious right goes "too far" with unnecessary rejection and judgment against people personally, I think this man's statement sticks to the core issue of "NOT protecting someone based on their sexual behavior."

The arguments defending LGBT, and Transgender in particular, aren't focused on behavior but spiritually how people believe and identify as individuals, which is the equivalent of their own expression of faith and beliefs.

But for those who see this externally as an issue of "outward appearance
and behavior," I think this guy hits the target right on, and with as diplomatic
and clear explanation as possible, given the highly contentious subject matter.

I think he does very well with such a difficult issue to address and explain:


World Congress of Families in Kenya: Africans 'Should Be Horrified' at LGBT Actions in USA -- 'It's Insane'

"We’re not saying that these people have to be persecuted," said Feder, an author and former Boston Herald columnist. "We’re not saying that you can’t have compassion for them -- of course, you can. But you can’t let this be the role model. And you can’t allow Christians and other religious people to be persecuted because they refuse to go along with this agenda.”

“You know, other people have demanded minority status based on their religion, based on their race," said Feder, a graduate of Boston University Law School.

"This is the first group that demands minority status based on what they do in their bedrooms. And that’s what makes it so dangerous."

"And if you look at the United States, I mean if Africans look seriously at the United States, they should be horrified by what’s going on," he said.
Turning to the transgender issue, Feder said, “We now have the latest created gender, transgender. Men who feel they’re actually women, women who feel they’re actually men. The latest front in the culture war is bathrooms, transgender bathrooms."

"The idea is, if you’re a man who feels you’re actually a woman, you should be able to use a woman’s bathroom, changing room, showers," said Feder. "This is absolutely insane."

"What about the privacy, the modesty of women and girls?" he said. "But in our legal system that’s irrelevant because the rights of so-called transgenders are far more important.”

Once again, conservatives confuse sex with love

You should be ashamed Emily. Are you defined by what you do in the bedroom?

Dear rightwinger
What they are saying is NOT define a special class of people
by "what they do in the bedroom" They would AGREE with you!

As for my beliefs, I hold that homosexual orientation/relationships
and transgender identity are SPIRITUALLY determined.

So it's up to the PERSON if they define themselves
as one identity/orientation or another,
similar to one's FAITH affiliation.

This is not scientifically proven but faith based.

That's why I am saying it is more consistent to treat
LGBT as a faith based identity belief creed or practice,
like religious freedom, and not argue over if it is by
birth or by choice. Some Christians or Hindus may
believe they were born to be that, or changed later to be that.

So why not recognize the same level of beliefs if
someone believes they were born or changed to be
homosexual, heterosexual, transgender etc.

Aren't they just arguing for the freedom of expression
of their identity, beliefs and/or creed,
similar to any other faith based identity or affiliation?

 

[rightwinger]

While a lot of the reaction to LGBT politics from the religious right goes "too far" with unnecessary rejection and judgment against people personally, I think this man's statement sticks to the core issue of "NOT protecting someone based on their sexual behavior."

The arguments defending LGBT, and Transgender in particular, aren't focused on behavior but spiritually how people believe and identify as individuals, which is the equivalent of their own expression of faith and beliefs.

But for those who see this externally as an issue of "outward appearance
and behavior," I think this guy hits the target right on, and with as diplomatic
and clear explanation as possible, given the highly contentious subject matter.

I think he does very well with such a difficult issue to address and explain:


World Congress of Families in Kenya: Africans 'Should Be Horrified' at LGBT Actions in USA -- 'It's Insane'

"We’re not saying that these people have to be persecuted," said Feder, an author and former Boston Herald columnist. "We’re not saying that you can’t have compassion for them -- of course, you can. But you can’t let this be the role model. And you can’t allow Christians and other religious people to be persecuted because they refuse to go along with this agenda.”

“You know, other people have demanded minority status based on their religion, based on their race," said Feder, a graduate of Boston University Law School.

"This is the first group that demands minority status based on what they do in their bedrooms. And that’s what makes it so dangerous."

"And if you look at the United States, I mean if Africans look seriously at the United States, they should be horrified by what’s going on," he said.
Turning to the transgender issue, Feder said, “We now have the latest created gender, transgender. Men who feel they’re actually women, women who feel they’re actually men. The latest front in the culture war is bathrooms, transgender bathrooms."

"The idea is, if you’re a man who feels you’re actually a woman, you should be able to use a woman’s bathroom, changing room, showers," said Feder. "This is absolutely insane."

"What about the privacy, the modesty of women and girls?" he said. "But in our legal system that’s irrelevant because the rights of so-called transgenders are far more important.”

Once again, conservatives confuse sex with love

You should be ashamed Emily. Are you defined by what you do in the bedroom?

Dear rightwinger
What they are saying is NOT define a special class of people
by "what they do in the bedroom" They would AGREE with you!

As for my beliefs, I hold that homosexual orientation/relationships
and transgender identity are SPIRITUALLY determined.

So it's up to the PERSON if they define themselves
as one identity/orientation or another,
similar to one's FAITH affiliation.

This is not scientifically proven but faith based.

That's why I am saying it is more consistent to treat
LGBT as a faith based identity belief creed or practice,
like religious freedom, and not argue over if it is by
birth or by choice. Some Christians or Hindus may
believe they were born to be that, or changed later to be that.

So why not recognize the same level of beliefs if
someone believes they were born or changed to be
homosexual, heterosexual, transgender etc.

Aren't they just arguing for the freedom of expression
of their identity, beliefs and/or creed,
similar to any other faith based identity or affiliation?

You jumped over the fact that you define homosexuality as the sexual acts they perform. Homosexuality is an expression of who you love not how you have sex

Is your own sexuality defined by the sexual acts you perform?