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

[frigidweirdo]

frigidweirdo

You only say that when it comes to justifying the side of the argument you want to defend.

When LGBT are asked to keep their beliefs
in private, suddenly this is discrimination.

If Christians are barred from abusing govt to push too far as to DEFEND their beliefs and ESTABLISH them through govt, then the same should be enforced for LGBT beliefs that are faith based as well.

Both sides beliefs should be kept out of govt.
Don't you think that would be equal, neutral and fair to let people resolve their own disputes and not use govt to force on side on the other?

Or are you only for govt intervening when the govt takes the side you happen to agree with?

"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."

"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.”

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.

You mean that gay couple that wanted the wedding cake weren't banging each other in the bakery?

Dear Timmy

The discrimination lawsuits went too far
with cake delivery services that required people to attend
a same sex wedding OUTSIDE THEIR PLACE OF BUSINESS
which was AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

If the point is NOT to judge or impose on people for their beliefs,
then why is this happening by penalizing anyone for their beliefs?

If people with beliefs sign up to do business, then they sign up to accept the laws of doing business. If they don't want to go against their religious beliefs, they're perfectly free to no sign up to do business.

No, you're wrong.

I am a person with fundamental beliefs and I follow these fundamental beliefs and all my thoughts stem from this.

I'm not demanding that people keep their beliefs inside. I have no problem with a bakery stating they are a Christian bakery. What I have a problem with is that I believe society should be a place where everyone feels free to go into any shop they like. Maybe someone doesn't like Christians, they can stay away from Christian shops if they choose, but maybe they don't if someone is a Christian and they should be able to go into that shop and get the same service as anyone else.

Now, had the shop owners been SMART then they'd have made sure that they were treating everyone equally while being able to no do the things that they don't want to do. However they didn't do that, and so they ended up in this mess.

If a Muslim shop doesn't sell bacon to anyone, they can't be forced to sell bacon. It's that simple.

If a gay person opens a shop, they're in the same situation. I don't see anything different here. However you're trying to put everything into a tiny box and then base your argument around something you've twisted to get into that box. It won't work. Sorry.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear frigidweirdo
A. In the case of the people on the plane,
if they have an issue riding together, they
either resolve the issue civilly or the people who
can't, separate from each other and not impose on
everyone else. So No, the man with the problem
doesn't impose on all the others. Or the other people
don't discriminate against the man but allow him the
chance to resolve the conflict so they can agree on a policy.

B. with business, I would recommend that customers and companies sign Mediation Agreements and Arbitration Waivers. So if a conflict arises in the course of doing business, either they resolve by mediation or arbitration,
or agree NOT to conduct business together if they cannot resolve their differences civilly and without incurring legal action or costs. This is to prevent both. So people should refrain from doing business together who can't respect each other's beliefs. it's a two-sided policy.

If you want your beliefs respected, it makes sense to respect the beliefs of others, and they do the same for you! Common Sense!

"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."

"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.”

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.

You mean that gay couple that wanted the wedding cake weren't banging each other in the bakery?

Dear Timmy

The discrimination lawsuits went too far
with cake delivery services that required people to attend
a same sex wedding OUTSIDE THEIR PLACE OF BUSINESS
which was AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

If the point is NOT to judge or impose on people for their beliefs,
then why is this happening by penalizing anyone for their beliefs?

If people with beliefs sign up to do business, then they sign up to accept the laws of doing business. If they don't want to go against their religious beliefs, they're perfectly free to no sign up to do business.

I'm glad you understand. Of course, people who aren't selfish can feel free to give up their seat.

So pregnant women gets on a train and there's a seat for people who need seats and all the people sitting down are selfish, so the pregnant woman should just stand then?

Pretty much. Sounds a bit like life, doesn't it?

What, encouraging assholes to be assholes?

More like allowing people to have the freedom to choose to be. Or do you think that restricting rights is super neat? Sounds like you're okay with our government deciding how we should act even when not infringing on the rights of others.

So, a man chooses to sit on a plane with no females, so all the females have to get off the bus then?

You talk about "restricting rights", what do you mean? All rights are restricted. Freedom of Speech doesn't protect treason, libel, hate speech etc. Freedom of Religion, you do know that polygamy is banned in the US, don't know, even though the Mormons claim it as something religious? The Sun Dance and Potlatch were banned by the US govt too. Any religion that wants human sacrifice will find that this is banned too. There's nothing new in restricting rights.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Minority status shouldn't exist, regardless.

More ignorance from the right.

Again, there is no such thing as ‘minority status.’

The Constitution prohibits government from seeking to disadvantage a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are, absent a rational basis, objective evidence in support, and a legitimate legislative end.

This might concern race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, as well as choices all Americans make about their personal, private lives, such as whom to marry or whether to have a child or not.

In the case of transgender Americans, it’s the protected liberty to decide who you are, how you might live your life, and how you express yourself as an individual to society in general – decisions which are all entitled to Constitutional protections.

Government, therefore, may not seek to disadvantage transgender Americans based on lies, fear, bigotry, and hate.

On the other hand, the government is completely okay with giving advantage to a certain race, as Democrats love affirmative action laws.

Not that Democrats have a problem with violating the constitution, given the current president has violated it 64 times, and nobody has stopped him.

Of course, the most ironic thing is you calling anyone ignorant.

How about an example of this "advantage " .

Affirmative action in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And ?

Should we discuss legacies ? Veteran prefences ?

Veterans earned Veteran status by serving the country. They also are not a minority, and are not included under the definition of affirmative action. How's the view from your rectum, in which your head is firmly planted?

 

[frigidweirdo]

More ignorance from the right.

Again, there is no such thing as ‘minority status.’

The Constitution prohibits government from seeking to disadvantage a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are, absent a rational basis, objective evidence in support, and a legitimate legislative end.

This might concern race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, as well as choices all Americans make about their personal, private lives, such as whom to marry or whether to have a child or not.

In the case of transgender Americans, it’s the protected liberty to decide who you are, how you might live your life, and how you express yourself as an individual to society in general – decisions which are all entitled to Constitutional protections.

Government, therefore, may not seek to disadvantage transgender Americans based on lies, fear, bigotry, and hate.

On the other hand, the government is completely okay with giving advantage to a certain race, as Democrats love affirmative action laws.

Not that Democrats have a problem with violating the constitution, given the current president has violated it 64 times, and nobody has stopped him.

Of course, the most ironic thing is you calling anyone ignorant.

How about an example of this "advantage " .

Affirmative action in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Affirmative action helped all American families

Why it even helped young ladies like punkin

Not providing any evidence that disprove any of my claims.

As expected of a lefty.

Seems to be a universal thing on this board, not left or right. Most people couldn't back up an argument if they tried. I get more "go google the evidence I want you to see to back up my argument" than I get evidence.

 

[rightwinger]

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!!!

Still don't understand the conservative hysteria over where you pee

I don't understand you. Why do you want to expose underage girls to perverts "legally displaying" their genitals to them? Or women at large. Do you hate children and women?

"Indecent exposure laws in most states make it a crime to purposefully display one's genitals in public, causing others to be alarmed or offended."
Indecent Exposure - FindLaw

Guy in a dress enters a ladies room, finds and empty stall, pees,washes, goes to the mirror, fixes his makeup and leaves

No crisis for society

You seem to be evasive with your answer...

What else do you need splained to you?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear frigidweirdo
A. yes, it is generally agreed that people should be able to GO INTO "ANY SHOP THEY LIKE"
B. but that's NOT the same as forcing people to go OUTSIDE THE PLACE OF BUSINESS into a PRIVATE venue to attend a gay wedding against their beliefs.
C. it's NOT the same as forcing a photography to photograph gay couples if that goes against their beliefs.

Also frigidweirdo there is something called the Golden Rule. If you want to go into a place of business but harass that owner, but then ask to be respected and not harassed, that's not really fair or just.

So your intent, behavior and conduct also has to be civil
and conducive. If you have ill will and insult or impose on others, shouldn't people have the right to ask you to leave if you are abusive, hostile or coercive in ways that aren't conducive to business?

Again, I find it EQUALLY harmful and wrongful to blame one side of such conflict over the other. To be fair, I'd say if the conflict exists at all, then BOTH sides should refrain from doing business together, and not penalize or judge either one for rejecting the other. if they can't agree, if their differences are that incompatible, why not leave each other alone, for sake of both people equally?

frigidweirdo

You only say that when it comes to justifying the side of the argument you want to defend.

When LGBT are asked to keep their beliefs
in private, suddenly this is discrimination.

If Christians are barred from abusing govt to push too far as to DEFEND their beliefs and ESTABLISH them through govt, then the same should be enforced for LGBT beliefs that are faith based as well.

Both sides beliefs should be kept out of govt.
Don't you think that would be equal, neutral and fair to let people resolve their own disputes and not use govt to force on side on the other?

Or are you only for govt intervening when the govt takes the side you happen to agree with?

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.

You mean that gay couple that wanted the wedding cake weren't banging each other in the bakery?

Dear Timmy

The discrimination lawsuits went too far
with cake delivery services that required people to attend
a same sex wedding OUTSIDE THEIR PLACE OF BUSINESS
which was AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

If the point is NOT to judge or impose on people for their beliefs,
then why is this happening by penalizing anyone for their beliefs?

If people with beliefs sign up to do business, then they sign up to accept the laws of doing business. If they don't want to go against their religious beliefs, they're perfectly free to no sign up to do business.

No, you're wrong.

I am a person with fundamental beliefs and I follow these fundamental beliefs and all my thoughts stem from this.

I'm not demanding that people keep their beliefs inside. I have no problem with a bakery stating they are a Christian bakery. What I have a problem with is that I believe society should be a place where everyone feels free to go into any shop they like. Maybe someone doesn't like Christians, they can stay away from Christian shops if they choose, but maybe they don't if someone is a Christian and they should be able to go into that shop and get the same service as anyone else.

Now, had the shop owners been SMART then they'd have made sure that they were treating everyone equally while being able to no do the things that they don't want to do. However they didn't do that, and so they ended up in this mess.

If a Muslim shop doesn't sell bacon to anyone, they can't be forced to sell bacon. It's that simple.

If a gay person opens a shop, they're in the same situation. I don't see anything different here. However you're trying to put everything into a tiny box and then base your argument around something you've twisted to get into that box. It won't work. Sorry.

 

[rightwinger]

More ignorance from the right.

Again, there is no such thing as ‘minority status.’

The Constitution prohibits government from seeking to disadvantage a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are, absent a rational basis, objective evidence in support, and a legitimate legislative end.

This might concern race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, as well as choices all Americans make about their personal, private lives, such as whom to marry or whether to have a child or not.

In the case of transgender Americans, it’s the protected liberty to decide who you are, how you might live your life, and how you express yourself as an individual to society in general – decisions which are all entitled to Constitutional protections.

Government, therefore, may not seek to disadvantage transgender Americans based on lies, fear, bigotry, and hate.

On the other hand, the government is completely okay with giving advantage to a certain race, as Democrats love affirmative action laws.

Not that Democrats have a problem with violating the constitution, given the current president has violated it 64 times, and nobody has stopped him.

Of course, the most ironic thing is you calling anyone ignorant.

How about an example of this "advantage " .

Affirmative action in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Affirmative action helped all American families

Why it even helped young ladies like punkin

Not providing any evidence that disprove any of my claims.

As expected of a lefty.

Affirmative Action leveled the playing field after centuries of discrimination against women, blacks and other minorities

You could not just waive a pen and erase past sins

 

[frigidweirdo]

Dear frigidweirdo
A. In the case of the people on the plane,
if they have an issue riding together, they
either resolve the issue civilly or the people who
can't, separate from each other and not impose on
everyone else. So No, the man with the problem
doesn't impose on all the others. Or the other people
don't discriminate against the man but allow him the
chance to resolve the conflict so they can agree on a policy.

B. with business, I would recommend that customers and companies sign Mediation Agreements and Arbitration Waivers. So if a conflict arises in the course of doing business, either they resolve by mediation or arbitration,
or agree NOT to conduct business together if they cannot resolve their differences civilly and without incurring legal action or costs. This is to prevent both. So people should refrain from doing business together who can't respect each other's beliefs. it's a two-sided policy.

If you want your beliefs respected, it makes sense to respect the beliefs of others, and they do the same for you! Common Sense!

"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."

"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.”

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.

You mean that gay couple that wanted the wedding cake weren't banging each other in the bakery?

Dear Timmy

The discrimination lawsuits went too far
with cake delivery services that required people to attend
a same sex wedding OUTSIDE THEIR PLACE OF BUSINESS
which was AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

If the point is NOT to judge or impose on people for their beliefs,
then why is this happening by penalizing anyone for their beliefs?

If people with beliefs sign up to do business, then they sign up to accept the laws of doing business. If they don't want to go against their religious beliefs, they're perfectly free to no sign up to do business.

So pregnant women gets on a train and there's a seat for people who need seats and all the people sitting down are selfish, so the pregnant woman should just stand then?

Pretty much. Sounds a bit like life, doesn't it?

What, encouraging assholes to be assholes?

More like allowing people to have the freedom to choose to be. Or do you think that restricting rights is super neat? Sounds like you're okay with our government deciding how we should act even when not infringing on the rights of others.

So, a man chooses to sit on a plane with no females, so all the females have to get off the bus then?

You talk about "restricting rights", what do you mean? All rights are restricted. Freedom of Speech doesn't protect treason, libel, hate speech etc. Freedom of Religion, you do know that polygamy is banned in the US, don't know, even though the Mormons claim it as something religious? The Sun Dance and Potlatch were banned by the US govt too. Any religion that wants human sacrifice will find that this is banned too. There's nothing new in restricting rights.

So, people resolve things or the person who has the problem doesn't impose themselves on others. Until the point comes where two people aren't resolve the problem. Then you have courts to deal with it. If both sides have a problem, then what? Who goes away?

Why are Christians imposing themselves on someone who just wants a cake for a wedding?

If people who can't do business together just stay apart, what happens when everyone doing business in a town decides they won't serve black people.

All of a sudden you get into the realm of "do we want our society to be divided"?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

On the other hand, the government is completely okay with giving advantage to a certain race, as Democrats love affirmative action laws.

Not that Democrats have a problem with violating the constitution, given the current president has violated it 64 times, and nobody has stopped him.

Of course, the most ironic thing is you calling anyone ignorant.

How about an example of this "advantage " .

Affirmative action in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Affirmative action helped all American families

Why it even helped young ladies like punkin

Not providing any evidence that disprove any of my claims.

As expected of a lefty.

Affirmative Action leveled the playing field after centuries of discrimination against women, blacks and other minorities

You could not just waive a pen and erase past sins

Passed wrongs don't need to be 'righted' with people who never experienced said wrongs. Each human being is not a representative of a 'race' or gender that they belong to, and do not feel or experience what other members of that race or gender feel or experience. We are not a collective that needs to be compensated for what other people of the same color or gender experienced. I wasn't alive when women were being oppressed, and I don't know anyone who was, so I don't care today. We're treated equally now, and that's what matters.

 

[frigidweirdo]

"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."

"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.”

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.

You mean that gay couple that wanted the wedding cake weren't banging each other in the bakery?

Dear Timmy

The discrimination lawsuits went too far
with cake delivery services that required people to attend
a same sex wedding OUTSIDE THEIR PLACE OF BUSINESS
which was AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

If the point is NOT to judge or impose on people for their beliefs,
then why is this happening by penalizing anyone for their beliefs?

If people with beliefs sign up to do business, then they sign up to accept the laws of doing business. If they don't want to go against their religious beliefs, they're perfectly free to no sign up to do business.

So pregnant women gets on a train and there's a seat for people who need seats and all the people sitting down are selfish, so the pregnant woman should just stand then?

Pretty much. Sounds a bit like life, doesn't it?

What, encouraging assholes to be assholes?

More like allowing people to have the freedom to choose to be. Or do you think that restricting rights is super neat? Sounds like you're okay with our government deciding how we should act even when not infringing on the rights of others.

So, a man chooses to sit on a plane with no females, so all the females have to get off the bus then?

You talk about "restricting rights", what do you mean? All rights are restricted. Freedom of Speech doesn't protect treason, libel, hate speech etc. Freedom of Religion, you do know that polygamy is banned in the US, don't know, even though the Mormons claim it as something religious? The Sun Dance and Potlatch were banned by the US govt too. Any religion that wants human sacrifice will find that this is banned too. There's nothing new in restricting rights.

Treason and Libel infringe on the rights of others, hate speech shouldn't be against the law in the first place. Freedom of Religion and freedom of practice aren't the same thing, and pretending they are is just ignorant. Obviously you're free to worship whoever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, so about the time you try to kill a human being while claiming it's worship, you'll have murder charges to worry about.

Yes they do. Hate speech also infringes on the rights of others. There's also the clear and present danger doctrine.

If a human being decides they don't mind being sacrificed, then what? It's not going against their rights.

What about polygamy? Does that go against anyone's rights?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Dear frigidweirdo
A. In the case of the people on the plane,
if they have an issue riding together, they
either resolve the issue civilly or the people who
can't, separate from each other and not impose on
everyone else. So No, the man with the problem
doesn't impose on all the others. Or the other people
don't discriminate against the man but allow him the
chance to resolve the conflict so they can agree on a policy.

B. with business, I would recommend that customers and companies sign Mediation Agreements and Arbitration Waivers. So if a conflict arises in the course of doing business, either they resolve by mediation or arbitration,
or agree NOT to conduct business together if they cannot resolve their differences civilly and without incurring legal action or costs. This is to prevent both. So people should refrain from doing business together who can't respect each other's beliefs. it's a two-sided policy.

If you want your beliefs respected, it makes sense to respect the beliefs of others, and they do the same for you! Common Sense!

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.

You mean that gay couple that wanted the wedding cake weren't banging each other in the bakery?

Dear Timmy

The discrimination lawsuits went too far
with cake delivery services that required people to attend
a same sex wedding OUTSIDE THEIR PLACE OF BUSINESS
which was AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

If the point is NOT to judge or impose on people for their beliefs,
then why is this happening by penalizing anyone for their beliefs?

If people with beliefs sign up to do business, then they sign up to accept the laws of doing business. If they don't want to go against their religious beliefs, they're perfectly free to no sign up to do business.

Pretty much. Sounds a bit like life, doesn't it?

What, encouraging assholes to be assholes?

More like allowing people to have the freedom to choose to be. Or do you think that restricting rights is super neat? Sounds like you're okay with our government deciding how we should act even when not infringing on the rights of others.

So, a man chooses to sit on a plane with no females, so all the females have to get off the bus then?

You talk about "restricting rights", what do you mean? All rights are restricted. Freedom of Speech doesn't protect treason, libel, hate speech etc. Freedom of Religion, you do know that polygamy is banned in the US, don't know, even though the Mormons claim it as something religious? The Sun Dance and Potlatch were banned by the US govt too. Any religion that wants human sacrifice will find that this is banned too. There's nothing new in restricting rights.

So, people resolve things or the person who has the problem doesn't impose themselves on others. Until the point comes where two people aren't resolve the problem. Then you have courts to deal with it. If both sides have a problem, then what? Who goes away?

Why are Christians imposing themselves on someone who just wants a cake for a wedding?

If people who can't do business together just stay apart, what happens when everyone doing business in a town decides they won't serve black people.

All of a sudden you get into the realm of "do we want our society to be divided"?

They're not, the people who want the cake are imposing themselves on that business when they are fully capable of buying it somewhere else. They can buy from their competition, it's not a complicated issue. Congrats to the business, they just turned away a demographic, they'll feel that until they change their minds.

 

[emilynghiem]

It's OK. Republicans want gays dead. The hate is real.

rdean do you say the same of extreme islamic countries where gays are hanged or thrown off buildings?

Or you only say this specifically of Republicans out of political convenience to make your arguments?

Are you admitting to USING the gay issue to target Republicans while saying nothing against religious groups with an ongoing record of persecuting and killing gays.

 

[rightwinger]

How about an example of this "advantage " .

Affirmative action in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Affirmative action helped all American families

Why it even helped young ladies like punkin

Not providing any evidence that disprove any of my claims.

As expected of a lefty.

Affirmative Action leveled the playing field after centuries of discrimination against women, blacks and other minorities

You could not just waive a pen and erase past sins

Passed wrongs don't need to be 'righted' with people who never experienced said wrongs. Each human being is not a representative of a 'race' or gender that they belong to, and do not feel or experience what other members of that race or gender feel or experience. We are not a collective that needs to be compensated for what other people of the same color or gender experienced. I wasn't alive when women were being oppressed, and I don't know anyone who was, so I don't care today. We're treated equally now, and that's what matters.

Sure they do

Discrimination was not going to end over night. The reaction of bigots after civil rights legislation was......you can pass laws but I'll be damned if I'll hire one of those negroes

The government had other ideas

 

[Timmy]

More ignorance from the right.

Again, there is no such thing as ‘minority status.’

The Constitution prohibits government from seeking to disadvantage a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are, absent a rational basis, objective evidence in support, and a legitimate legislative end.

This might concern race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, as well as choices all Americans make about their personal, private lives, such as whom to marry or whether to have a child or not.

In the case of transgender Americans, it’s the protected liberty to decide who you are, how you might live your life, and how you express yourself as an individual to society in general – decisions which are all entitled to Constitutional protections.

Government, therefore, may not seek to disadvantage transgender Americans based on lies, fear, bigotry, and hate.

On the other hand, the government is completely okay with giving advantage to a certain race, as Democrats love affirmative action laws.

Not that Democrats have a problem with violating the constitution, given the current president has violated it 64 times, and nobody has stopped him.

Of course, the most ironic thing is you calling anyone ignorant.

How about an example of this "advantage " .

Affirmative action in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And ?

Should we discuss legacies ? Veteran prefences ?

Veterans earned Veteran status by serving the country. They also are not a minority, and are not included under the definition of affirmative action. How's the view from your rectum, in which your head is firmly planted?

You seem to have a lot of exceptions to your "treat everyone equal " leacture ?!?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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.

You mean that gay couple that wanted the wedding cake weren't banging each other in the bakery?

Dear Timmy

The discrimination lawsuits went too far
with cake delivery services that required people to attend
a same sex wedding OUTSIDE THEIR PLACE OF BUSINESS
which was AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

If the point is NOT to judge or impose on people for their beliefs,
then why is this happening by penalizing anyone for their beliefs?

If people with beliefs sign up to do business, then they sign up to accept the laws of doing business. If they don't want to go against their religious beliefs, they're perfectly free to no sign up to do business.

Pretty much. Sounds a bit like life, doesn't it?

What, encouraging assholes to be assholes?

More like allowing people to have the freedom to choose to be. Or do you think that restricting rights is super neat? Sounds like you're okay with our government deciding how we should act even when not infringing on the rights of others.

So, a man chooses to sit on a plane with no females, so all the females have to get off the bus then?

You talk about "restricting rights", what do you mean? All rights are restricted. Freedom of Speech doesn't protect treason, libel, hate speech etc. Freedom of Religion, you do know that polygamy is banned in the US, don't know, even though the Mormons claim it as something religious? The Sun Dance and Potlatch were banned by the US govt too. Any religion that wants human sacrifice will find that this is banned too. There's nothing new in restricting rights.

Treason and Libel infringe on the rights of others, hate speech shouldn't be against the law in the first place. Freedom of Religion and freedom of practice aren't the same thing, and pretending they are is just ignorant. Obviously you're free to worship whoever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, so about the time you try to kill a human being while claiming it's worship, you'll have murder charges to worry about.

Yes they do. Hate speech also infringes on the rights of others. There's also the clear and present danger doctrine.

If a human being decides they don't mind being sacrificed, then what? It's not going against their rights.

What about polygamy? Does that go against anyone's rights?

Hate Speech infringes on no rights, the people involved can ignore it, it won't affect their reputation, unlike Libel or Slander. People have a right to be an unlikable as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.

That's still murder. If they want to kill themselves, they can do it themselves. Nothing of value will be lost.

Polygamy should be legal.

 

[defcon4]

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!!!

Still don't understand the conservative hysteria over where you pee

I don't understand you. Why do you want to expose underage girls to perverts "legally displaying" their genitals to them? Or women at large. Do you hate children and women?

"Indecent exposure laws in most states make it a crime to purposefully display one's genitals in public, causing others to be alarmed or offended."
Indecent Exposure - FindLaw

Guy in a dress enters a ladies room, finds and empty stall, pees,washes, goes to the mirror, fixes his makeup and leaves

No crisis for society

You seem to be evasive with your answer...

What else do you need splained to you?

I asked why do you want women and underage girls to be exposed to "indecent exposure" what is against all decency and still against criminal law in states?

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

You mean that gay couple that wanted the wedding cake weren't banging each other in the bakery?

Dear Timmy

The discrimination lawsuits went too far
with cake delivery services that required people to attend
a same sex wedding OUTSIDE THEIR PLACE OF BUSINESS
which was AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

If the point is NOT to judge or impose on people for their beliefs,
then why is this happening by penalizing anyone for their beliefs?

If people with beliefs sign up to do business, then they sign up to accept the laws of doing business. If they don't want to go against their religious beliefs, they're perfectly free to no sign up to do business.

Pretty much. Sounds a bit like life, doesn't it?

What, encouraging assholes to be assholes?

More like allowing people to have the freedom to choose to be. Or do you think that restricting rights is super neat? Sounds like you're okay with our government deciding how we should act even when not infringing on the rights of others.

So, a man chooses to sit on a plane with no females, so all the females have to get off the bus then?

You talk about "restricting rights", what do you mean? All rights are restricted. Freedom of Speech doesn't protect treason, libel, hate speech etc. Freedom of Religion, you do know that polygamy is banned in the US, don't know, even though the Mormons claim it as something religious? The Sun Dance and Potlatch were banned by the US govt too. Any religion that wants human sacrifice will find that this is banned too. There's nothing new in restricting rights.

Treason and Libel infringe on the rights of others, hate speech shouldn't be against the law in the first place. Freedom of Religion and freedom of practice aren't the same thing, and pretending they are is just ignorant. Obviously you're free to worship whoever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, so about the time you try to kill a human being while claiming it's worship, you'll have murder charges to worry about.

Yes they do. Hate speech also infringes on the rights of others. There's also the clear and present danger doctrine.

If a human being decides they don't mind being sacrificed, then what? It's not going against their rights.

What about polygamy? Does that go against anyone's rights?

Dear frigidweirdo
If we are going to discuss hate speech, is it fair game to rage hate against Christians, conservatives, people who don't believe in gay marriage, Republicans, Trump voters, etc. based on their beliefs we don't agree with?

If people mouthing off against homosexuals is considered hateful bigotry, what about people mouthing off against Christians as a group. Like how rdean made a blanket statement that "Republicans want gays dead" If so how could the Log Cabin Republicans exist, unless they are all "suicidal' and want their own selves dead? Is it okay for rdean to make mean spirited statements against Republicans as a group, stereotyping their beliefs, and then argue against bigoted hate speech against gays and LGBT for their beliefs?

Are we being fair here?

 

[rightwinger]

Still don't understand the conservative hysteria over where you pee

I don't understand you. Why do you want to expose underage girls to perverts "legally displaying" their genitals to them? Or women at large. Do you hate children and women?

"Indecent exposure laws in most states make it a crime to purposefully display one's genitals in public, causing others to be alarmed or offended."
Indecent Exposure - FindLaw

Guy in a dress enters a ladies room, finds and empty stall, pees,washes, goes to the mirror, fixes his makeup and leaves

No crisis for society

You seem to be evasive with your answer...

What else do you need splained to you?

I asked why do you want women and underage girls to be exposed to "indecent exposure" what is against all decency and still against criminal law in states?

I don't see where indecent exposure occurs in a ladies room stall

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Affirmative action in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Affirmative action helped all American families

Why it even helped young ladies like punkin

Not providing any evidence that disprove any of my claims.

As expected of a lefty.

Affirmative Action leveled the playing field after centuries of discrimination against women, blacks and other minorities

You could not just waive a pen and erase past sins

Passed wrongs don't need to be 'righted' with people who never experienced said wrongs. Each human being is not a representative of a 'race' or gender that they belong to, and do not feel or experience what other members of that race or gender feel or experience. We are not a collective that needs to be compensated for what other people of the same color or gender experienced. I wasn't alive when women were being oppressed, and I don't know anyone who was, so I don't care today. We're treated equally now, and that's what matters.

Sure they do

Discrimination was not going to end over night. The reaction of bigots after civil rights legislation was......you can pass laws but I'll be damned if I'll hire one of those negroes

The government had other ideas

When they do that, they lose skilled labor, and their competitors gain said skill labor. As former slaves, they'd have been highly skilled labor, and businesses who turn them down would be missing out on it. Besides, I'm sure the north would have loved to hire them, wouldn't they~?

 

[Timmy]

It's OK. Republicans want gays dead. The hate is real.

rdean do you say the same of extreme islamic countries where gays are hanged or thrown off buildings?

Or you only say this specifically of Republicans out of political convenience to make your arguments?

Are you admitting to USING the gay issue to target Republicans while saying nothing against religious groups with an ongoing record of persecuting and killing gays.

There are Christian counties wh the same attitude.