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

[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

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 ?!?

First, I don't see anywhere I made a lecture, and I'm sure you'd lack the attention span if I had made one.

Second, sounds like you're advocating ignoring the accomplishments of veterans. You're a sick, sick man.

 

[rightwinger]

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~?

Actually, they opened up a whole world of opportunities to women, blacks, minorities and the handicapped

We are a stronger nation for it

 

[defcon4]

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

Don't spin it with assumptions because you get assumption in reply: If they are in the ladies' room "legally" they can expose themselves, why else would they want to go to the ladies' room?

 

[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!

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.

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.

You're trying to pick and choose the way this goes. I'm not going to let you.

The Christians are imposing their religious views on people who walk into their shop.
The buyers of cakes might be imposing their views on those who they ask to make the cake for them.

There's no way of getting round this fact that both have views.

The Christians are saying that anything that goes against their views, whatever they might be, will be met by you no longer being able to shop there.
The buyers aren't asking for acceptance of those views, just that you make the cake regardless of whether you think it's right or wrong.

Can a Christian not make a cake for a gay wedding and yet think the gay wedding is wrong? They still hold their beliefs.

You say they can buy from the competition. However what you're advocating is that businesses can discriminate based on beliefs, and therefore in small towns there might only be one place to shop, and therefore people are being forced to go outside of town to get what they want.

This, for me, is not acceptable.

As I have said many times.

A) the business people can just not open up a business. If the feel business law which prevents discrimination, division etc within society, then they just don't do it.
B) They can just make rules like "we don't make wedding cakes", then there is no problem. Someone wants a wedding cake, they don't ask for a wedding cake but just a cake. Or they say "no political slogans" or there are many ways around this. By just being stupid, they're going to get caught out.

But personally, people who claim to be Christians and discriminate are scum anyway.

 

[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.

There are Christian counties wh the same attitude.

Sure Timmy and rdean
So, are you going after ALL these countries/groups equally who actually kill gays.

Or are you just exploiting the issue to target Republicans.
Can you name any Republicans that have killed gays
the way these other countries do, Christian or Muslim.

Do you really care about solving these problems.
Or are you just using them as bait?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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~?

Actually, they opened up a whole world of opportunities to women, blacks, minorities and the handicapped

We are a stronger nation for it

Well, then, if the north provided all of those opportunities, then the affirmative action wasn't needed. Good talk.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Don't spin it with assumptions because you get assumption in reply: If they are in the ladies' room "legally" they can expose themselves, why else would they want to go to the ladies' room?

No spin...reality

Show how women expose themselves to each other in ladies rooms

 

[rightwinger]

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~?

Actually, they opened up a whole world of opportunities to women, blacks, minorities and the handicapped

We are a stronger nation for it

Well, then, if the north provided all of those opportunities, then the affirmative action wasn't needed. Good talk.

Affirmative action helped people nation wide

It even helped you

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

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.

I disagree that hate speech infringes no rights. When people don't feel safe in their own country because people are able to go around stirring up hatred on a large scale, then rights inevitably get infringed.

See Rwanda, Yugoslavia and many other places where such things have happened.

Actually suicide is ILLEGAL in most places, and assisted suicide is also illegal.

Polygamy should be legal, but isn't. Gay marriage should be legal, and now is.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Get rid of this, Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Federal Law) before going after state and local laws.

 

[defcon4]

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

Don't spin it with assumptions because you get assumption in reply: If they are in the ladies' room "legally" they can expose themselves, why else would they want to go to the ladies' room?

No spin...reality

Show how women expose themselves to each other in ladies rooms

I assume they go in there to perform a biologically necessary function. Perverts go for peeping and for exposing themselves. That raises the question, why do you want to go into the ladies room?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear frigidweirdo
Of course I have to pick/choose/distinguish between the cases because in one case WE AGREE that there should NOT be discrimination in public accommodation, but in the other cases, it is going too far and penalizing people OUTSIDE public policy by imposing into personal space.

A. WE AGREE that nobody should be discriminated against in the public storefronts.
B. but this is NOT the same as the lawsuits and penalties against people who requested NOT to go to PRIVATE events outside their business, such as same sex wedding ceremonies, that were against their beliefs.

So of course I have to make that distinction.
Because it explains why I would agree with you in some
cases, but disagree with you in others. It DOES
depend on the conditions, and if govt crosses the
line into private space and choices outside public
policy and jurisdiction. Exactly!!! Thank you!

 

[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!

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.

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.

You're trying to pick and choose the way this goes. I'm not going to let you.

The Christians are imposing their religious views on people who walk into their shop.
The buyers of cakes might be imposing their views on those who they ask to make the cake for them.

There's no way of getting round this fact that both have views.

The Christians are saying that anything that goes against their views, whatever they might be, will be met by you no longer being able to shop there.
The buyers aren't asking for acceptance of those views, just that you make the cake regardless of whether you think it's right or wrong.

Can a Christian not make a cake for a gay wedding and yet think the gay wedding is wrong? They still hold their beliefs.

You say they can buy from the competition. However what you're advocating is that businesses can discriminate based on beliefs, and therefore in small towns there might only be one place to shop, and therefore people are being forced to go outside of town to get what they want.

This, for me, is not acceptable.

As I have said many times.

A) the business people can just not open up a business. If the feel business law which prevents discrimination, division etc within society, then they just don't do it.
B) They can just make rules like "we don't make wedding cakes", then there is no problem. Someone wants a wedding cake, they don't ask for a wedding cake but just a cake. Or they say "no political slogans" or there are many ways around this. By just being stupid, they're going to get caught out.

But personally, people who claim to be Christians and discriminate are scum anyway.

I'm not picking and choosing how this goes, I'm explaining it because you don't understand. As business owners, they are free to choose who they conduct business with. As consumers, they are allowed to choose who they buy a cake from. They cannot FORCE someone to make a cake for them, and they should not be allowed to, that infringes on the rights of another individual. There's no getting around THAT fact.

When they turn away those consumers, they lose said consumers, and that's their problem, and they are free to make that decision. Nobody has a right to force another to do something for them, whether they're giving those people money for it or not. You cannot FORCE someone to conduct business with you.

They shouldn't have to narrow the scope of their business because they don't want to make a cake with two people of the same gender on top, as they're free to choose how they conduct their own business; It's their business.

I agree, as the Bible states that Christians should love their neighbor, and that everyone is their neighbor. However, people are free to be unlikable, it's their decision.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Don't spin it with assumptions because you get assumption in reply: If they are in the ladies' room "legally" they can expose themselves, why else would they want to go to the ladies' room?

No spin...reality

Show how women expose themselves to each other in ladies rooms

I assume they go in there to perform a biologically necessary function. Perverts go for peeping and for exposing themselves. That raises the question, why do you want to go into the ladies room?

I am not identifying as a woman

I have no objection to someone who does having to use a restroom. if someone commits a crime in a ladies room ...arrest them

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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~?

Actually, they opened up a whole world of opportunities to women, blacks, minorities and the handicapped

We are a stronger nation for it

Well, then, if the north provided all of those opportunities, then the affirmative action wasn't needed. Good talk.

Affirmative action helped people nation wide

It even helped you

Affirmative action never helped me, what helped me was EQUAL rights being given to all women, not EXTRA rights others didn't have. You seem to be misunderstanding the definition of affirmative action.

 

[defcon4]

I am not identifying as a woman

I have no objection to someone who does having to use a restroom. if someone commits a crime in a ladies room ...arrest them

You want to go to female restrooms. Interesting.
If perverts go in there "legally" it is not against the law to shake their penises in the restroom is it? You cannot have a restroom police in every public restroom. Why do you want to go into women's restrooms?

 

[emilynghiem]

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

Don't spin it with assumptions because you get assumption in reply: If they are in the ladies' room "legally" they can expose themselves, why else would they want to go to the ladies' room?

No spin...reality

Show how women expose themselves to each other in ladies rooms

I assume they go in there to perform a biologically necessary function. Perverts go for peeping and for exposing themselves. That raises the question, why do you want to go into the ladies room?

Dear defcon It's got to be symbolic of public establishment of social recognition and equality. Because if it was only a matter of equal access, then this issue would already be settled with neutral gender, unisex or single stalled facilities.

There is a psychological need to establish one's identity as socially recognized in order to "counteract" for the historical rejection and refusal to recognize LGBT.

So of course it's more a psychological reason to push this.

The liberals use the state to establish beliefs collectively
as the conservatives go through the church to unite
and establish agreement.

Part of the process.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

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?

Hate speech needs to be understood. It's not saying something bad against someone else. It's saying something bad against someone else and it incites violence or prejudicial action against a group of people.

This can be against Christians, Muslims, women, gay people, whatever group.

So, if you say "I hate Muslims, they should all die" to a friend, then it might not be considered hate speech. If you did it in front of 20,000 people and it was on TV, then you might get done for hate speech.

Is it okay for rdean to make such a statement? Is it going to lead to violence or prejudicial action? No, probably not, so it's okay.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

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?

Hate speech needs to be understood. It's not saying something bad against someone else. It's saying something bad against someone else and it incites violence or prejudicial action against a group of people.

This can be against Christians, Muslims, women, gay people, whatever group.

So, if you say "I hate Muslims, they should all die" to a friend, then it might not be considered hate speech. If you did it in front of 20,000 people and it was on TV, then you might get done for hate speech.

Is it okay for rdean to make such a statement? Is it going to lead to violence or prejudicial action? No, probably not, so it's okay.

Okay frigidweirdo thanks for making that distinction.
What about bigoted speech or stereotypes:

A. if it's not okay to "spread misperceptions and stereotypes" by saying ALL gays are perverts who want to abuse children

B. is it okay for rdean to say ALL Republicans are hateful against gays and want them dead

Even if people have free speech to say whatever belief they want; isn't it problematic to denounce one and not the other.

We have the freedom to express such biases.
But doesn't it cause greater harm to the relationships
we are claiming should be changed to stop hate and ill will.

 

[defcon4]

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

Don't spin it with assumptions because you get assumption in reply: If they are in the ladies' room "legally" they can expose themselves, why else would they want to go to the ladies' room?

No spin...reality

Show how women expose themselves to each other in ladies rooms

I assume they go in there to perform a biologically necessary function. Perverts go for peeping and for exposing themselves. That raises the question, why do you want to go into the ladies room?

Dear defcon It's got to be symbolic of public establishment of social recognition and equality. Because if it was only a matter of equal access, then this issue would already be settled with neutral gender, unisex or single stalled facilities.

There is a psychological need to establish one's identity as socially recognized in order to "counteract" for the historical rejection and refusal to recognize LGBT.

So of course it's more a psychological reason to push this.

The liberals use the state to establish beliefs collectively
as the conservatives go through the church to unite
and establish agreement.

Part of the process.

Most doctors' offices, stores and workplaces already have single room all gender bathrooms but perverts want to go into specifically designated female restrooms to shake their genitals "legally" in front of women and young girls when specifically designated restrooms for people with male appendage are available. Like malls, airports..