LGBT -- seeking respct and acceptance form the mainstream...?

[M14 Shooter]

I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.

Right? Seems reasonable to me.

Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?

 

[PratchettFan]

I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.

Right? Seems reasonable to me.

Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?

No. Quite the opposite.

 

[martybegan]

I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.

Right? Seems reasonable to me.

Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?

No. Quite the opposite.

How so? When you use government to force others to service something they don't want to, you are not asking for tolerance, you are asking for acceptance and condoning.

 

[PratchettFan]

I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.

Right? Seems reasonable to me.

Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?

No. Quite the opposite.

How so? When you use government to force others to service something they don't want to, you are not asking for tolerance, you are asking for acceptance and condoning.

That is not the way it works. First, you have to get enough of the population to sympathize with you in order to get such a law passed. This means you have already attained acceptance by mainstream society. Once it is passed, it becomes a societal norm. If you are breaking the law it is the automatic assumption that you are in the wrong. So people who do break the law are outside the norm and, by definition, the one who fails to be accepted by mainstream society. That's human nature.

I think the mistake you are making is the assumption that in those areas where these laws exist your position is mainstream. It isn't.

 

[bodecea]

I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.

Right? Seems reasonable to me.

Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?

No. Quite the opposite.

How so? When you use government to force others to service something they don't want to, you are not asking for tolerance, you are asking for acceptance and condoning.

Why do you single out gay people when it comes to complaining about PA laws that have been around for half a century? What's up with that?

 

[martybegan]

I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.

Right? Seems reasonable to me.

Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?

No. Quite the opposite.

How so? When you use government to force others to service something they don't want to, you are not asking for tolerance, you are asking for acceptance and condoning.

That is not the way it works. First, you have to get enough of the population to sympathize with you in order to get such a law passed. This means you have already attained acceptance by mainstream society. Once it is passed, it becomes a societal norm. If you are breaking the law it is the automatic assumption that you are in the wrong. So people who do break the law are outside the norm and, by definition, the one who fails to be accepted by mainstream society. That's human nature.

I think the mistake you are making is the assumption that in those areas where these laws exist your position is mainstream. It isn't.

Actually in this case you don't, because you are applying law that was meant to end something entirely different, i.e. perverse and systemic racial discrimination, and have mutated it to cover any "oppressed" group out there to make their butthurt more equal than someone else's butthurt.

When laws become so trivial that breaking them becomes a matter of course, (i.e pot laws) than one has to wonder if society is really benefiting from such laws, or do such laws only benefit people who feel the need to control every little facet of other people's lives.

 

[martybegan]

I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.

Right? Seems reasonable to me.

Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?

No. Quite the opposite.

How so? When you use government to force others to service something they don't want to, you are not asking for tolerance, you are asking for acceptance and condoning.

Why do you single out gay people when it comes to complaining about PA laws that have been around for half a century? What's up with that?

because gay people are the only ones who seem to want to sue over trivial crap like wedding cakes.

 

[PratchettFan]

I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.

Right? Seems reasonable to me.

Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?

No. Quite the opposite.

How so? When you use government to force others to service something they don't want to, you are not asking for tolerance, you are asking for acceptance and condoning.

That is not the way it works. First, you have to get enough of the population to sympathize with you in order to get such a law passed. This means you have already attained acceptance by mainstream society. Once it is passed, it becomes a societal norm. If you are breaking the law it is the automatic assumption that you are in the wrong. So people who do break the law are outside the norm and, by definition, the one who fails to be accepted by mainstream society. That's human nature.

I think the mistake you are making is the assumption that in those areas where these laws exist your position is mainstream. It isn't.

Actually in this case you don't, because you are applying law that was meant to end something entirely different, i.e. perverse and systemic racial discrimination, and have mutated it to cover any "oppressed" group out there to make their butthurt more equal than someone else's butthurt.

When laws become so trivial that breaking them becomes a matter of course, (i.e pot laws) than one has to wonder if society is really benefiting from such laws, or do such laws only benefit people who feel the need to control every little facet of other people's lives.

No. Those laws specifically include sexual orientation or they couldn't be used. Whatever you might think was the intent doesn't matter. The wording of the law is what matters, and that wording did not just pop into existence on its own.

The question put forth by the OP was whether this negatively affects mainstream acceptance and I responded no. It clearly does not. Quite the opposite.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.
Right? Seems reasonable to me.
Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?

No. Quite the opposite.

Wait...
You think that the LBGT should NOT treat those with opposing views with respect?

 

[martybegan]

I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.

Right? Seems reasonable to me.

Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?

No. Quite the opposite.

How so? When you use government to force others to service something they don't want to, you are not asking for tolerance, you are asking for acceptance and condoning.

That is not the way it works. First, you have to get enough of the population to sympathize with you in order to get such a law passed. This means you have already attained acceptance by mainstream society. Once it is passed, it becomes a societal norm. If you are breaking the law it is the automatic assumption that you are in the wrong. So people who do break the law are outside the norm and, by definition, the one who fails to be accepted by mainstream society. That's human nature.

I think the mistake you are making is the assumption that in those areas where these laws exist your position is mainstream. It isn't.

Actually in this case you don't, because you are applying law that was meant to end something entirely different, i.e. perverse and systemic racial discrimination, and have mutated it to cover any "oppressed" group out there to make their butthurt more equal than someone else's butthurt.

When laws become so trivial that breaking them becomes a matter of course, (i.e pot laws) than one has to wonder if society is really benefiting from such laws, or do such laws only benefit people who feel the need to control every little facet of other people's lives.

No. Those laws specifically include sexual orientation or they couldn't be used. Whatever you might think was the intent doesn't matter. The wording of the law is what matters, and that wording did not just pop into existence on its own.

The question put forth by the OP was whether this negatively affects mainstream acceptance and I responded no. It clearly does not. Quite the opposite.

Sexual orientation was added, mostly in places where single party rule has been the norm for decades (with the occasional RHINO). They weren't added by popular demand, they were added because the elites wanted it, and they were in power.

Just wait until more lawsuits start up, and they start going after anything related to a Church. I know people don't think it will happen, but it will.

The thing with activists is there is always the next thing. Do you really expect them to stop at the church door?

 

[PratchettFan]

I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.
Right? Seems reasonable to me.
Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?

No. Quite the opposite.

Wait...
You think that the LBGT should NOT treat those with opposing views with respect?

That's not what you asked.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is not the way it works. First, you have to get enough of the population to sympathize with you in order to get such a law passed. This means you have already attained acceptance by mainstream society.

Laws against discrimination were passed long before the LGBT issue grew to what it is today, and so you cannot soundly argue that laws against discrimination prove that the mainstream has accepted LGBT.

 

[PratchettFan]

No. Quite the opposite.

How so? When you use government to force others to service something they don't want to, you are not asking for tolerance, you are asking for acceptance and condoning.

That is not the way it works. First, you have to get enough of the population to sympathize with you in order to get such a law passed. This means you have already attained acceptance by mainstream society. Once it is passed, it becomes a societal norm. If you are breaking the law it is the automatic assumption that you are in the wrong. So people who do break the law are outside the norm and, by definition, the one who fails to be accepted by mainstream society. That's human nature.

I think the mistake you are making is the assumption that in those areas where these laws exist your position is mainstream. It isn't.

Actually in this case you don't, because you are applying law that was meant to end something entirely different, i.e. perverse and systemic racial discrimination, and have mutated it to cover any "oppressed" group out there to make their butthurt more equal than someone else's butthurt.

When laws become so trivial that breaking them becomes a matter of course, (i.e pot laws) than one has to wonder if society is really benefiting from such laws, or do such laws only benefit people who feel the need to control every little facet of other people's lives.

No. Those laws specifically include sexual orientation or they couldn't be used. Whatever you might think was the intent doesn't matter. The wording of the law is what matters, and that wording did not just pop into existence on its own.

The question put forth by the OP was whether this negatively affects mainstream acceptance and I responded no. It clearly does not. Quite the opposite.

Sexual orientation was added, mostly in places where single party rule has been the norm for decades (with the occasional RHINO). They weren't added by popular demand, they were added because the elites wanted it, and they were in power.

Just wait until more lawsuits start up, and they start going after anything related to a Church. I know people don't think it will happen, but it will.

The thing with activists is there is always the next thing. Do you really expect them to stop at the church door?

Trends may well reverse, but I am not expecting that to happen. And yes, I expect them to stop at the church door regardless of what "activists" might want.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.
Right? Seems reasonable to me.
Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?

No. Quite the opposite.

Wait...
You think that the LBGT should NOT treat those with opposing views with respect?

That's not what you asked.

It is,, but I will ask it again just so you address it:
Do you think that the LBGT community should treat those with opposing views with respect?
Do you think that by not doing so, they work against their goal to have the mainstream accept them and treat them with respect?

 

[PratchettFan]

That is not the way it works. First, you have to get enough of the population to sympathize with you in order to get such a law passed. This means you have already attained acceptance by mainstream society.

Laws against discrimination were passed long before the LGBT issue grew to what it is today, and so you cannot soundly argue that laws against discrimination prove that the mainstream has accepted LGBT.

Laws against discrimination have been changed to include LGBT. That is a very sound argument that the mainstream has accepted it. Those laws were not changed in a vacuum.

 

[mdk]

No. Quite the opposite.

How so? When you use government to force others to service something they don't want to, you are not asking for tolerance, you are asking for acceptance and condoning.

That is not the way it works. First, you have to get enough of the population to sympathize with you in order to get such a law passed. This means you have already attained acceptance by mainstream society. Once it is passed, it becomes a societal norm. If you are breaking the law it is the automatic assumption that you are in the wrong. So people who do break the law are outside the norm and, by definition, the one who fails to be accepted by mainstream society. That's human nature.

I think the mistake you are making is the assumption that in those areas where these laws exist your position is mainstream. It isn't.

Actually in this case you don't, because you are applying law that was meant to end something entirely different, i.e. perverse and systemic racial discrimination, and have mutated it to cover any "oppressed" group out there to make their butthurt more equal than someone else's butthurt.

When laws become so trivial that breaking them becomes a matter of course, (i.e pot laws) than one has to wonder if society is really benefiting from such laws, or do such laws only benefit people who feel the need to control every little facet of other people's lives.

No. Those laws specifically include sexual orientation or they couldn't be used. Whatever you might think was the intent doesn't matter. The wording of the law is what matters, and that wording did not just pop into existence on its own.

The question put forth by the OP was whether this negatively affects mainstream acceptance and I responded no. It clearly does not. Quite the opposite.

Sexual orientation was added, mostly in places where single party rule has been the norm for decades (with the occasional RHINO). They weren't added by popular demand, they were added because the elites wanted it, and they were in power.

Just wait until more lawsuits start up, and they start going after anything related to a Church. I know people don't think it will happen, but it will.

The thing with activists is there is always the next thing. Do you really expect them to stop at the church door?

I am sure there might be a small handful of militant assholes that file lawsuits against churches but those suits will be laughed out court. I am not aware of any successful suit against a church on the grounds they violated public accommodation laws.

 

[martybegan]

How so? When you use government to force others to service something they don't want to, you are not asking for tolerance, you are asking for acceptance and condoning.

That is not the way it works. First, you have to get enough of the population to sympathize with you in order to get such a law passed. This means you have already attained acceptance by mainstream society. Once it is passed, it becomes a societal norm. If you are breaking the law it is the automatic assumption that you are in the wrong. So people who do break the law are outside the norm and, by definition, the one who fails to be accepted by mainstream society. That's human nature.

I think the mistake you are making is the assumption that in those areas where these laws exist your position is mainstream. It isn't.

Actually in this case you don't, because you are applying law that was meant to end something entirely different, i.e. perverse and systemic racial discrimination, and have mutated it to cover any "oppressed" group out there to make their butthurt more equal than someone else's butthurt.

When laws become so trivial that breaking them becomes a matter of course, (i.e pot laws) than one has to wonder if society is really benefiting from such laws, or do such laws only benefit people who feel the need to control every little facet of other people's lives.

No. Those laws specifically include sexual orientation or they couldn't be used. Whatever you might think was the intent doesn't matter. The wording of the law is what matters, and that wording did not just pop into existence on its own.

The question put forth by the OP was whether this negatively affects mainstream acceptance and I responded no. It clearly does not. Quite the opposite.

Sexual orientation was added, mostly in places where single party rule has been the norm for decades (with the occasional RHINO). They weren't added by popular demand, they were added because the elites wanted it, and they were in power.

Just wait until more lawsuits start up, and they start going after anything related to a Church. I know people don't think it will happen, but it will.

The thing with activists is there is always the next thing. Do you really expect them to stop at the church door?

Trends may well reverse, but I am not expecting that to happen. And yes, I expect them to stop at the church door regardless of what "activists" might want.

That's very naive of you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is not the way it works. First, you have to get enough of the population to sympathize with you in order to get such a law passed. This means you have already attained acceptance by mainstream society.

Laws against discrimination were passed long before the LGBT issue grew to what it is today, and so you cannot soundly argue that laws against discrimination prove that the mainstream has accepted LGBT.

Laws against discrimination have been changed to include LGBT. That is a very sound argument that the mainstream has accepted it. Those laws were not changed in a vacuum.

Were they changed by legislation or court action? In what proportion?

 

[martybegan]

Good gravy.

How so? When you use government to force others to service something they don't want to, you are not asking for tolerance, you are asking for acceptance and condoning.

That is not the way it works. First, you have to get enough of the population to sympathize with you in order to get such a law passed. This means you have already attained acceptance by mainstream society. Once it is passed, it becomes a societal norm. If you are breaking the law it is the automatic assumption that you are in the wrong. So people who do break the law are outside the norm and, by definition, the one who fails to be accepted by mainstream society. That's human nature.

I think the mistake you are making is the assumption that in those areas where these laws exist your position is mainstream. It isn't.

Actually in this case you don't, because you are applying law that was meant to end something entirely different, i.e. perverse and systemic racial discrimination, and have mutated it to cover any "oppressed" group out there to make their butthurt more equal than someone else's butthurt.

When laws become so trivial that breaking them becomes a matter of course, (i.e pot laws) than one has to wonder if society is really benefiting from such laws, or do such laws only benefit people who feel the need to control every little facet of other people's lives.

No. Those laws specifically include sexual orientation or they couldn't be used. Whatever you might think was the intent doesn't matter. The wording of the law is what matters, and that wording did not just pop into existence on its own.

The question put forth by the OP was whether this negatively affects mainstream acceptance and I responded no. It clearly does not. Quite the opposite.

Sexual orientation was added, mostly in places where single party rule has been the norm for decades (with the occasional RHINO). They weren't added by popular demand, they were added because the elites wanted it, and they were in power.

Just wait until more lawsuits start up, and they start going after anything related to a Church. I know people don't think it will happen, but it will.

The thing with activists is there is always the next thing. Do you really expect them to stop at the church door?

I am sure there might be a small handful of militant assholes that file lawsuits against churches but those suits will be laughed out court. I am not aware of any successful suit against a church on the grounds they violated public accommodation laws.

Why not? the word Church actually isn't in the constitution, its the free exercise of religion that is protected. Evidently bakers can't do that now, why should churches be exempt?

 

[jillian]

I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.

Right? Seems reasonable to me.

Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?

1. you aren't the mainstream. you're a winger.
2. they don't care if you "accept" them.
3. they care about having the same rights as everyone else.

you're welcome.