When will we put LGBTQ issues behind us.?

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I really don't know what to say about the "bathroom issues." I don't know the answer to that problem.

What's so hard about that?

If you have XY chromosomes and were born with “boy parts”, then you're male, and you use the men's facilities.

If you have XX chromosomes and were born with “girl parts”, then you're female, and you use the women's facilities.

If you're so degenerate that you cannot restrain yourself from trying to impersonate the opposite of your actual biological sex, then that's your problem. Don't force it on others.

More dumbed down, ignorant equine excrement. Please, please , PLEASE .......educate yourself on the issue!

Peeing in Peace | Transgender Law Center

D. The Problem

Safe bathroom access is not a luxury or a special right. Without safe access to public bathrooms,

transgender people are denied full participation in public life. For example, transgender youth may be

unable to complete school due to a lack of safe bathroom access. Due to bathroom discrimination in the

workplace, transgender people may quit or be fired from their jobs.

For many transgender people, finding a safe place to use the bathroom is a daily struggle. Even in cities

or towns that are generally considered good places to be transgender (like San Francisco or Los

Angeles), many transgender people are harassed, beaten and questioned by authorities in both women’s

and men’s rooms. In a 2002 survey conducted by the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, nearly

50% of respondents reported having been harassed or assaulted in a public bathroom. Because of this,

many transgender people avoid public bathrooms altogether and can develop health problems as a

result. This not only affects people who think of themselves as transgender, but also many others who

express their gender in a non-stereotypical way but who may not identify as transgender (for instance, a

masculine woman or an effeminate man).

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The only way you BECOME discriminatory is because of law. Either the ABSENCE of law or the laws purposed to a particular class. We need to be MORE careful about WHO is IN that class and what side effects might occur..

Do you realize how ironic the whole concept of “protected classes” is, with respect to the Fourteenth Amendment? Supposedly, this concept exists to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment's requirement for “equal protection of the laws”. But, like many wrong-wing legal principles, it ends up doing the opposite of its claimed purpose. By creating “protected classes” of people, against whom one may not discriminate because of those classes, while allowing discrimination for other reasons, you create classes that are “more equal than others”, and in effect, are denying “equal protection of the laws” to those who are discriminated against for reasons not falling under those “protected classes”.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

If Bruce still has his willie he's still a boy.

And even if he doesn't…

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If Bruce still has his willie he's still a boy.

And even if he doesn't…

View attachment 69663

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Who says a moral code doesn't apply to business dealings? Where is that written?

The “beast” spoken of in Revelation 13:17 says that, and those who are on his side agree…

And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.​

It is becoming apparent to me that this “mark” is not a physical or visual mark, but an ideological one. We are seeing the beginning of a time in which refusing to go along with the evil and madness that the Beast wishes to force on us will be punished by disallowing us from engaging in necessary commerce.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The thread that I started is supposed to be about discriminatory state laws, but thanks to you and others it has been hopelessly dragged into the gutter of inanity with stupid shit like this.

It wasn't dragged anywhere. That's where you started it.

It was you who created a thread, for the purpose of calling all of us out who observe that the Emperor is stark naked, calling us stupid and incompetent because we do not see the spectacular set of new clothes that you claim His Majesty is wearing.

And by the way, because His Majesty is stark naked, we can see the “boy parts” dangling between his legs, giving you further excuse to condemn us for refusing to accept as truth any claim that His Majesty is actually a woman.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Who says a moral code doesn't apply to business dealings? Where is that written?

The “beast” spoken of in Revelation 13:17 says that, and those who are on his side agree…

And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.​

It is becoming apparent to me that this “mark” is not a physical or visual mark, but an ideological one. We are seeing the beginning of a time in which refusing to go along with the evil and madness that the Beast wishes to force on us will be punished by disallowing us from engaging in necessary commerce.

OMG! The beast? Biblical references? Now I know what we are dealing with here. . We are totally done here!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Biblical references? Now I know what we are dealing with here. . We are totally done here!

Hardly a surprising reaction from one who fantasizes about space aliens using drugs to brainwash everyone into rejecting any and all religious faith.

 

[Dhara]

Who says a moral code doesn't apply to business dealings? Where is that written?

The “beast” spoken of in Revelation 13:17 says that, and those who are on his side agree…

And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.​

It is becoming apparent to me that this “mark” is not a physical or visual mark, but an ideological one. We are seeing the beginning of a time in which refusing to go along with the evil and madness that the Beast wishes to force on us will be punished by disallowing us from engaging in necessary commerce.

OMG! The beast? Biblical references? Now I know what we are dealing with here. . We are totally done here!

You have my sincere admiration for your willingness to engage Bob the bigot.

 

[martybegan]

Why? If there is no actual harm, if there are equivalent services easily available, does a person have to decide between their desired livelihood and broaching their own moral code? So what you are saying, in the absence of actual harm, one side (the side you like) gets what they want, and the other (the side you don't like) has to suck it up?

Why does government get to pick who's feelings are more important?

Discrimination has been determined to be a harmful business practice. Your "moral code" applies to your own personal dealings and not business dealings.

Again, why, and more importantly, determined by who? The actual harm in previous instances, i.e. Jim Crow was the economic and political surpression, the discrimination at the point of sale was a symptom, not a cause.

Where is the harm to these couples? You don't seem to be able to answer that.

Who says a moral code doesn't apply to business dealings? Where is that written?

It is interesting and telling that just about every anti gay bigot that I ever came across claims to not be a racist and decries Jim Crow laws. I don't doubt that many of them would be directing their wrath at blacks even now had it not become relatively unacceptable. Haters have to hate and gays and Muslims have become the target of convenience.

if you have read my posts, you would know I support legislative action to make marriage cover gays (just not judicial action) and have stated that I have no desire or need to discriminate against anyone.

My issue is I don't see government as a good tool to decide who's hurt feelings deserve protection, and who's hurt feelings deserve punishment.

Legislative action? So you would be willing to let gays wait another 200 years for some states to get to that point? If you were truly committed to equality, you would acknowledge the fact whether we are talking about marriage or discrimination by businesses, the government is the only protection that people have, and when the executive/ legislative branches do not act, the judiciary must.

It would be quicker in most States, and to me all States must recognize marriages from other States, even if their own laws would not allow them. This has precedence with regards to age/parental approval and relationship status.

I am committed to the rule of Constitutional law, in a strict constructional spirit. Forcing States to change their marriage contracts in this case is excessive and unconstitutional.

 

[martybegan]

Who says a moral code doesn't apply to business dealings? Where is that written?

The “beast” spoken of in Revelation 13:17 says that, and those who are on his side agree…

And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.​

It is becoming apparent to me that this “mark” is not a physical or visual mark, but an ideological one. We are seeing the beginning of a time in which refusing to go along with the evil and madness that the Beast wishes to force on us will be punished by disallowing us from engaging in necessary commerce.

OMG! The beast? Biblical references? Now I know what we are dealing with here. . We are totally done here!

It's interesting that for some reason you just can't seem to debate and automatically dismiss with people of a religious persuasion.

Bigot.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Discrimination has been determined to be a harmful business practice. Your "moral code" applies to your own personal dealings and not business dealings.

Again, why, and more importantly, determined by who? The actual harm in previous instances, i.e. Jim Crow was the economic and political surpression, the discrimination at the point of sale was a symptom, not a cause.

Where is the harm to these couples? You don't seem to be able to answer that.

Who says a moral code doesn't apply to business dealings? Where is that written?

It is interesting and telling that just about every anti gay bigot that I ever came across claims to not be a racist and decries Jim Crow laws. I don't doubt that many of them would be directing their wrath at blacks even now had it not become relatively unacceptable. Haters have to hate and gays and Muslims have become the target of convenience.

if you have read my posts, you would know I support legislative action to make marriage cover gays (just not judicial action) and have stated that I have no desire or need to discriminate against anyone.

My issue is I don't see government as a good tool to decide who's hurt feelings deserve protection, and who's hurt feelings deserve punishment.

Legislative action? So you would be willing to let gays wait another 200 years for some states to get to that point? If you were truly committed to equality, you would acknowledge the fact whether we are talking about marriage or discrimination by businesses, the government is the only protection that people have, and when the executive/ legislative branches do not act, the judiciary must.

It would be quicker in most States, and to me all States must recognize marriages from other States, even if their own laws would not allow them. This has precedence with regards to age/parental approval and relationship status.

I am committed to the rule of Constitutional law, in a strict constructional spirit. Forcing States to change their marriage contracts in this case is excessive and unconstitutional.

You seem to be residing in some alternate reality where the things that you THINK should be ARE in reality the way it is. NOT SO. The fact is that before Obergefell, many states were not recognizing same sex marriages from other states. The Defense of Marriage Act exempted states from having to do so and the full faith and credit clause of the constitution was never tested in court with respect to marriage. Quicker in most states......? Another fantasy.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Who says a moral code doesn't apply to business dealings? Where is that written?

The “beast” spoken of in Revelation 13:17 says that, and those who are on his side agree…

And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.​

It is becoming apparent to me that this “mark” is not a physical or visual mark, but an ideological one. We are seeing the beginning of a time in which refusing to go along with the evil and madness that the Beast wishes to force on us will be punished by disallowing us from engaging in necessary commerce.

OMG! The beast? Biblical references? Now I know what we are dealing with here. . We are totally done here!

It's interesting that for some reason you just can't seem to debate and automatically dismiss with people of a religious persuasion.

Bigot.

I debate facts . I debate the law. I do not debate nonsense and mythology. It has no place in a discussion of civil rights.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Who says a moral code doesn't apply to business dealings? Where is that written?

The “beast” spoken of in Revelation 13:17 says that, and those who are on his side agree…

And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.​

It is becoming apparent to me that this “mark” is not a physical or visual mark, but an ideological one. We are seeing the beginning of a time in which refusing to go along with the evil and madness that the Beast wishes to force on us will be punished by disallowing us from engaging in necessary commerce.

OMG! The beast? Biblical references? Now I know what we are dealing with here. . We are totally done here!

It's interesting that for some reason you just can't seem to debate and automatically dismiss with people of a religious persuasion.

Bigot.

I debate facts . I debate the law. I do not debate nonsense and mythology. It has no place in a discussion of civil rights.

The Constitution says otherwise...that entire freedom of religion thing ya know

 

[martybegan]

Again, why, and more importantly, determined by who? The actual harm in previous instances, i.e. Jim Crow was the economic and political surpression, the discrimination at the point of sale was a symptom, not a cause.

Where is the harm to these couples? You don't seem to be able to answer that.

Who says a moral code doesn't apply to business dealings? Where is that written?

It is interesting and telling that just about every anti gay bigot that I ever came across claims to not be a racist and decries Jim Crow laws. I don't doubt that many of them would be directing their wrath at blacks even now had it not become relatively unacceptable. Haters have to hate and gays and Muslims have become the target of convenience.

if you have read my posts, you would know I support legislative action to make marriage cover gays (just not judicial action) and have stated that I have no desire or need to discriminate against anyone.

My issue is I don't see government as a good tool to decide who's hurt feelings deserve protection, and who's hurt feelings deserve punishment.

Legislative action? So you would be willing to let gays wait another 200 years for some states to get to that point? If you were truly committed to equality, you would acknowledge the fact whether we are talking about marriage or discrimination by businesses, the government is the only protection that people have, and when the executive/ legislative branches do not act, the judiciary must.

It would be quicker in most States, and to me all States must recognize marriages from other States, even if their own laws would not allow them. This has precedence with regards to age/parental approval and relationship status.

I am committed to the rule of Constitutional law, in a strict constructional spirit. Forcing States to change their marriage contracts in this case is excessive and unconstitutional.

You seem to be residing in some alternate reality where the things that you THINK should be ARE in reality the way it is. NOT SO. The fact is that before Obergefell, many states were not recognizing same sex marriages from other states. The Defense of Marriage Act exempted states from having to do so and the full faith and credit clause of the constitution was never tested in court with respect to marriage. Quicker in most states......? Another fantasy.

I'm sure if advocates went the legislative route, they would have gotten far more States in that column. Instead, for the past decade or so, they went for the easy button, the court route. But again, it isn't about anything but forcing your will on others for you people, using the least democratic method possible.

Why convince the people when you can convince un-elected lawyers?

 

[martybegan]

Who says a moral code doesn't apply to business dealings? Where is that written?

The “beast” spoken of in Revelation 13:17 says that, and those who are on his side agree…

And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.​

It is becoming apparent to me that this “mark” is not a physical or visual mark, but an ideological one. We are seeing the beginning of a time in which refusing to go along with the evil and madness that the Beast wishes to force on us will be punished by disallowing us from engaging in necessary commerce.

OMG! The beast? Biblical references? Now I know what we are dealing with here. . We are totally done here!

It's interesting that for some reason you just can't seem to debate and automatically dismiss with people of a religious persuasion.

Bigot.

I debate facts . I debate the law. I do not debate nonsense and mythology. It has no place in a discussion of civil rights.

Bigot.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It is interesting and telling that just about every anti gay bigot that I ever came across claims to not be a racist and decries Jim Crow laws. I don't doubt that many of them would be directing their wrath at blacks even now had it not become relatively unacceptable. Haters have to hate and gays and Muslims have become the target of convenience.

if you have read my posts, you would know I support legislative action to make marriage cover gays (just not judicial action) and have stated that I have no desire or need to discriminate against anyone.

My issue is I don't see government as a good tool to decide who's hurt feelings deserve protection, and who's hurt feelings deserve punishment.

Legislative action? So you would be willing to let gays wait another 200 years for some states to get to that point? If you were truly committed to equality, you would acknowledge the fact whether we are talking about marriage or discrimination by businesses, the government is the only protection that people have, and when the executive/ legislative branches do not act, the judiciary must.

It would be quicker in most States, and to me all States must recognize marriages from other States, even if their own laws would not allow them. This has precedence with regards to age/parental approval and relationship status.

I am committed to the rule of Constitutional law, in a strict constructional spirit. Forcing States to change their marriage contracts in this case is excessive and unconstitutional.

You seem to be residing in some alternate reality where the things that you THINK should be ARE in reality the way it is. NOT SO. The fact is that before Obergefell, many states were not recognizing same sex marriages from other states. The Defense of Marriage Act exempted states from having to do so and the full faith and credit clause of the constitution was never tested in court with respect to marriage. Quicker in most states......? Another fantasy.

I'm sure if advocates went the legislative route, they would have gotten far more States in that column. Instead, for the past decade or so, they went for the easy button, the court route. But again, it isn't about anything but forcing your will on others for you people, using the least democratic method possible.

Why convince the people when you can convince un-elected lawyers?

Bull! States like Alabama? Mississippi? Are you serious. The Federal court fulfilled it's proper role and function. Here is another example. A year after Obergefell, Mississippi was still resisting adoption by same sex couples: HRC Condemns Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant’s Statement of Support for LGBT Adoption Ban

 

[martybegan]

if you have read my posts, you would know I support legislative action to make marriage cover gays (just not judicial action) and have stated that I have no desire or need to discriminate against anyone.

My issue is I don't see government as a good tool to decide who's hurt feelings deserve protection, and who's hurt feelings deserve punishment.

Legislative action? So you would be willing to let gays wait another 200 years for some states to get to that point? If you were truly committed to equality, you would acknowledge the fact whether we are talking about marriage or discrimination by businesses, the government is the only protection that people have, and when the executive/ legislative branches do not act, the judiciary must.

It would be quicker in most States, and to me all States must recognize marriages from other States, even if their own laws would not allow them. This has precedence with regards to age/parental approval and relationship status.

I am committed to the rule of Constitutional law, in a strict constructional spirit. Forcing States to change their marriage contracts in this case is excessive and unconstitutional.

You seem to be residing in some alternate reality where the things that you THINK should be ARE in reality the way it is. NOT SO. The fact is that before Obergefell, many states were not recognizing same sex marriages from other states. The Defense of Marriage Act exempted states from having to do so and the full faith and credit clause of the constitution was never tested in court with respect to marriage. Quicker in most states......? Another fantasy.

I'm sure if advocates went the legislative route, they would have gotten far more States in that column. Instead, for the past decade or so, they went for the easy button, the court route. But again, it isn't about anything but forcing your will on others for you people, using the least democratic method possible.

Why convince the people when you can convince un-elected lawyers?

Bull! States like Alabama? Mississippi? Are you serious. The Federal court fulfilled it's proper role and function. Here is another example. A year after Obergefell, Mississippi was still resisting adoption by same sex couples: HRC Condemns Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant’s Statement of Support for LGBT Adoption Ban

Who cares? as long as they were required to recognize out of State marriages, then the issue is solved.

Mississippi is going to be Mississippi. How about we force NYC to follow Mississippi's gun laws?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Legislative action? So you would be willing to let gays wait another 200 years for some states to get to that point? If you were truly committed to equality, you would acknowledge the fact whether we are talking about marriage or discrimination by businesses, the government is the only protection that people have, and when the executive/ legislative branches do not act, the judiciary must.

It would be quicker in most States, and to me all States must recognize marriages from other States, even if their own laws would not allow them. This has precedence with regards to age/parental approval and relationship status.

I am committed to the rule of Constitutional law, in a strict constructional spirit. Forcing States to change their marriage contracts in this case is excessive and unconstitutional.

You seem to be residing in some alternate reality where the things that you THINK should be ARE in reality the way it is. NOT SO. The fact is that before Obergefell, many states were not recognizing same sex marriages from other states. The Defense of Marriage Act exempted states from having to do so and the full faith and credit clause of the constitution was never tested in court with respect to marriage. Quicker in most states......? Another fantasy.

I'm sure if advocates went the legislative route, they would have gotten far more States in that column. Instead, for the past decade or so, they went for the easy button, the court route. But again, it isn't about anything but forcing your will on others for you people, using the least democratic method possible.

Why convince the people when you can convince un-elected lawyers?

Bull! States like Alabama? Mississippi? Are you serious. The Federal court fulfilled it's proper role and function. Here is another example. A year after Obergefell, Mississippi was still resisting adoption by same sex couples: HRC Condemns Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant’s Statement of Support for LGBT Adoption Ban

Who cares? as long as they were required to recognize out of State marriages, then the issue is solved.

Mississippi is going to be Mississippi. How about we force NYC to follow Mississippi's gun laws?

Who cares?!! Now you are just getting stupid! The problem was not solved....until now. Obviously you don't know what you're talking about. If you dismiss the issue of adoption, it's even more obvious that your claim of being for equality is bogus.

 

[martybegan]

It would be quicker in most States, and to me all States must recognize marriages from other States, even if their own laws would not allow them. This has precedence with regards to age/parental approval and relationship status.

I am committed to the rule of Constitutional law, in a strict constructional spirit. Forcing States to change their marriage contracts in this case is excessive and unconstitutional.

You seem to be residing in some alternate reality where the things that you THINK should be ARE in reality the way it is. NOT SO. The fact is that before Obergefell, many states were not recognizing same sex marriages from other states. The Defense of Marriage Act exempted states from having to do so and the full faith and credit clause of the constitution was never tested in court with respect to marriage. Quicker in most states......? Another fantasy.

I'm sure if advocates went the legislative route, they would have gotten far more States in that column. Instead, for the past decade or so, they went for the easy button, the court route. But again, it isn't about anything but forcing your will on others for you people, using the least democratic method possible.

Why convince the people when you can convince un-elected lawyers?

Bull! States like Alabama? Mississippi? Are you serious. The Federal court fulfilled it's proper role and function. Here is another example. A year after Obergefell, Mississippi was still resisting adoption by same sex couples: HRC Condemns Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant’s Statement of Support for LGBT Adoption Ban

Who cares? as long as they were required to recognize out of State marriages, then the issue is solved.

Mississippi is going to be Mississippi. How about we force NYC to follow Mississippi's gun laws?

Who cares?!! Now you are just getting stupid! Obviously you don't know what you're talking about. If you dismiss the issue of adoption, it's even more obvious that your claim of being for equality is bogus.

Being for equality doesn't mean thinking the constitution can be ignored to achieve it.