When will we put LGBTQ issues behind us.?

[SassyIrishLass]

We are fresh off of a victory in Georgia where the governor vetoed a homophobic and quite frankly stupid bill that targeted LGBT people in the name of ”religious liberty” He caved to pressure from local businesses while never acknowledging the true intent of the bill.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/religious-liberty-bill-could-get-surprise-vote-wed/nqmkF/


However, the anti-equality forces are still hard at work in the south and elsewhere. They are spending countless hours and millions of dollars that could be spent on addressing the real- instead of imagined problems facing the nation. Cases in point:

North Carolina:

http://www.hrc.org/blog/voices-of-north-carolina-the-transgender-community-speaks-out

This week, HRC is lifting up the voices of North Carolinians whose lives are affected by the dangerous and discriminatory bill (HB 2) that North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory signed into law last week.

The first of those stories is from Madeline Goss, an openly transgender woman from Raleigh and former HRC Board of Governors member. Last week, she testified about the harmful impact HB 2 would have on her life and the transgender community.

“I can't use the men's room. I won't go back to the men's room. It is unsafe for me there. People like me die in there," Goss said.

On March 23, Governor McCrory signed into law an outrageous and unprecedented anti-LGBT bill that eliminates existing municipal non-discrimination protections for LGBT people; prevents such provisions from being passed by cities in the future; and forces transgender students in public schools to use restrooms and other facilities inconsistent with their gender identity, putting 4.5 billion dollars in federal funding under Title IX at risk. Read more about how this bill puts federal funding at risk here.

And South Carolina:

http://www.hrc.org/blog/south-carolina-senate-committee-advances-anti-marriage-equality-bill

Last week, a handful of conservative state Senators in South Carolina voted to advance S.31, a bill calling on the US Congress to amend the United States Constitution to allow states to roll back marriage equality on a state by state basis, but ultimately the bill has little chance of passing this session.

S.31 was introduced last year by conservative Senator Larry Grooms, but the bill has been stuck in limbo in the Senate Judiciary Committee since last April. Finally, after months of skipping over the bill - a clear sign that committee members have no appetite for it - S.31 was amended and advanced with a vote of 17 to 3. HRC thanks the three Democrats on the committee, Senators Sabb, Bright-Matthews, and Hutto, for voting against this bill.

Seeking to undermine the historic marriage equality ruling last year by the Supreme Court of the United States ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, S.31 calls on Congress to host a constitutional convention to amend the Constitution of the United States to allow all states to determine their own definitions of marriage. If the Constitution were to be amended in this way, it would give states the ability to roll back marriage equality if they oppose it,, effectively stripping away years of progress and placing millions of same-sex marriages in jeopardy.

Where will it end? When can we get over it and move on to other things? To come together as a nation and, yes, make America Great by being a nation that is all inclusive and accepting of all people? When can we get past this religious and fear based bigotry and start treating our neighbors with the dignity that they deserve? When!!??

when ? as soon as the bitter white cross humpers die off , since they are a monority now, hopefully with a few years when they are even a smaller minoity

You're a pee wee puffer ain't ya Guano? It's so obvious

Strange that a well known bi muff diver of group activites such as yourself would be against gay issues

You don't know me twerp so cease pretending you do. You're just another lying liberal jackass unable to hold your own...much like all the fags you seem to hang with on here. Didn't think it was noticed did you?

 

[dblack]

The LGBT thing is part of the broader issue of identity politics - which in itself is a byproduct of corporatism (special interest governance).

 

[Skylar]

It'll never go away. The liberals can't exist without a victim class.

It will eventually go away in about a generation or two. Millennials generally don't give a fiddler's fuck about LGBT folks. And have much less rigid gender roles than Gen Xers or Boomers.

Its one of those issues that will wither on the vine because its just fucking stupid.

It'll go away, only if the Libs find another victim de'jour.

It's ridiculous that the government even involves itself in such issues. These are peaceful interactions between private individuals. None of the government's business.

It depends on the interaction. If its commerce, the regulation of it within a State is most *definitely* the State government's business. As regulating intrastate commerce is unquestioningly a power of the States.

Commerce is the state government's business? Why?

Intrastate commerce is a power retained by the State. Thus, its their business if they decide it is and it doesn't violate rights. See Article 1, Section 8 Clause 3....along with the 10th amendment. Its perfectly constitutional.

As long as no fraud or violence has occurred, and as long as the state gets it's extortion money, er, I mean taxes, why should LGBTQ issues by any concern of the state?

Because they decide it is. The rights that are protected by a State aren't limited to federally protected rights. Many States can and do have far more extensive protections for people than the federal government recognizes. And that's totally within the power of a People of a State to do.

Federal Protections establish the baseline minimum of rights. Not the maximum. And if the people of State decide that you have a right to be free from discrimination based on sexual orientation when conducting acts of commerce, they have every authority to protect that right.

The only thing that could practically trump them would be federal amendment......or a violation of federal rights. Neither of which are an issue with PA laws.

 

[Skylar]

It will eventually go away in about a generation or two. Millennials generally don't give a fiddler's fuck about LGBT folks. And have much less rigid gender roles than Gen Xers or Boomers.

Its one of those issues that will wither on the vine because its just fucking stupid.

It'll go away, only if the Libs find another victim de'jour.

Or conservatives will whine about how their religion is being violated because they have to follow the same laws as everyone else. Or how unfair society is to white people. Or how unfair society is to rich people. Or they'll create a new class to vilify.

Being a whiny little bitch is something that conservatives have become quite adept at.

Should a gay baker be forced to serve an event they find offensive?

Depends on the State and the basis of their offense.

Well, no. They no longer have the right to disagree.

Again, depends on the State and depends on the basis of their offense. If its Oregon for example......they couldn't deny services based on sexual orientation. If its Michigan, they could.

A gay caterer, by law, must service a straight pride event. They can't discriminate against the event organizers because of their sexual orientation.

Again, it depends on the State. In Oregon, probably not. In Michigan, they probably could.

 

[Moonglow]

Never. We have gone beyond coming together as one nation. If you are afraid to wag your dick in the men's room, the solution is to make you terrified to wag your dick in the women's room.

You don't deserve jack shit.

At our age, even the gheys don't want us, so swing away...fart when you piss also..

 

[Centinel]

It will eventually go away in about a generation or two. Millennials generally don't give a fiddler's fuck about LGBT folks. And have much less rigid gender roles than Gen Xers or Boomers.

Its one of those issues that will wither on the vine because its just fucking stupid.

It'll go away, only if the Libs find another victim de'jour.

Or conservatives will whine about how their religion is being violated because they have to follow the same laws as everyone else. Or how unfair society is to white people. Or how unfair society is to rich people. Or they'll create a new class to vilify.

Being a whiny little bitch is something that conservatives have become quite adept at.

Should a gay baker be forced to serve an event they find offensive?

Depends on the State and the basis of their offense.

Well, no. They no longer have the right to disagree. A gay caterer, by law, must service a straight pride event. They can't discriminate against the event organizers because of their sexual orientation.

It's stupid that the state can force you to engage in trade with someone you don't want to.

It will eventually go away in about a generation or two. Millennials generally don't give a fiddler's fuck about LGBT folks. And have much less rigid gender roles than Gen Xers or Boomers.

Its one of those issues that will wither on the vine because its just fucking stupid.

It'll go away, only if the Libs find another victim de'jour.

It's ridiculous that the government even involves itself in such issues. These are peaceful interactions between private individuals. None of the government's business.

It depends on the interaction. If its commerce, the regulation of it within a State is most *definitely* the State government's business. As regulating intrastate commerce is unquestioningly a power of the States.

Commerce is the state government's business? Why?

Intrastate commerce is a power retained by the State. Thus, its their business if they decide it is and it doesn't violate rights. See Article 1, Section 8 Clause 3....along with the 10th amendment. Its perfectly constitutional.

As long as no fraud or violence has occurred, and as long as the state gets it's extortion money, er, I mean taxes, why should LGBTQ issues by any concern of the state?

Because they decide it is.

Let's hope they don't decide it's double-plus good to crucify all redheads. Because I guess if they decided to do so, that law would be just too.

The rights that are protected by a State aren't limited to federally protected rights. Many States can and do have far more extensive protections for people than the federal government recognizes. And that's totally within the power of a People of a State to do.

Federal Protections establish the baseline minimum of rights. Not the maximum. And if the people of State decide that you have a right to be free from discrimination based on sexual orientation when conducting acts of commerce, they have every authority to protect that right.

The only thing that could practically trump them would be federal amendment......or a violation of federal rights. Neither of which are an issue with PA laws.

The government should, you know...govern. Not involve itself in the peaceful, private interactions of people. And it certainly shouldn't conscript the bodies of people and force them to perform acts to which they are opposed.

As long as people aren't defrauding, threatening, or harming others, they should be free to do what they want.

 

[ChrisL]

It'll go away, only if the Libs find another victim de'jour.

Or conservatives will whine about how their religion is being violated because they have to follow the same laws as everyone else. Or how unfair society is to white people. Or how unfair society is to rich people. Or they'll create a new class to vilify.

Being a whiny little bitch is something that conservatives have become quite adept at.

Should a gay baker be forced to serve an event they find offensive?

Depends on the State and the basis of their offense.

Well, no. They no longer have the right to disagree. A gay caterer, by law, must service a straight pride event. They can't discriminate against the event organizers because of their sexual orientation.

It's stupid that the state can force you to engage in trade with someone you don't want to.

It'll go away, only if the Libs find another victim de'jour.

It's ridiculous that the government even involves itself in such issues. These are peaceful interactions between private individuals. None of the government's business.

It depends on the interaction. If its commerce, the regulation of it within a State is most *definitely* the State government's business. As regulating intrastate commerce is unquestioningly a power of the States.

Commerce is the state government's business? Why?

Intrastate commerce is a power retained by the State. Thus, its their business if they decide it is and it doesn't violate rights. See Article 1, Section 8 Clause 3....along with the 10th amendment. Its perfectly constitutional.

As long as no fraud or violence has occurred, and as long as the state gets it's extortion money, er, I mean taxes, why should LGBTQ issues by any concern of the state?

Because they decide it is.

Let's hope they don't decide it's double-plus good to crucify all redheads. Because I guess if they decided to do so, that law would be just too.

The rights that are protected by a State aren't limited to federally protected rights. Many States can and do have far more extensive protections for people than the federal government recognizes. And that's totally within the power of a People of a State to do.

Federal Protections establish the baseline minimum of rights. Not the maximum. And if the people of State decide that you have a right to be free from discrimination based on sexual orientation when conducting acts of commerce, they have every authority to protect that right.

The only thing that could practically trump them would be federal amendment......or a violation of federal rights. Neither of which are an issue with PA laws.

The government should, you know...govern. Not involve itself in the peaceful, private interactions of people. And it certainly shouldn't conscript the bodies of people and force them to perform acts to which they are opposed.

As long as people aren't defrauding, threatening, or harming others, they should be free to do what they want.

That's bullshit. People need to be protected from discrimination. You'd be singing a different tune if it was age related discrimination, I'm sure. People are assholes and stupid.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

It'll go away, only if the Libs find another victim de'jour.

Or conservatives will whine about how their religion is being violated because they have to follow the same laws as everyone else. Or how unfair society is to white people. Or how unfair society is to rich people. Or they'll create a new class to vilify.

Being a whiny little bitch is something that conservatives have become quite adept at.

Should a gay baker be forced to serve an event they find offensive?

Depends on the State and the basis of their offense.

Well, no. They no longer have the right to disagree.

Again, depends on the State and depends on the basis of their offense. If its Oregon for example......they couldn't deny services based on sexual orientation. If its Michigan, they could.

A gay caterer, by law, must service a straight pride event. They can't discriminate against the event organizers because of their sexual orientation.

Again, it depends on the State. In Oregon, probably not. In Michigan, they probably could.

But, you just said it's the law.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Or conservatives will whine about how their religion is being violated because they have to follow the same laws as everyone else. Or how unfair society is to white people. Or how unfair society is to rich people. Or they'll create a new class to vilify.

Being a whiny little bitch is something that conservatives have become quite adept at.

Should a gay baker be forced to serve an event they find offensive?

Depends on the State and the basis of their offense.

Well, no. They no longer have the right to disagree. A gay caterer, by law, must service a straight pride event. They can't discriminate against the event organizers because of their sexual orientation.

It's stupid that the state can force you to engage in trade with someone you don't want to.

It's ridiculous that the government even involves itself in such issues. These are peaceful interactions between private individuals. None of the government's business.

It depends on the interaction. If its commerce, the regulation of it within a State is most *definitely* the State government's business. As regulating intrastate commerce is unquestioningly a power of the States.

Commerce is the state government's business? Why?

Intrastate commerce is a power retained by the State. Thus, its their business if they decide it is and it doesn't violate rights. See Article 1, Section 8 Clause 3....along with the 10th amendment. Its perfectly constitutional.

As long as no fraud or violence has occurred, and as long as the state gets it's extortion money, er, I mean taxes, why should LGBTQ issues by any concern of the state?

Because they decide it is.

Let's hope they don't decide it's double-plus good to crucify all redheads. Because I guess if they decided to do so, that law would be just too.

The rights that are protected by a State aren't limited to federally protected rights. Many States can and do have far more extensive protections for people than the federal government recognizes. And that's totally within the power of a People of a State to do.

Federal Protections establish the baseline minimum of rights. Not the maximum. And if the people of State decide that you have a right to be free from discrimination based on sexual orientation when conducting acts of commerce, they have every authority to protect that right.

The only thing that could practically trump them would be federal amendment......or a violation of federal rights. Neither of which are an issue with PA laws.

The government should, you know...govern. Not involve itself in the peaceful, private interactions of people. And it certainly shouldn't conscript the bodies of people and force them to perform acts to which they are opposed.

As long as people aren't defrauding, threatening, or harming others, they should be free to do what they want.

That's bullshit. People need to be protected from discrimination. You'd be singing a different tune if it was age related discrimination, I'm sure. People are assholes and stupid.

I would take my business elsewhere.

 

[Skylar]

It'll go away, only if the Libs find another victim de'jour.

Or conservatives will whine about how their religion is being violated because they have to follow the same laws as everyone else. Or how unfair society is to white people. Or how unfair society is to rich people. Or they'll create a new class to vilify.

Being a whiny little bitch is something that conservatives have become quite adept at.

Should a gay baker be forced to serve an event they find offensive?

Depends on the State and the basis of their offense.

Well, no. They no longer have the right to disagree. A gay caterer, by law, must service a straight pride event. They can't discriminate against the event organizers because of their sexual orientation.

It's stupid that the state can force you to engage in trade with someone you don't want to.

It'll go away, only if the Libs find another victim de'jour.

It's ridiculous that the government even involves itself in such issues. These are peaceful interactions between private individuals. None of the government's business.

It depends on the interaction. If its commerce, the regulation of it within a State is most *definitely* the State government's business. As regulating intrastate commerce is unquestioningly a power of the States.

Commerce is the state government's business? Why?

Intrastate commerce is a power retained by the State. Thus, its their business if they decide it is and it doesn't violate rights. See Article 1, Section 8 Clause 3....along with the 10th amendment. Its perfectly constitutional.

As long as no fraud or violence has occurred, and as long as the state gets it's extortion money, er, I mean taxes, why should LGBTQ issues by any concern of the state?

Because they decide it is.

Let's hope they don't decide it's double-plus good to crucify all redheads. Because I guess if they decided to do so, that law would be just too.

The rights that are protected by a State aren't limited to federally protected rights. Many States can and do have far more extensive protections for people than the federal government recognizes. And that's totally within the power of a People of a State to do.

Federal Protections establish the baseline minimum of rights. Not the maximum. And if the people of State decide that you have a right to be free from discrimination based on sexual orientation when conducting acts of commerce, they have every authority to protect that right.

The only thing that could practically trump them would be federal amendment......or a violation of federal rights. Neither of which are an issue with PA laws.

The government should, you know...govern.

And per the people of some states, protecting rights to freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation (or race, or sex, or religion, or ethnicity) in acts of commerce is governing.

And as long as they don't violate individual rights or the constitution, they have every authority to do so. That you 'don't think they should' is immaterial. What matters is what the relevant majority thinks.....constrained by the constitution and individual rights. Within those limitations, in any contest between you and the relevant majority of the State, the relevant majority wins.

That's our constitutional republic. If you don't like it, convince the relevant majority to change it.

 

[Skylar]

Or conservatives will whine about how their religion is being violated because they have to follow the same laws as everyone else. Or how unfair society is to white people. Or how unfair society is to rich people. Or they'll create a new class to vilify.

Being a whiny little bitch is something that conservatives have become quite adept at.

Should a gay baker be forced to serve an event they find offensive?

Depends on the State and the basis of their offense.

Well, no. They no longer have the right to disagree.

Again, depends on the State and depends on the basis of their offense. If its Oregon for example......they couldn't deny services based on sexual orientation. If its Michigan, they could.

A gay caterer, by law, must service a straight pride event. They can't discriminate against the event organizers because of their sexual orientation.

Again, it depends on the State. In Oregon, probably not. In Michigan, they probably could.

But, you just said it's the law.

It is the law...in some states. Its not in others. Thus, it 'depends on the state and depends on the basis of offense'.

Like I said 3 times. Well, 4 now.

 

[Centinel]

Or conservatives will whine about how their religion is being violated because they have to follow the same laws as everyone else. Or how unfair society is to white people. Or how unfair society is to rich people. Or they'll create a new class to vilify.

Being a whiny little bitch is something that conservatives have become quite adept at.

Should a gay baker be forced to serve an event they find offensive?

Depends on the State and the basis of their offense.

Well, no. They no longer have the right to disagree. A gay caterer, by law, must service a straight pride event. They can't discriminate against the event organizers because of their sexual orientation.

It's stupid that the state can force you to engage in trade with someone you don't want to.

It's ridiculous that the government even involves itself in such issues. These are peaceful interactions between private individuals. None of the government's business.

It depends on the interaction. If its commerce, the regulation of it within a State is most *definitely* the State government's business. As regulating intrastate commerce is unquestioningly a power of the States.

Commerce is the state government's business? Why?

Intrastate commerce is a power retained by the State. Thus, its their business if they decide it is and it doesn't violate rights. See Article 1, Section 8 Clause 3....along with the 10th amendment. Its perfectly constitutional.

As long as no fraud or violence has occurred, and as long as the state gets it's extortion money, er, I mean taxes, why should LGBTQ issues by any concern of the state?

Because they decide it is.

Let's hope they don't decide it's double-plus good to crucify all redheads. Because I guess if they decided to do so, that law would be just too.

The rights that are protected by a State aren't limited to federally protected rights. Many States can and do have far more extensive protections for people than the federal government recognizes. And that's totally within the power of a People of a State to do.

Federal Protections establish the baseline minimum of rights. Not the maximum. And if the people of State decide that you have a right to be free from discrimination based on sexual orientation when conducting acts of commerce, they have every authority to protect that right.

The only thing that could practically trump them would be federal amendment......or a violation of federal rights. Neither of which are an issue with PA laws.

The government should, you know...govern. Not involve itself in the peaceful, private interactions of people. And it certainly shouldn't conscript the bodies of people and force them to perform acts to which they are opposed.

As long as people aren't defrauding, threatening, or harming others, they should be free to do what they want.

That's bullshit. People need to be protected from discrimination.

Discrimination doesn't harm anyone's person or property. How can it be a crime?

You'd be singing a different tune if it was age related discrimination, I'm sure.

No, I wouldn't.

People are assholes and stupid.

I agree. Except for you. You're not.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Should a gay baker be forced to serve an event they find offensive?

Depends on the State and the basis of their offense.

Well, no. They no longer have the right to disagree.

Again, depends on the State and depends on the basis of their offense. If its Oregon for example......they couldn't deny services based on sexual orientation. If its Michigan, they could.

A gay caterer, by law, must service a straight pride event. They can't discriminate against the event organizers because of their sexual orientation.

Again, it depends on the State. In Oregon, probably not. In Michigan, they probably could.

But, you just said it's the law.

It is the law...in some states. Its not in others. Thus, it 'depends on the state and depends on the basis of offense'.

Like I said 3 times. Well, 4 now.

That's not what you said, but ok.

 

[Centinel]

Or conservatives will whine about how their religion is being violated because they have to follow the same laws as everyone else. Or how unfair society is to white people. Or how unfair society is to rich people. Or they'll create a new class to vilify.

Being a whiny little bitch is something that conservatives have become quite adept at.

Should a gay baker be forced to serve an event they find offensive?

Depends on the State and the basis of their offense.

Well, no. They no longer have the right to disagree. A gay caterer, by law, must service a straight pride event. They can't discriminate against the event organizers because of their sexual orientation.

It's stupid that the state can force you to engage in trade with someone you don't want to.

It's ridiculous that the government even involves itself in such issues. These are peaceful interactions between private individuals. None of the government's business.

It depends on the interaction. If its commerce, the regulation of it within a State is most *definitely* the State government's business. As regulating intrastate commerce is unquestioningly a power of the States.

Commerce is the state government's business? Why?

Intrastate commerce is a power retained by the State. Thus, its their business if they decide it is and it doesn't violate rights. See Article 1, Section 8 Clause 3....along with the 10th amendment. Its perfectly constitutional.

As long as no fraud or violence has occurred, and as long as the state gets it's extortion money, er, I mean taxes, why should LGBTQ issues by any concern of the state?

Because they decide it is.

Let's hope they don't decide it's double-plus good to crucify all redheads. Because I guess if they decided to do so, that law would be just too.

The rights that are protected by a State aren't limited to federally protected rights. Many States can and do have far more extensive protections for people than the federal government recognizes. And that's totally within the power of a People of a State to do.

Federal Protections establish the baseline minimum of rights. Not the maximum. And if the people of State decide that you have a right to be free from discrimination based on sexual orientation when conducting acts of commerce, they have every authority to protect that right.

The only thing that could practically trump them would be federal amendment......or a violation of federal rights. Neither of which are an issue with PA laws.

The government should, you know...govern.

And per the people of some states, protecting rights to freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation (or race, or sex, or religion, or ethnicity) in acts of commerce is governing.

And as long as they don't violate individual rights or the constitution, they have every authority to do so. That you 'don't think they should' is immaterial. What matters is what the relevant majority thinks.....constrained by the constitution and individual rights. Within those limitations, in any contest between you and the relevant majority of the State, the relevant majority wins.

That's our constitutional republic. If you don't like it, convince the relevant majority to change it.

That's what I'm doing.

It's idiotic that a person who has harmed no one's body or property, nor threatened to do so, should be considered a criminal.

Whether or not a person chooses to engage in business with another is a private matter and should not be a criminal act.

 

[ChrisL]

Should a gay baker be forced to serve an event they find offensive?

Depends on the State and the basis of their offense.

Well, no. They no longer have the right to disagree. A gay caterer, by law, must service a straight pride event. They can't discriminate against the event organizers because of their sexual orientation.

It's stupid that the state can force you to engage in trade with someone you don't want to.

It depends on the interaction. If its commerce, the regulation of it within a State is most *definitely* the State government's business. As regulating intrastate commerce is unquestioningly a power of the States.

Commerce is the state government's business? Why?

Intrastate commerce is a power retained by the State. Thus, its their business if they decide it is and it doesn't violate rights. See Article 1, Section 8 Clause 3....along with the 10th amendment. Its perfectly constitutional.

As long as no fraud or violence has occurred, and as long as the state gets it's extortion money, er, I mean taxes, why should LGBTQ issues by any concern of the state?

Because they decide it is.

Let's hope they don't decide it's double-plus good to crucify all redheads. Because I guess if they decided to do so, that law would be just too.

The rights that are protected by a State aren't limited to federally protected rights. Many States can and do have far more extensive protections for people than the federal government recognizes. And that's totally within the power of a People of a State to do.

Federal Protections establish the baseline minimum of rights. Not the maximum. And if the people of State decide that you have a right to be free from discrimination based on sexual orientation when conducting acts of commerce, they have every authority to protect that right.

The only thing that could practically trump them would be federal amendment......or a violation of federal rights. Neither of which are an issue with PA laws.

The government should, you know...govern. Not involve itself in the peaceful, private interactions of people. And it certainly shouldn't conscript the bodies of people and force them to perform acts to which they are opposed.

As long as people aren't defrauding, threatening, or harming others, they should be free to do what they want.

That's bullshit. People need to be protected from discrimination.

Discrimination doesn't harm anyone's person or property. How can it be a crime?

You'd be singing a different tune if it was age related discrimination, I'm sure.

No, I wouldn't.

People are assholes and stupid.

I agree. Except for you. You're not.

Not sure if that was sarcasm. I mean generally speaking, there are a LOT of ignorant and very stupid people around. It's a wonder some of these people have survived as long as they have. A bigoted, ignorant and hateful bunch we are!

 

[Skylar]

Should a gay baker be forced to serve an event they find offensive?

Depends on the State and the basis of their offense.

Well, no. They no longer have the right to disagree. A gay caterer, by law, must service a straight pride event. They can't discriminate against the event organizers because of their sexual orientation.

It's stupid that the state can force you to engage in trade with someone you don't want to.

It depends on the interaction. If its commerce, the regulation of it within a State is most *definitely* the State government's business. As regulating intrastate commerce is unquestioningly a power of the States.

Commerce is the state government's business? Why?

Intrastate commerce is a power retained by the State. Thus, its their business if they decide it is and it doesn't violate rights. See Article 1, Section 8 Clause 3....along with the 10th amendment. Its perfectly constitutional.

As long as no fraud or violence has occurred, and as long as the state gets it's extortion money, er, I mean taxes, why should LGBTQ issues by any concern of the state?

Because they decide it is.

Let's hope they don't decide it's double-plus good to crucify all redheads. Because I guess if they decided to do so, that law would be just too.

The rights that are protected by a State aren't limited to federally protected rights. Many States can and do have far more extensive protections for people than the federal government recognizes. And that's totally within the power of a People of a State to do.

Federal Protections establish the baseline minimum of rights. Not the maximum. And if the people of State decide that you have a right to be free from discrimination based on sexual orientation when conducting acts of commerce, they have every authority to protect that right.

The only thing that could practically trump them would be federal amendment......or a violation of federal rights. Neither of which are an issue with PA laws.

The government should, you know...govern. Not involve itself in the peaceful, private interactions of people. And it certainly shouldn't conscript the bodies of people and force them to perform acts to which they are opposed.

As long as people aren't defrauding, threatening, or harming others, they should be free to do what they want.

That's bullshit. People need to be protected from discrimination.

Discrimination doesn't harm anyone's person or property. How can it be a crime?

It can certainly be a civil infraction. It can cause financial harm, prevent access to necessary goods and services, cause emotional harm, and be wildly exploitative.

In areas of commerce, a State can set minimum standards of conduct for those who wish to conduct business in their State. And frequently do.

That you don't think they 'should' is again immaterial. As within the bounds of the constitution and individual rights, the People of the States have vast powers. Which most definitely includes authority over intra state commerce.

 

[Centinel]

Depends on the State and the basis of their offense.

Well, no. They no longer have the right to disagree. A gay caterer, by law, must service a straight pride event. They can't discriminate against the event organizers because of their sexual orientation.

It's stupid that the state can force you to engage in trade with someone you don't want to.

Commerce is the state government's business? Why?

Intrastate commerce is a power retained by the State. Thus, its their business if they decide it is and it doesn't violate rights. See Article 1, Section 8 Clause 3....along with the 10th amendment. Its perfectly constitutional.

As long as no fraud or violence has occurred, and as long as the state gets it's extortion money, er, I mean taxes, why should LGBTQ issues by any concern of the state?

Because they decide it is.

Let's hope they don't decide it's double-plus good to crucify all redheads. Because I guess if they decided to do so, that law would be just too.

The rights that are protected by a State aren't limited to federally protected rights. Many States can and do have far more extensive protections for people than the federal government recognizes. And that's totally within the power of a People of a State to do.

Federal Protections establish the baseline minimum of rights. Not the maximum. And if the people of State decide that you have a right to be free from discrimination based on sexual orientation when conducting acts of commerce, they have every authority to protect that right.

The only thing that could practically trump them would be federal amendment......or a violation of federal rights. Neither of which are an issue with PA laws.

The government should, you know...govern. Not involve itself in the peaceful, private interactions of people. And it certainly shouldn't conscript the bodies of people and force them to perform acts to which they are opposed.

As long as people aren't defrauding, threatening, or harming others, they should be free to do what they want.

That's bullshit. People need to be protected from discrimination.

Discrimination doesn't harm anyone's person or property. How can it be a crime?

You'd be singing a different tune if it was age related discrimination, I'm sure.

No, I wouldn't.

People are assholes and stupid.

I agree. Except for you. You're not.

Not sure if that was sarcasm. I mean generally speaking, there are a LOT of ignorant and very stupid people around. It's a wonder some of these people have survived as long as they have. A bigoted, ignorant and hateful bunch we are!

It wasn't sarcasm at all. You're neither an asshole nor stupid. I can't claim the same for myself.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, no. They no longer have the right to disagree. A gay caterer, by law, must service a straight pride event. They can't discriminate against the event organizers because of their sexual orientation.

It's stupid that the state can force you to engage in trade with someone you don't want to.

Intrastate commerce is a power retained by the State. Thus, its their business if they decide it is and it doesn't violate rights. See Article 1, Section 8 Clause 3....along with the 10th amendment. Its perfectly constitutional.

Because they decide it is.

Let's hope they don't decide it's double-plus good to crucify all redheads. Because I guess if they decided to do so, that law would be just too.

The rights that are protected by a State aren't limited to federally protected rights. Many States can and do have far more extensive protections for people than the federal government recognizes. And that's totally within the power of a People of a State to do.

Federal Protections establish the baseline minimum of rights. Not the maximum. And if the people of State decide that you have a right to be free from discrimination based on sexual orientation when conducting acts of commerce, they have every authority to protect that right.

The only thing that could practically trump them would be federal amendment......or a violation of federal rights. Neither of which are an issue with PA laws.

The government should, you know...govern. Not involve itself in the peaceful, private interactions of people. And it certainly shouldn't conscript the bodies of people and force them to perform acts to which they are opposed.

As long as people aren't defrauding, threatening, or harming others, they should be free to do what they want.

That's bullshit. People need to be protected from discrimination.

Discrimination doesn't harm anyone's person or property. How can it be a crime?

You'd be singing a different tune if it was age related discrimination, I'm sure.

No, I wouldn't.

People are assholes and stupid.

I agree. Except for you. You're not.

Not sure if that was sarcasm. I mean generally speaking, there are a LOT of ignorant and very stupid people around. It's a wonder some of these people have survived as long as they have. A bigoted, ignorant and hateful bunch we are!

It wasn't sarcasm at all. You're neither an asshole nor stupid. I can't claim the same for myself.

Lol! Oh you! Stop that!

 

[Skylar]

Should a gay baker be forced to serve an event they find offensive?

Depends on the State and the basis of their offense.

Well, no. They no longer have the right to disagree. A gay caterer, by law, must service a straight pride event. They can't discriminate against the event organizers because of their sexual orientation.

It's stupid that the state can force you to engage in trade with someone you don't want to.

It depends on the interaction. If its commerce, the regulation of it within a State is most *definitely* the State government's business. As regulating intrastate commerce is unquestioningly a power of the States.

Commerce is the state government's business? Why?

Intrastate commerce is a power retained by the State. Thus, its their business if they decide it is and it doesn't violate rights. See Article 1, Section 8 Clause 3....along with the 10th amendment. Its perfectly constitutional.

As long as no fraud or violence has occurred, and as long as the state gets it's extortion money, er, I mean taxes, why should LGBTQ issues by any concern of the state?

Because they decide it is.

Let's hope they don't decide it's double-plus good to crucify all redheads. Because I guess if they decided to do so, that law would be just too.

The rights that are protected by a State aren't limited to federally protected rights. Many States can and do have far more extensive protections for people than the federal government recognizes. And that's totally within the power of a People of a State to do.

Federal Protections establish the baseline minimum of rights. Not the maximum. And if the people of State decide that you have a right to be free from discrimination based on sexual orientation when conducting acts of commerce, they have every authority to protect that right.

The only thing that could practically trump them would be federal amendment......or a violation of federal rights. Neither of which are an issue with PA laws.

The government should, you know...govern.

And per the people of some states, protecting rights to freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation (or race, or sex, or religion, or ethnicity) in acts of commerce is governing.

And as long as they don't violate individual rights or the constitution, they have every authority to do so. That you 'don't think they should' is immaterial. What matters is what the relevant majority thinks.....constrained by the constitution and individual rights. Within those limitations, in any contest between you and the relevant majority of the State, the relevant majority wins.

That's our constitutional republic. If you don't like it, convince the relevant majority to change it.

That's what I'm doing.

Not terribly well. As your argument ignores exploitation, wild disparities of power, injustice, and harm that people recognize and can see. And you're pretending that they either don't exist.....or that they aren't something that society should use government to fix.

Society overwhelmingly disagrees. Most rational people recognize that any concentration of power left unchecked will be abused. And just because that concentration of power is in private hands doesn't make it any less capable of being abused, or any less exploitative or unjust.

Most people have a sense of fairness that would extend preventing such exploitation and injustice. And under our constitution, within their state, and within the bounds of individual rights.....they most definitely have the authority to prevent it.

Insisting that they shouldn't......isn't a particularly compelling argument.

 

[Papageorgio]

We are fresh off of a victory in Georgia where the governor vetoed a homophobic and quite frankly stupid bill that targeted LGBT people in the name of ”religious liberty” He caved to pressure from local businesses while never acknowledging the true intent of the bill.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/religious-liberty-bill-could-get-surprise-vote-wed/nqmkF/


However, the anti-equality forces are still hard at work in the south and elsewhere. They are spending countless hours and millions of dollars that could be spent on addressing the real- instead of imagined problems facing the nation. Cases in point:

North Carolina:

http://www.hrc.org/blog/voices-of-north-carolina-the-transgender-community-speaks-out

This week, HRC is lifting up the voices of North Carolinians whose lives are affected by the dangerous and discriminatory bill (HB 2) that North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory signed into law last week.

The first of those stories is from Madeline Goss, an openly transgender woman from Raleigh and former HRC Board of Governors member. Last week, she testified about the harmful impact HB 2 would have on her life and the transgender community.

“I can't use the men's room. I won't go back to the men's room. It is unsafe for me there. People like me die in there," Goss said.

On March 23, Governor McCrory signed into law an outrageous and unprecedented anti-LGBT bill that eliminates existing municipal non-discrimination protections for LGBT people; prevents such provisions from being passed by cities in the future; and forces transgender students in public schools to use restrooms and other facilities inconsistent with their gender identity, putting 4.5 billion dollars in federal funding under Title IX at risk. Read more about how this bill puts federal funding at risk here.

And South Carolina:

http://www.hrc.org/blog/south-carolina-senate-committee-advances-anti-marriage-equality-bill

Last week, a handful of conservative state Senators in South Carolina voted to advance S.31, a bill calling on the US Congress to amend the United States Constitution to allow states to roll back marriage equality on a state by state basis, but ultimately the bill has little chance of passing this session.

S.31 was introduced last year by conservative Senator Larry Grooms, but the bill has been stuck in limbo in the Senate Judiciary Committee since last April. Finally, after months of skipping over the bill - a clear sign that committee members have no appetite for it - S.31 was amended and advanced with a vote of 17 to 3. HRC thanks the three Democrats on the committee, Senators Sabb, Bright-Matthews, and Hutto, for voting against this bill.

Seeking to undermine the historic marriage equality ruling last year by the Supreme Court of the United States ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, S.31 calls on Congress to host a constitutional convention to amend the Constitution of the United States to allow all states to determine their own definitions of marriage. If the Constitution were to be amended in this way, it would give states the ability to roll back marriage equality if they oppose it,, effectively stripping away years of progress and placing millions of same-sex marriages in jeopardy.

Where will it end? When can we get over it and move on to other things? To come together as a nation and, yes, make America Great by being a nation that is all inclusive and accepting of all people? When can we get past this religious and fear based bigotry and start treating our neighbors with the dignity that they deserve? When!!??

I have moved forward, gay marriage is legal. I treat gays like I treat anyone else. I don't approve of their lifestyle choice however it is not my business. I treat them with respect, I don't accept their lifestyle. I don't discriminate against gays. It is their choice to live the way they want.

I have the right to live my life as does a gay person.