When will we put LGBTQ issues behind us.?

[dblack]

Ensuring that all people are treated equally is a fundamental violation of every person's right to choose who they associate with.

ONLY if it is applied to your personal dealings. Not when it comes to business dealings, and these laws have been established for years and years now. Sorry, you lose.

"Established" doesn't mean right. History has shown us this, over and over again. Business dealing are personal dealings.

No they are not personal dealings.

Of course they are. Prove otherwise.

There is nothing to prove here. Lol. Your personal life is your personal life. Business is business. Mr. Whiny pants.

Ahh... "Mr. Whiny Pants" - good answer!

Listen, you've insinuated that I'm some kind of religious bigot, you've insinuated all kinds of spurious insults, but ultimately, you're advocating for a fascist state that seeks to control our most personal decisions. And you don't even try to justify it.

"Mr. Whiny Pants"? --- might as well just give up if that's all you've got.

 

[Blackrook]

When a gay couple can easily buy a wedding cake from any bakery in town, why do they insist on ordering it from the Christian baker?

 

[ChrisL]

ONLY if it is applied to your personal dealings. Not when it comes to business dealings, and these laws have been established for years and years now. Sorry, you lose.

"Established" doesn't mean right. History has shown us this, over and over again. Business dealing are personal dealings.

No they are not personal dealings.

Of course they are. Prove otherwise.

There is nothing to prove here. Lol. Your personal life is your personal life. Business is business. Mr. Whiny pants.

Ahh... "Mr. Whiny Pants" - good answer!

Listen, you've insinuated that I'm some kind of religious bigot, you've insinuated all kinds of spurious insults, but ultimately, you're advocating for a fascist state that seeks to control our most personal decisions. And you don't even try to justify it.

"Mr. Whiny Pants"? --- might as well just give up if that's all you've got.

Well, you do an awful lot of whining. You do come across as an ignorant bigot, and if you can't separate your personal life from business, then that's your own problem. Mind your own business, and you wouldn't have to worry about it. These laws are not hurting you in any way, so stop being so overly dramatic.

 

[dblack]

"Established" doesn't mean right. History has shown us this, over and over again. Business dealing are personal dealings.

No they are not personal dealings.

Of course they are. Prove otherwise.

There is nothing to prove here. Lol. Your personal life is your personal life. Business is business. Mr. Whiny pants.

Ahh... "Mr. Whiny Pants" - good answer!

Listen, you've insinuated that I'm some kind of religious bigot, you've insinuated all kinds of spurious insults, but ultimately, you're advocating for a fascist state that seeks to control our most personal decisions. And you don't even try to justify it.

"Mr. Whiny Pants"? --- might as well just give up if that's all you've got.

Well, you do an awful lot of whining. You do come across as an ignorant bigot, and if you can't separate your personal life from business, then that's your own problem. Mind your own business, and you wouldn't have to worry about it. These laws are not hurting you in any way, so stop being so overly dramatic.

I'm not worried about laws 'hurting me'. I'm worried about the very real changes in our government. We're moving away from government that protects individual liberties to one that distributes group-based privilege. And that's very, very dangerous. You want to make all this personal, but it's not. You'd be very, very surprised to know the details of my personal life vis-a-vis LGBT issues. But that's not the point. The point is whether we're going to indulge yet another round of fascism. It looks like that's where we're headed.

 

[ChrisL]

No they are not personal dealings.

Of course they are. Prove otherwise.

There is nothing to prove here. Lol. Your personal life is your personal life. Business is business. Mr. Whiny pants.

Ahh... "Mr. Whiny Pants" - good answer!

Listen, you've insinuated that I'm some kind of religious bigot, you've insinuated all kinds of spurious insults, but ultimately, you're advocating for a fascist state that seeks to control our most personal decisions. And you don't even try to justify it.

"Mr. Whiny Pants"? --- might as well just give up if that's all you've got.

Well, you do an awful lot of whining. You do come across as an ignorant bigot, and if you can't separate your personal life from business, then that's your own problem. Mind your own business, and you wouldn't have to worry about it. These laws are not hurting you in any way, so stop being so overly dramatic.

I'm not worried about laws 'hurting me'. I'm worried about the very real changes in our government. We're moving away from government that protects individual liberties to one that distributes group-based privilege. And that's very, very dangerous. You want to make all this personal, but it's not. You'd be very, very surprised to know the details of my personal life vis-a-vis LGBT issues. But that's not the point. The point is whether we're going to indulge yet another round of fascism. It looks like that's where we're headed.

I disagree. These are just regulations regarding business practice. They don't effect your personal life at all. You also have no "right" to conduct business in any way you want. The state has a vested interest in business practices.

 

[dblack]

Of course they are. Prove otherwise.

There is nothing to prove here. Lol. Your personal life is your personal life. Business is business. Mr. Whiny pants.

Ahh... "Mr. Whiny Pants" - good answer!

Listen, you've insinuated that I'm some kind of religious bigot, you've insinuated all kinds of spurious insults, but ultimately, you're advocating for a fascist state that seeks to control our most personal decisions. And you don't even try to justify it.

"Mr. Whiny Pants"? --- might as well just give up if that's all you've got.

Well, you do an awful lot of whining. You do come across as an ignorant bigot, and if you can't separate your personal life from business, then that's your own problem. Mind your own business, and you wouldn't have to worry about it. These laws are not hurting you in any way, so stop being so overly dramatic.

I'm not worried about laws 'hurting me'. I'm worried about the very real changes in our government. We're moving away from government that protects individual liberties to one that distributes group-based privilege. And that's very, very dangerous. You want to make all this personal, but it's not. You'd be very, very surprised to know the details of my personal life vis-a-vis LGBT issues. But that's not the point. The point is whether we're going to indulge yet another round of fascism. It looks like that's where we're headed.

I disagree. These are just regulations regarding business practice. They don't effect your personal life at all. You also have no "right" to conduct business in any way you want. The state has a vested interest in business practices.

"Business practices" are personal interactions between two people. The state has no fucking right to interfere. They might have an "interest", in as much as any authoritarian power has an interest in controlling people, but they have no justifiable grant of power to do so.

 

[ChrisL]

There is nothing to prove here. Lol. Your personal life is your personal life. Business is business. Mr. Whiny pants.

Ahh... "Mr. Whiny Pants" - good answer!

Listen, you've insinuated that I'm some kind of religious bigot, you've insinuated all kinds of spurious insults, but ultimately, you're advocating for a fascist state that seeks to control our most personal decisions. And you don't even try to justify it.

"Mr. Whiny Pants"? --- might as well just give up if that's all you've got.

Well, you do an awful lot of whining. You do come across as an ignorant bigot, and if you can't separate your personal life from business, then that's your own problem. Mind your own business, and you wouldn't have to worry about it. These laws are not hurting you in any way, so stop being so overly dramatic.

I'm not worried about laws 'hurting me'. I'm worried about the very real changes in our government. We're moving away from government that protects individual liberties to one that distributes group-based privilege. And that's very, very dangerous. You want to make all this personal, but it's not. You'd be very, very surprised to know the details of my personal life vis-a-vis LGBT issues. But that's not the point. The point is whether we're going to indulge yet another round of fascism. It looks like that's where we're headed.

I disagree. These are just regulations regarding business practice. They don't effect your personal life at all. You also have no "right" to conduct business in any way you want. The state has a vested interest in business practices.

"Business practices" are personal interactions between two people. The state has no fucking right to interfere. They might have an "interest", in as much as any authoritarian power has an interest in controlling people, but they have no justifiable grant of power to do so.

No they aren't "personal" interactions. It is just business. The state can and does control the way you conduct your business, like it or not. That is done in the name of attracting business and customers, and the states are going to do what is in the best interest of business, not some old fashioned bigots who can't deal with the modern world.

 

[dblack]

No they aren't "personal" interactions. It is just business. The state can and does control the way you conduct your business, like it or not. That is done in the name of attracting business and customers, and the states are going to do what is in the best interest of business, not some old fashioned bigots who can't deal with the modern world.

You're saying nothing here. How is 'business' different than 'personal'. Simply because property is exchanged?

 

[dblack]

See... here's what you don't get. Authoritarian government might sound like a good idea to you when the government (ie, in a democracy, the majority) is on your side. But when they're not, you'll start to see the downside. A government that can dictate that you serve people you'd rather not, can do the reverse. They can prevent you from serving those that the state has deemed 'unworthy'. If you don't think this can happen, take a look at the history of every single government that's been granted this kind of power. It's not 'whining' to call this out. It's very a very real warning against totalitarian government.

 

[rdean]

Republicans hope after they kill them all.

Google
GOP kill the gays

 

[Blackrook]

What happens when the Catholic Church rents out its hall on the weekends, and a Satanic group decides it wants to make a reservation for Satanic rituals?

Because that's where this is leading.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Too bad. If you cannot follow the laws, then you have no business being in "business."

The First Amendment is the law. As part of the Constitution, it is the highest law in this nation.

If you cannot follow this law, then you have no business demanding that others follow lesser laws.

 

[Conservative65]

"When will we put LGBTQ issues behind us.?"


As soon as they shut the fuck up !

Who exactly needs to shut the fuck up?

YOU.

 

[Conservative65]

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'll tell you when.. When there are no legislated protected dicks in my daughter's locker room... That's when...

First of all, if those transgender people still have dicks, they have no interest in your daughter. But more importantly, and what seems to be beyond your intellectual capacity to grasp, is that the issues that I raised go far beyond transgender and locker room matters.

When one of them with one enters a restroom, etc. where one of my daughters happens to be, they're telling me they have no interest in exiting.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

What is "Q"?

 

[Pete7469]

When will we put queer "issues" behind us?

When the deviants shut the fuck up and stop rubbing their perverse bullshit in everyone else's face.

Amazing how less than %4 of the population can get so much attention.

 

[Pete7469]

Who exactly needs to shut the fuck up?

You do.

 

[Katzndogz]

So far, it's LGBTQIF with more to follow as soon as the pervs think of something.

 

[Pete7469]

So far, it's LGBTQIF with more to follow as soon as the pervs think of something.

LGBTQIFNAMBLA

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm not suggesting poisoning a cake, just putting in too much salt, that ought to do it.

Can the government punish you for making a salty wedding cake?

Yes, the couple can sue in Civil Court for damages in ruining their reception.

Evidence?

1. Have someone go to the shop and purchase another cake. Maybe even get samples from other couples that are using the bakery.
2. The suing couple have the judge issue a for a list of previous customers, say for the last 6 months, bring them in to testify as to the quality and taste of the cake.
3. Then hand the Judge a sample of the salted cake and compare it to the testimony and sample.

Possible Outcome?

1. Probably pay the cost of the entire reception that was ruined, not only the cake, but all catering, decorations, and entertainment.
2. Plus punitive damages.
3. Finally, a shit pot full of negative publicity about the bakery and their willingness to contaminate their product.


That doesn't preclude possible criminal charges or complaints to the licensing bureau that might cause a revocation of a business license.


>>>>