Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More Trump Prejudice

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • walle
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

    But they are asking for something "special" when they expect someone to forego their right of freedom to expression religion and to submit to their expression of sexual activity choice.

    Not to hard for most of us to understand.
    That which is different cannot be equal in the first place, this holds true for everything in life, sexually dysfunctional people such as these groups are no exception.

    Shouldn't be too difficult to understand.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    The definition of 'fake news' as Trump defines it is news or any information that one doesn't agree with.
    The link is to an LGBT group that supports Trump. If CNN's article is correct they would not have endorsed Trump, the didn't in 2016. Trump's actions are showing that he is not anti LGBT or prejudice towards that group. If he was they wouldn't support him.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post

    I guess these people didn't read CNN's fake news:
    The definition of 'fake news' as Trump defines it is news or any information that one doesn't agree with.

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    Yeah, those "evangilistas" should take a lesson from the Muslims whom employ lots of LGBTQ in the admin offices of their mosques and warmly welcome many such into the mosques for Friday prayer services.

    A better rule of thumb is don't give one type of people special rights denied to others, or constraining the rights and freedoms of expression of those others.
    DEFLECTION

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post
    A good rule of thumb is: Let people be.

    'In its latest rollback of key safeguards for LGBTQ civil rights, the Trump administration intends to remove nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people by adding religious exemptions to an Obama-era 2014 executive order that prohibited discrimination in hiring on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity. Advocacy groups have decried the new rule as just the latest attack on the LGBTQ community, slamming it as "taxpayer-funded discrimination in the name of religion."'
    I guess these people didn't read CNN's fake news:


    https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill...se-trump%3famp

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

    why are you comparing gay people to prostitutes and porn stars?


    I'm not... I'm pointing out that only the LGBTPDQRSTUV community wants to be able to flaunt their sexual proclivities and fetishes in public. No other segment of sexuality does that in the US.



    Why the special treatment?

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    Name another segment of sexual proclivity that has regular sex parades (aka "pride" parades). Do swingers? Wife swappers? Prostitutes? Strippers? Porn stars?
    They demand that everyone kowtow to accept their particular fetishes and such too. Doesn't matter if you have an objection however reasonable, you get drubbed and labeled homophobic for it.

    So, they don't want equal treatment, they want special treatment.
    why are you comparing gay people to prostitutes and porn stars?

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post

    OMG...they and others are not asking any thing special, just equal. It's not hard for most of us to understand
    Name another segment of sexual proclivity that has regular sex parades (aka "pride" parades). Do swingers? Wife swappers? Prostitutes? Strippers? Porn stars?
    They demand that everyone kowtow to accept their particular fetishes and such too. Doesn't matter if you have an objection however reasonable, you get drubbed and labeled homophobic for it.

    So, they don't want equal treatment, they want special treatment.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    An alternate perspective;

    Trump admin pushes religious protections for contractors, incurs LGBTQ wrath
    ...
    http://www.gopusa.com/?p=74410?omhide=true

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post

    OMG...they and others are not asking any thing special, just equal. It's not hard for most of us to understand
    But they are asking for something "special" when they expect someone to forego their right of freedom to expression religion and to submit to their expression of sexual activity choice.

    Not to hard for most of us to understand.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
    We are not fkn Iran...yet. That is the point
    The other point is the OP focuses upon Christianity and the position of some factions within that might not want to associate with LBGTQ,etc. via employing them; while excluding the other "religions" that might also want to do such.

    If you hadn't noticed, the USA has a minority population of Muslims and such is growing, and many of their religious beliefs are starting to clash with our laws and customs.

    This issue is part of, tip of the iceberg, of the larger issue of how does the religious freedom portion still apply in a country much changed from when such was written nearly 240 years ago?

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
    We are not fkn Iran...yet. That is the point
    The point is more the issue of where can government violate the First Amendment and constrain the free expression of religion?
    Counterpointed by where can one's expression of religion disrupt the freedom of another's religious expression, or secular(business) operation.

    The rather infamous case of the bake shop taken to court for refusing to make a gay themed/decorated cake, when the larger question should be why the plaintiffs didn't just shop around more to find a bakery that would serve their special request?

    If I own and operate a deli, then hire a Muslim or Jew and that person demands I no longer stock pork/ham products because it violates their religious beliefs, and when I decline they take me to court and sue; where to my rights have to give way to their "rights"?

    When the day is done, religious belief is not a matter of birth but of choice and how much should choice outweigh other items such as skin color or sex(biological plumbing) or ethnic, etc. which one is born with?

    If you like to eat cabbage and I don't like to eat cabbage, because of it's taste - my choice, do I have a right to force you not to eat cabbage?

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    My question is, why does this one segment of sexual proclivity deserve special protection above all other segments of sexual proclivity?
    OMG...they and others are not asking any thing special, just equal. It's not hard for most of us to understand

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    We are not fkn Iran...yet. That is the point

    Leave a comment:


  • Trung Si
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    Yeah, those "evangilistas" should take a lesson from the Muslims whom employ lots of LGBTQ in the admin offices of their mosques and warmly welcome many such into the mosques for Friday prayer services.


    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X