• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Breitbart's deception

Post an example of a Democrat calling a Republican an "evil racist sexist homophobe deplorable fascist Nazis"

Is there some good reason why LGBT people should be banned from buying products offered to the general public?

Making sure everyone has equal opportunity and equal rights is on the right side of history.

Horrific stuff? Is that why Republicans restrict mail in ballots, gerrymander districts, demand complex IDs, cut back voting places, hours, booths and machines in the "wrong" areas ............ to prevent horrific stuff like electing representatives that are against discrimination?
^^^ See this is exactly what I’m talking about

This is someone who wants “unity” on his terms which is “submission”

It is literally a zero cost ask to say Christians shouldn’t be put out of business by homosexuals. If they won’t compromise that they won’t compromise anything.
 
I didn’t see a single person of any stripe on the left condemn the state persecution of the baker in Oregon for not personally delivering a “wedding cake” to homosexuals. We’re at the stage where if you don’t openly affirm leftist dogma you can lose your livliehood and the left will say you deserve it.

So you can complain about how “unhelpful” this is, well there has been years of abuses perpetrated near entirely by people on the left side of the aisle, from driving practicing Christians out of business, to claiming an elected president was a Putin intelligence plant, to (yes) denying the legitimacy of the 2016 election.

What’s the compromise position? If your side won’t even agree to not persecute Christian businesses and tell gays to get their cakes somewhere else what exactly is the compromise?
Well, well ........ a better example of the bigoted mind set of conservatives Christians I cannot imagine.

Why don't you explain to us exactly why a businessman selling a product to the general public in the public square, an area supported and protected by everyone's taxes has a right to refuse to sell a product to anyone who comes into his store with the appropriate amount of money.
 
Last edited:
Well, well ........ a better example of the bigoted mind set of conservatives Christians I cannot imagine.

Why don't you explain to us exactly why a businessman selling a product to the general public in the public square, an area supported and protected by everyone's taxes has a right to refuse to sell a product to anyone who comes into his store with the appropriate amount of money.
See ^^^

No compromise is possible.

The left has decided that a political and behavioral choice is a fundamental human right, they don’t extend this of course to Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her equal rights to eat dinner. Which shows this is hypocrisy.

Note the open bigotry against over a billion people world wide because a fringe sexual minority needs to be affirmed
 
See ^^^

No compromise is possible.

The left has decided that a political and behavioral choice is a fundamental human right, they don’t extend this of course to Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her equal rights to eat dinner. Which shows this is hypocrisy
You haven't explained why it's OK to discriminate against LGBT people in the public market place.
 
You haven't explained why it's OK to discriminate against LGBT people in the public market place.
Again, no compromise possible. The left has an all encompassing view of “rights” that is all or nothing and supremely morally right.

They don’t wish to live unified, they wish to rule. The only limiting principle on leftist ideology is what they can get away with.
 
I didn’t see a single person of any stripe on the left condemn the state persecution of the baker in Oregon for not personally delivering a “wedding cake” to homosexuals. We’re at the stage where if you don’t openly affirm leftist dogma you can lose your livliehood and the left will say you deserve it.

So you can complain about how “unhelpful” this is, well there has been years of abuses perpetrated near entirely by people on the left side of the aisle, from driving practicing Christians out of business, to claiming an elected president was a Putin intelligence plant, to (yes) denying the legitimacy of the 2016 election.

What’s the compromise position? If your side won’t even agree to not persecute Christian businesses and tell gays to get their cakes somewhere else what exactly is the compromise?
I don't open affirm any dogma and my livelihood seems safe.

Don't you find it odd to complain about "leftist" dogma when the GOP is disowning certain of its politicians as "RINOs" because they don't support Trump?

But I hear what you're saying and my answer is that yes there is room for compromise and understanding. Part of me has to believe it because if we can't come together we are well and truly ****ed as a nation.

There are a couple of key elements, most notably, how you frame an issue. It's basic negotiation strategy. People tend to get dug in on both sides to a "position" which prevents them from thinking about what they really want in a different light.

Take abortion, for example. I don't know anyone who thinks abortion is "good" in the sense that they want to see more abortions. Everyone I know, wants as few abortions as possible. It's really a last ditch, least optimal outcome for a pregnancy. They are potentially dangerous medical procedures, and are emotionally traumatic. Of the women I know who have had abortions, none regret their action, but do carry a certain "what if" sadness their whole lives. Right to lifers either want an outright ban - which doesn't work - or to make the decision regarding abortion as difficult, inconvenient and costly as possible, which simply burdens less-educated women of lesser means. Many pro choice folks want abortions available past a time the most recent medical science indicates is reasonable (in my opinion), and advocate for

Many, though not all, anti-abortion people also want to restrict or eliminate sex ed and access to family planning. The "just say no/abstinence only" approach is banging one's head against the wall of puberty and the adolescent/young adult biological imperative to fornicate/procreate that is hardwired in us as a species. They decry Planned Parenthood as abortion clinics, when in fact PP does more to prevent abortions by providing sex ed, access to condoms and other means of birth control, and real counseling around what it means to bring a child to term. All of these things make it less likely that girls/women will get pregnant and more likely that they will make the most informed decision around whether to carry a child to term.

Reframing issues can help people to identify mutually desirable outcomes, which is a starting point for discussion. The starting point I would suggest is this: if girls and women don't get pregnant, abortion won't be on the table. Therefore, what can we do to minimize unwanted pregnancies?
 
....... they don’t extend this of course to Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her equal rights to eat dinner. Which shows this is hypocrisy.
There would have to be an organized effort of all Democrats to deny dinner to all Republican women based on their political party in order to be analogous to Christian businessmen denying sale of products to LGBT people.
Note the open bigotry against over a billion people world wide because a fringe sexual minority needs to be affirmed
What I am noting is the open bigotry of conservative Christians. Refusing service is only one of the rights they want to deny LGBT people. Why are you so concerned about the sexual orientation of other people you don't even know?
 
There would have to be an organized effort of all Democrats to deny dinner to all Republican women based on their political party in order to be analogous to Christian businessmen denying sale of products to LGBT people.

What I am noting is the open bigotry of conservative Christians. Refusing service is only one of the rights they want to deny LGBT people. Why are you so concerned about the sexual orientation of other people you don't even know?
^^^ see compromise is not possible. The left wants to force everyone to adopt their values. I have no desire to unify with people who hate me unless I become like them.
 
Again, no compromise possible. The left has an all encompassing view of “rights” that is all or nothing and supremely morally right.They don’t wish to live unified, they wish to rule. The only limiting principle on leftist ideology is what they can get away with.
I asked why you thought it was OK to discriminate against LGBT people in the public market place and this is your explanation, that the left doesn't want to compromise?

Why don't you tell us what you want Democrats to compromise on.
 
I asked why you thought it was OK to discriminate against LGBT people in the public market place and this is your explanation, that the left doesn't want to compromise?

Why don't you tell us what you want Democrats to compromise on.
I just gave an example and you’re spent six posts responding with anti-Christian bigotry. If you refuse to compromise on something as simple as not forcing Christians to affirm licensed sodomy then you won’t compromise on anything
 
I just gave an example and you’re spent six posts responding with anti-Christian bigotry. If you refuse to compromise on something as simple as not forcing Christians to affirm licensed sodomy then you won’t compromise on anything
You didn't offer a compromise. You stated that Democrats should not be giving rights to LBGT people.
 
I just gave an example and you’re spent six posts responding with anti-Christian bigotry. If you refuse to compromise on something as simple as not forcing Christians to affirm licensed sodomy then you won’t compromise on anything
EMN: nobody is forcing Christians to affirm licensed sodomy. Nobody. You can attend your church filled with like minded Christians and hate on LGBT people all you want. You can meet every night, not just on Sunday and Wednesday, to write books, papers, articles, letters to the editor about the immorality of LGBT. Nobody is stopping you from one little second of hating. You are free ........... free to hate whom you please. The problem comes when you want to make your church dogma into laws that take away rights of people you don't like. Essentially you want everybody to hate the same people you hate and to deny them any rights. The Constitution says you can't do that. The compromise you want is already built into the Constitution. You are free to make up the church dogma you think is right. Everybody else is free to make up their idea about what is right
 
EMN: nobody is forcing Christians to affirm licensed sodomy. Nobody. You can attend your church filled with like minded Christians and hate on LGBT people all you want. You can meet every night, not just on Sunday and Wednesday, to write books, papers, articles, letters to the editor about the immorality of LGBT. Nobody is stopping you from one little second of hating. You are free ........... free to hate whom you please. The problem comes when you want to make your church dogma into laws that take away rights of people you don't like. Essentially you want everybody to hate the same people you hate and to deny them any rights. The Constitution says you can't do that. The compromise you want is already built into the Constitution. You are free to make up the church dogma you think is right. Everybody else is free to make up their idea about what is right
^^^ any again, this is why no compromise is possible. They will tell insane lies like that the constitution provides a human right to sexual behavior, which is never mentioned
 
You didn't offer a compromise. You stated that Democrats should not be giving rights to LBGT people.
Your position is that the constitution includes a human right to force people to affirm your sexual preferences. This shows futility of compromise.
 
Your position is that the constitution includes a human right to force people to affirm your sexual preferences. This shows futility of compromise.
The Constitution implies a right to privacy and the SC has confirmed that this right exists in making private decisions in one's personal life. You have acknowledged your right to privacy in many posts.


From Live/Science https://www.livescience.com/37398-right-to-privacy.html
"The right to privacy often means the right to personal autonomy, or the right to choose whether or not to engage in certain acts or have certain experiences. Several amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been used in varying degrees of success in determining a right to personal autonomy:

The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs
The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers
The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches
The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information
The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.
The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

However, the protections have been narrowly defined and usually only pertain to family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing.

For example, the Supreme Court first recognized that the various Bill of Rights guarantees creates a "zone of privacy" in Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 ruling that upheld marital privacy and struck down bans on contraception.

The court ruled in 1969 that the right to privacy protected a person's right to possess and view pornography in his own home. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote in Stanley v. Georgia that, " If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch."

The controversial case Roe v. Wade in 1972 firmly established the right to privacy as fundamental, and required that any governmental infringement of that right to be justified by a compelling state interest. In Roe, the court ruled that the state's compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting the life of the mother outweighs a mother's personal autonomy only after viability. Before viability, the mother's right to privacy limits state interference due to the lack of a compelling state interest.

In 2003, the court, in Lawrence v. Texas, overturned an earlier ruling and found that Texas had violated the rights of two gay men when it enforced a law prohibiting sodomy. [Countdown: 10 Milestones in Gay Rights History]

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."

What exactly are these compromises you want Democrats to make.
 
The Constitution implies a right to privacy and the SC has confirmed that this right exists in making private decisions in one's personal life. You have acknowledged your right to privacy in many posts.


From Live/Science https://www.livescience.com/37398-right-to-privacy.html
"The right to privacy often means the right to personal autonomy, or the right to choose whether or not to engage in certain acts or have certain experiences. Several amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been used in varying degrees of success in determining a right to personal autonomy:

The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs
The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers
The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches
The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information
The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.
The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

However, the protections have been narrowly defined and usually only pertain to family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing.

For example, the Supreme Court first recognized that the various Bill of Rights guarantees creates a "zone of privacy" in Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 ruling that upheld marital privacy and struck down bans on contraception.

The court ruled in 1969 that the right to privacy protected a person's right to possess and view pornography in his own home. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote in Stanley v. Georgia that, " If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch."

The controversial case Roe v. Wade in 1972 firmly established the right to privacy as fundamental, and required that any governmental infringement of that right to be justified by a compelling state interest. In Roe, the court ruled that the state's compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting the life of the mother outweighs a mother's personal autonomy only after viability. Before viability, the mother's right to privacy limits state interference due to the lack of a compelling state interest.

In 2003, the court, in Lawrence v. Texas, overturned an earlier ruling and found that Texas had violated the rights of two gay men when it enforced a law prohibiting sodomy. [Countdown: 10 Milestones in Gay Rights History]

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."

What exactly are these compromises you want Democrats to make.
This is a lot of rambling to just keep proving my point
 
Your position is that the constitution includes a human right to force people to affirm your sexual preferences. This shows futility of compromise.
I am confused by what you mean by "affirm" someone else's sexual preferences.
 
The Constitution implies a right to privacy and the SC has confirmed that this right exists in making private decisions in one's personal life. You have acknowledged your right to privacy in many posts.


From Live/Science https://www.livescience.com/37398-right-to-privacy.html
"The right to privacy often means the right to personal autonomy, or the right to choose whether or not to engage in certain acts or have certain experiences. Several amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been used in varying degrees of success in determining a right to personal autonomy:

The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs
The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers
The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches
The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information
The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.
The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

However, the protections have been narrowly defined and usually only pertain to family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing.

For example, the Supreme Court first recognized that the various Bill of Rights guarantees creates a "zone of privacy" in Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 ruling that upheld marital privacy and struck down bans on contraception.

The court ruled in 1969 that the right to privacy protected a person's right to possess and view pornography in his own home. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote in Stanley v. Georgia that, " If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch."

The controversial case Roe v. Wade in 1972 firmly established the right to privacy as fundamental, and required that any governmental infringement of that right to be justified by a compelling state interest. In Roe, the court ruled that the state's compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting the life of the mother outweighs a mother's personal autonomy only after viability. Before viability, the mother's right to privacy limits state interference due to the lack of a compelling state interest.

In 2003, the court, in Lawrence v. Texas, overturned an earlier ruling and found that Texas had violated the rights of two gay men when it enforced a law prohibiting sodomy. [Countdown: 10 Milestones in Gay Rights History]

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."

What exactly are these compromises you want Democrats to make.
Every example you have provided has to do with the government (State) and not individual businesses. In the example of the wedding cake baker it was a couple who drove really far to ask for a cake from a baker who they knew did not make cakes for that type of celebration. Additionally, it was not a trinket on a shelf. It was them asking for their services to custom make a piece of art (cake) for their event.
 
I'm not even clear how dying from Covid counts as in the line of duty.
Think of all the front line and or First Responder workers at the World Trade Center site who have died of cancers and other ailments caused by the toxins they were exposed to working at that site. Those deaths, though related to an event two decades past are still being classified as Line of Duty Death.

If a perp shoots an officer but that officer does not die the perp is not charged with murder.

If that officer dies months or years later due to complications of that shooting the death is considered a Line of Duty Death and the perp will often then be charged with murder.

The CBP considers each death and if their review determines the COVID causing the death was contracted by the deceased while they were on duty it is then determined to be a "Line of Duty" death.
 
I don't open affirm any dogma and my livelihood seems safe.

Don't you find it odd to complain about "leftist" dogma when the GOP is disowning certain of its politicians as "RINOs" because they don't support Trump?

But I hear what you're saying and my answer is that yes there is room for compromise and understanding. Part of me has to believe it because if we can't come together we are well and truly ****ed as a nation.

There are a couple of key elements, most notably, how you frame an issue. It's basic negotiation strategy. People tend to get dug in on both sides to a "position" which prevents them from thinking about what they really want in a different light.

Take abortion, for example. I don't know anyone who thinks abortion is "good" in the sense that they want to see more abortions. Everyone I know, wants as few abortions as possible. It's really a last ditch, least optimal outcome for a pregnancy. They are potentially dangerous medical procedures, and are emotionally traumatic. Of the women I know who have had abortions, none regret their action, but do carry a certain "what if" sadness their whole lives. Right to lifers either want an outright ban - which doesn't work - or to make the decision regarding abortion as difficult, inconvenient and costly as possible, which simply burdens less-educated women of lesser means. Many pro choice folks want abortions available past a time the most recent medical science indicates is reasonable (in my opinion), and advocate for

Many, though not all, anti-abortion people also want to restrict or eliminate sex ed and access to family planning. The "just say no/abstinence only" approach is banging one's head against the wall of puberty and the adolescent/young adult biological imperative to fornicate/procreate that is hardwired in us as a species. They decry Planned Parenthood as abortion clinics, when in fact PP does more to prevent abortions by providing sex ed, access to condoms and other means of birth control, and real counseling around what it means to bring a child to term. All of these things make it less likely that girls/women will get pregnant and more likely that they will make the most informed decision around whether to carry a child to term.

Reframing issues can help people to identify mutually desirable outcomes, which is a starting point for discussion. The starting point I would suggest is this: if girls and women don't get pregnant, abortion won't be on the table. Therefore, what can we do to minimize unwanted pregnancies?
That starting point has been tried here in several threads. The problem has been identified as unwanted pregnancies and people were asked to discuss the best ways to prevent them. The discussions always began and ended with no suggestions from the anti-abortion advocates except adoption, and abstinence (usually stated vulgarly). At no time has any anti-abortion advocate ever acknowledged a concern for any already born family members or any extenuating circumstances.

I believe there was a time in the 1990s when pro-choice advocates made several serious efforts to set up discussion groups from both sides to try to reach common ground. All of these groups met with stonewalling by the anti-abortion members. They would not discuss anything other than the immorality of abortion and the saving of fetuses.
 
That starting point has been tried here in several threads. The problem has been identified as unwanted pregnancies and people were asked to discuss the best ways to prevent them. The discussions always began and ended with no suggestions from the anti-abortion advocates except adoption, and abstinence (usually stated vulgarly). At no time has any anti-abortion advocate ever acknowledged a concern for any already born family members or any extenuating circumstances.

I believe there was a time in the 1990s when pro-choice advocates made several serious efforts to set up discussion groups from both sides to try to reach common ground. All of these groups met with stonewalling by the anti-abortion members. They would not discuss anything other than the immorality of abortion and the saving of fetuses.

That doesn't surprise because there is considerable overlap between anti-abortion folks and conservative religious types who say sex is bad and just want to will away biology. But, it's still the best starting point I'm aware of. Consistently reframing in a mutually conducive manner is our best, maybe only hope for working together.

I don't agree though that anti-abortion advocates never acknowledge extenuating circumstances. I haven't looked a polls in recent years but I seem to recall that even in states with high majorities who opposed abortion, the majority of those people still supported exceptions for rape and incest (as well as medical necessity - life of the mother in danger kind of thing). Personally, I felt those exceptions to be disingenuous and illogical, since a fetus who is the result of rape is no less innocent than one created consensually. But humans are nothing if not illogical.
 
That starting point has been tried here in several threads. The problem has been identified as unwanted pregnancies and people were asked to discuss the best ways to prevent them. The discussions always began and ended with no suggestions from the anti-abortion advocates except adoption, and abstinence (usually stated vulgarly). At no time has any anti-abortion advocate ever acknowledged a concern for any already born family members or any extenuating circumstances.

I believe there was a time in the 1990s when pro-choice advocates made several serious efforts to set up discussion groups from both sides to try to reach common ground. All of these groups met with stonewalling by the anti-abortion members. They would not discuss anything other than the immorality of abortion and the saving of fetuses.
BTW, if you remember any of the thread titles, let me know. I'd love to read through a couple.
 
Of that 34%, how many are liberals?

"... 40% of Republicans and 41% of independents said violence against government is sometimes justified, compared to 23% of Democrats."

 
"... 40% of Republicans and 41% of independents said violence against government is sometimes justified, compared to 23% of Democrats."

CNN. The dumbest station on the planet.
 
BTW, if you remember any of the thread titles, let me know. I'd love to read through a couple.
I started a thread on that subject on the Abortion sub-forum

Can pro-choice and pro-life advocates find areas of agreement.​

 
Back
Top Bottom