• 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!

Gay Republicans; feeling the love? (1 Viewer)

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This is probably the worst week in recent memory to be gay and a member of the GOP. Not only did Trump pick antigay Governor Pence, who dragged his own state's name through the mud just to advance a blatant anti gay law, as his VP but the GOP passed one of the most anti gay platforms in modern history! It even supported conversion therapy which has been outright rejected by the medical community and is opposed by a super majority of Americans! Apparently protection of children from discredited and unpopular quack medicine is now encroachment of big bad government. :roll:

I have a theory that gay Republicans are really just masochists who get off on being denied even the tiniest amount of respect or recognition by their political affiliates.
 
Any sources? Also, wasn't the Indiana law under Pence a pro-religious freedom bill that liberals tacked on an "anti-LGBT" tag to?
 
Any sources? Also, wasn't the Indiana law under Pence a pro-religious freedom bill that liberals tacked on an "anti-LGBT" tag to?

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.time...atform/?source=dam?client=ms-android-verizon#

Official: RFRA cost Indy up to 12 conventions and $60M

I think you have it backwards. It was an antigay law the conservatives called "Religous Freedom" so they could pretend they were not
trying to give people a free license to discriminate against LGBT just by citing religion (exactly like they did in the segregation days). Feel free to bring that debate
back up though because there is a lot more evidence now of exactly what motivated it than what existed a few months back.
 
Last edited:
Any sources? Also, wasn't the Indiana law under Pence a pro-religious freedom bill that liberals tacked on an "anti-LGBT" tag to?

No, religious freedoms are guaranteed by the first amendment. Any extra bills are simply a match on the fire.
 
At this point the GOP just needs to be inside a glass container with "IN CASE OF EMERGENCY" printed on it.....................

The Republicans are essentially now the fall-guy for the establishment One-Party, Centrist-Authoritarian state we are ruled by.
 
This is probably the worst week in recent memory to be gay and a member of the GOP. Not only did Trump pick antigay Governor Pence, who dragged his own state's name through the mud just to advance a blatant anti gay law, as his VP but the GOP passed one of the most anti gay platforms in modern history! It even supported conversion therapy which has been outright rejected by the medical community and is opposed by a super majority of Americans! Apparently protection of children from discredited and unpopular quack medicine is now encroachment of big bad government. :roll:

I have a theory that gay Republicans are really just masochists who get off on being denied even the tiniest amount of respect or recognition by their political affiliates.


Luckily there aren't many of them.
 
Any sources? Also, wasn't the Indiana law under Pence a pro-religious freedom bill that liberals tacked on an "anti-LGBT" tag to?

The Indiana law was a hateful piece of discrimination that was widely denounced. It wasn't about "pro-religious freedom"...it was about legislating legal discrimination.
 
This is probably the worst week in recent memory to be gay and a member of the GOP. Not only did Trump pick antigay Governor Pence, who dragged his own state's name through the mud just to advance a blatant anti gay law, as his VP but the GOP passed one of the most anti gay platforms in modern history! It even supported conversion therapy which has been outright rejected by the medical community and is opposed by a super majority of Americans! Apparently protection of children from discredited and unpopular quack medicine is now encroachment of big bad government. :roll:

I have a theory that gay Republicans are really just masochists who get off on being denied even the tiniest amount of respect or recognition by their political affiliates.

That might be criticism but is certainty not critical analysis.
 
Any sources? Also, wasn't the Indiana law under Pence a pro-religious freedom bill that liberals tacked on an "anti-LGBT" tag to?

Basically. "Not Celebrating" has become "Hate" :roll:

It was a state version of the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was originally put forward by that famous right-wing nut, Ted Kennedy. But, you know, in the ever-shifting "truth" of PC culture, yesterday's lions must be today's demons, if only so that we can signal virtue ourselves.

And, of course, Pence backed down on Religious Liberty once he came under pressure over it, rather shamelessly.
 
This is probably the worst week in recent memory to be gay and a member of the GOP. Not only did Trump pick antigay Governor Pence, who dragged his own state's name through the mud just to advance a blatant anti gay law, as his VP but the GOP passed one of the most anti gay platforms in modern history! It even supported conversion therapy which has been outright rejected by the medical community and is opposed by a super majority of Americans! Apparently protection of children from discredited and unpopular quack medicine is now encroachment of big bad government. :roll:

I have a theory that gay Republicans are really just masochists who get off on being denied even the tiniest amount of respect or recognition by their political affiliates.

I can imagine it does suck but no worries . .
Trump will not be out next president and the discriminatory bills that you speak off will never pass in large format and the ones that do eventually fall. That doesn't change the reality of how disgusting and dishonest the bills are but they wont last.

in fact it goes back to somethign i have been saying since before SSM.

I actually love those nutter bills because it exposes how SOME people truly are and when they do pass it gives the country something to challenge in court and sets precedence further cementing equal rights and limiting the dishonest and or bigoted grey areas.

Those people arent even smart enough to realize they are thier own worst enemy, with their ****ty bills they actually HELP equal rights in the long run. Its sweet awesome irony in a way!
 
Any sources? Also, wasn't the Indiana law under Pence a pro-religious freedom bill that liberals tacked on an "anti-LGBT" tag to?

yeah because republicans really support "religous freedom" especially for muslims :lamo
 
Any sources? Also, wasn't the Indiana law under Pence a pro-religious freedom bill that liberals tacked on an "anti-LGBT" tag to?

Tomato, tomato.

That is better verbalized, but you get the idea.
 
Basically. "Not Celebrating" has become "Hate" :roll:

It was a state version of the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was originally put forward by that famous right-wing nut, Ted Kennedy. But, you know, in the ever-shifting "truth" of PC culture, yesterday's lions must be today's demons, if only so that we can signal virtue ourselves.

Not celebrating is a straw man. The law dealt with acts not thoughts (and you know better) and the balance between the right to discriminate versus the right to practice a religion.

And it was broader than the federal law (applied to non-governmental entities) and it set a higher standard than federal law ("essential to furthering" in the Indiana law, versus "in furtherance of" in federal law. So, no, it wasn't a state version. And amendments to make it like federal law were rejected. Furthermore, if the courts found that the state RFRA law trumped local laws, the LGBT protections passed by local governments were at least in jeopardy if not effectively overridden. Also, the proponents of the law made no secret, and when this was debated here at the time we quoted them, saying the purpose was to essentially allow private businesses to discriminate against LGBT.

So, no, it wasn't like the federal law and everyone in the state involved in drafting it knew it, and many of the differences that explicitly tilted the balance against LGBT rights were deliberate. So the argument that they were the same is ignorant or disingenuous.

And, of course, Pence backed down on Religious Liberty once he came under pressure over it, rather shamelessly.

Yeah, shamelessly backed down on the "religious liberty" to discriminate against the gays. Coward!

What he really did was figure out a pretty simple equation. He could support the ability of a few dead enders to discriminate against LGBT and alienate most of the business community and nearly all the big business community, or support changes to the law. He's not the brightest bulb in politics, but he ain't that dumb, and neither were big majorities in the state legislature who also 'backed down' pretty quickly.
 
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.time...atform/?source=dam?client=ms-android-verizon#

Official: RFRA cost Indy up to 12 conventions and $60M

I think you have it backwards. It was an antigay law the conservatives called "Religous Freedom" so they could pretend they were not
trying to give people a free license to discriminate against LGBT just by citing religion (exactly like they did in the segregation days). Feel free to bring that debate
back up though because there is a lot more evidence now of exactly what motivated it than what existed a few months back.

Right, and unfortunately for the "Promise! It's just about religious FREEDOM and has nothing to do with the gays" BS is some of the proponents, who were also vehemently against SSM, had the bad form to be up front, repeatedly, about what the law was intended to do, and it was all about the gays. So if that was not the point, lots of folks who were big supporters of the bill at least thought it was going to be a handy side benefit....
 
Basically. "Not Celebrating" has become "Hate" :roll:

It was a state version of the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was originally put forward by that famous right-wing nut, Ted Kennedy. But, you know, in the ever-shifting "truth" of PC culture, yesterday's lions must be today's demons, if only so that we can signal virtue ourselves.

And, of course, Pence backed down on Religious Liberty once he came under pressure over it, rather shamelessly.

Why can't you guys be honest about your own damn legislation?
 
Not celebrating is a straw man. The law dealt with acts not thoughts (and you know better) and the balance between the right to discriminate versus the right to practice a religion.

And it was broader than the federal law (applied to non-governmental entities) and it set a higher standard than federal law ("essential to furthering" in the Indiana law, versus "in furtherance of" in federal law. So, no, it wasn't a state version. And amendments to make it like federal law were rejected. Furthermore, if the courts found that the state RFRA law trumped local laws, the LGBT protections passed by local governments were at least in jeopardy if not effectively overridden. Also, the proponents of the law made no secret, and when this was debated here at the time we quoted them, saying the purpose was to essentially allow private businesses to discriminate against LGBT.

So, no, it wasn't like the federal law and everyone in the state involved in drafting it knew it, and many of the differences that explicitly tilted the balance against LGBT rights were deliberate. So the argument that they were the same is ignorant or disingenuous.



Yeah, shamelessly backed down on the "religious liberty" to discriminate against the gays. Coward!

What he really did was figure out a pretty simple equation. He could support the ability of a few dead enders to discriminate against LGBT and alienate most of the business community and nearly all the big business community, or support changes to the law. He's not the brightest bulb in politics, but he ain't that dumb, and neither were big majorities in the state legislature who also 'backed down' pretty quickly.

I'm wondering when the right to practice religion became the right to discriminate. That crap didn't fly in 1964 when they passed the civil rights act. And there were people saying that their religion forbade them to serve black people or Jewish people.

Why should that same exact argument carry any weight now?
 
Basically. "Not Celebrating" has become "Hate" :roll:

It was a state version of the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was originally put forward by that famous right-wing nut, Ted Kennedy. But, you know, in the ever-shifting "truth" of PC culture, yesterday's lions must be today's demons, if only so that we can signal virtue ourselves.

And, of course, Pence backed down on Religious Liberty once he came under pressure over it, rather shamelessly.
Not celebrating? That's odd, if a Jewish person enters a business to purchase goods and services that isn't seen as celebrating Judaism.
 
Not celebrating is a straw man. The law dealt with acts not thoughts (and you know better) and the balance between the right to discriminate versus the right to practice a religion.

And it was broader than the federal law (applied to non-governmental entities) and it set a higher standard than federal law ("essential to furthering" in the Indiana law, versus "in furtherance of" in federal law. So, no, it wasn't a state version. And amendments to make it like federal law were rejected. Furthermore, if the courts found that the state RFRA law trumped local laws, the LGBT protections passed by local governments were at least in jeopardy if not effectively overridden. Also, the proponents of the law made no secret, and when this was debated here at the time we quoted them, saying the purpose was to essentially allow private businesses to discriminate against LGBT.

So, no, it wasn't like the federal law and everyone in the state involved in drafting it knew it, and many of the differences that explicitly tilted the balance against LGBT rights were deliberate. So the argument that they were the same is ignorant or disingenuous.



Yeah, shamelessly backed down on the "religious liberty" to discriminate against the gays. Coward!

What he really did was figure out a pretty simple equation. He could support the ability of a few dead enders to discriminate against LGBT and alienate most of the business community and nearly all the big business community, or support changes to the law. He's not the brightest bulb in politics, but he ain't that dumb, and neither were big majorities in the state legislature who also 'backed down' pretty quickly.

The bill was for "Religious Freedom" just like the Texas bill was for "Women's Health".
 
Basically. "Not Celebrating" has become "Hate" :roll:

It was a state version of the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was originally put forward by that famous right-wing nut, Ted Kennedy. But, you know, in the ever-shifting "truth" of PC culture, yesterday's lions must be today's demons, if only so that we can signal virtue ourselves.

And, of course, Pence backed down on Religious Liberty once he came under pressure over it, rather shamelessly.

The state was going to lose millions of dollars in revenue because of the law. Pence would have been a moron to move ahead with it.
 
I'm wondering when the right to practice religion became the right to discriminate. That crap didn't fly in 1964 when they passed the civil rights act. And there were people saying that their religion forbade them to serve black people or Jewish people.

Why should that same exact argument carry any weight now?

Because gay people are not the same as black or Jewish. Gay people are actually wrong. There was some confusion as to the other two groups being wrong, but now we know who is actually wrong and immoral. It's written in the bible. You can't deny that. :2razz:
 
Because gay people are not the same as black or Jewish. Gay people are actually wrong. There was some confusion as to the other two groups being wrong, but now we know who is actually wrong and immoral. It's written in the bible. You can't deny that. :2razz:

Yeah right?
 
The bill was for "Religious Freedom" just like the Texas bill was for "Women's Health".

Agreed, I'm prolife and it's obvious that bill had nothign to do with women's health. I actually hate bills like that and banter like that because it hurts honest discussion and possibly compromise.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom