• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • 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?

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,452
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.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,239
Reaction score
14,255
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Any sources? Also, wasn't the Indiana law under Pence a pro-religious freedom bill that liberals tacked on an "anti-LGBT" tag to?
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,452
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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:

CLAX1911

Supreme knower of all
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
55,113
Reaction score
11,538
Location
Houston, in the great state of Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.
 

Abbazorkzog

Zapatista Libertarian
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
12,199
Reaction score
4,079
Location
#TrumpWasAnInsideJob
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
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.
 

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
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.
 

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
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.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
68,100
Reaction score
34,579
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.
 

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
67,273
Reaction score
20,651
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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!
 

dimensionallava

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
6,414
Reaction score
1,524
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Communist
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
 

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,241
Reaction score
19,931
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
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.
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
53,663
Reaction score
23,135
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
53,663
Reaction score
23,135
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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....
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,452
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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?
 

CLAX1911

Supreme knower of all
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
55,113
Reaction score
11,538
Location
Houston, in the great state of Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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?
 

CLAX1911

Supreme knower of all
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
55,113
Reaction score
11,538
Location
Houston, in the great state of Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.
 

Hari Seldon

Stable Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2014
Messages
10,135
Reaction score
6,915
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
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".
 

SheWolf

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
37,367
Reaction score
13,507
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
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.
 

SheWolf

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
37,367
Reaction score
13,507
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
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:
 

CLAX1911

Supreme knower of all
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
55,113
Reaction score
11,538
Location
Houston, in the great state of Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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?
 

LaylaWindu

One with the Force
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2015
Messages
5,435
Reaction score
1,675
Location
PA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
 
Top Bottom