• 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!

The Republicans’ Gay Freakout


your party and religion will go the way of the dixiecrats if they court people with your views much longer

you'll end up joining the southern baptists and the christian liberty party - with its whopping 2 candidates for congress - out of frustration that no one else sees your hatred as a national priority

or you'll get over it. The choice and the problem is yours
 
Last edited:
blackjack50 said:
Republican Christian here. I don't give a crap about gays. Or abortion for that matter. It annoys the hell out of me that the idiots in my party let that even remotely be a factor in elections.
Click to expand...

i would like it to not be a factor as well, but it's rather difficult when one party does everything possible to destroy your rights that were thought to be secured 40 years ago (like to not be discriminated against in cities like durham and ann arbor)
 

Actually freedom of religion doesn't have anything to do with your job or laws, unless the government or laws are targeting specific religious beliefs or religions in the laws. if a person believes that God doesn't like single dads but has no issue with single moms, and their state allows single parent adoption, that person cannot refuse to deal with single fathers or simply refuse to allow single fathers to adopt because such adoptions violate his religion.
 

Complete bull****.

If you photographed an interracial marriage, are you participating in interracial activity ?

No, you'd be participating in photography, you know, your occupation.

Now, if you can't handle your occupation, ****ting on gay people's rights won't help you.
 
countryboy said:
Oh really? Soooo, ruining a person's life and lively hood because they don't want to participate in a SSM is not forcing? Give me a break already, you are fooling nobody.
Click to expand...
For quite awhile now we've had laws (varied depending on area, I think?) that basically are designed to prevent stores and businesses from discriminating against customers for a variety of reasons, both real and imagined.

So far as I am aware, the only recent change has been to add gay persons (and more specifically, married gay persons) to the list.

If you take issue with such laws, then fine, that's a position I can understand (although I probably disagree, depending on specific circumstances).
If you're taking issue specifically with the addition of gay persons and SSM to the "do not discriminate" list, then that's hypocritical.
 

I do not accept the illegitimate, arbitrary edict in Obergefell, and I hope both the next President and the states where majorities do not approve of homosexual marriage will refuse to comply with it. That would be a very sharp reminder to the Supreme Court that it has no power to enforce its decisions.

Your obvious contempt for the Tenth Amendment is hardly surprising, but it IS revealing. Most of the people who share your views on this subject share your disrespect of the Constitution.
 

It sounds like you think the constitution only means what you want it to mean.

What an obscenely perverted argument.
 

The right to discriminate is not unlimited. When you make certain choices in life about what you want to do with that life you also tend to place limits on your rights, whether it is working for the government (a male soldier can't say it violates his religion to work with a woman), or working for an employer (an employee can't refuse to serve all Muslims without facing consequences such as getting fired), or running your own business (all businesses open to the public must abide by public accommodation laws).
 

This is not reality. Whether it is how you believe it should work or not, we have to balance rights in reality. And reality tells us that people are dependent on others in a society like ours, to a very large degree and we cannot allow people to refuse service to others when they open a business open to the public to sell the public goods and services just because the person selling them has some issue with that other person. That creates hardships on certain people in a way that can do them harm, without causing any demonstrable hardships on the other person.
 

No it isn't. It is called balancing rights and commerce within a society.
 

They are not forced to participate because they chose to enter into that particular business.

Maybe we should make people sign a paper that is explained in detail to them that when they choose to open a business, they are voluntarily agreeing to operate that business in accordance with public accommodation laws which means that certain groups of people might make them uncomfortable doing business with or even violate their religious beliefs so they need to think really damn hard before they actually enter into that business if they want to do that. Would y'all not be saying that a home owner who has to live by the rules of his/her HOA chose to buy that particular property and so chose to live by those rules?
 
countryboy said:
Oh really? Soooo, ruining a person's life and lively hood because they don't want to participate in a SSM is not forcing? Give me a break already, you are fooling nobody.
Click to expand...

If they are resourceful, determined, and hardworking, like conservatives claim they are, that should mean that they are able to do other things, adapt and overcome to rely on another way to earn a livelihood.
 
chromium said:
worthless strawman, that has nothing with the north carolina law
Click to expand...

chromium said:
worthless strawman, that has nothing with the north carolina law
Click to expand...
We were having a civilzed discussion about issues.

This is part of a larger nationwide debate, part of the understanding of the authoritarian mindset from your side that the rest of us must cower and accept the unreasonable dictates that are becoming more and more absurd with each coming day.

The very idea that because someone is so conflicted by their own birth gender that they cannot use the proper bathroom designed for exactly that purpose, well, we have yet to develop the word for just how depraved and stupid that idea is. Why must you folks attempt at every turn to deprive us of every least little bit of our dignity and what little privacy we have remaining in a public bathroom?

I guess we can all thank god the folks of North Carolina are proving not to be pantywaists, eh? Ha ha ha.
 
Yeah yeah yeah, in your dreams.

You see, that is what happened to the DEMOCRAT party when they went off the deep end in trying to subjugate the whole southern region in what was a failing idea, in bathrooms and water fountains no less. Your side is trying to do the same now with these just plain outrageous and silly demands that nobody should even pay attention to. At all.

Its pure lunacy to believe the American public is that naive.
 
Occam's Razor.

It would be much simpler if we just had people who are choosing to be this way, that are following a deviant path, not the norm, when they choose they can sign a paper of understanding that since they have chosen this path that the rest of us, people who have a priority 1st Amendment freedom, which is an inalienable right, have the full right not to have their religious beliefs violated nor make a law respecting prohibiting the free exercise of that religion... the state cannot make a law doing so, by the Constitutional mandate, is that not correct?

`"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof thereof..."

Pretty succinct, sane and easily comprehensible language. Even Supreme Court Justices should be able to understand.
 
Last edited:

governments have powers not rights, in our federal system there is only federal and state powers, cities are under state authority.
 

No one chooses to be gay. And that isn't how our society works. Plus public accommodation laws don't just apply to sexuality. If that is the beef, then it is the business owners who need to be the ones adjusting to society. They have plenty of options available.
 
Your Star said:
Your rights end where my rights begin. You can't use your religion as a crutch for discrimination.
Click to expand...

But you can use your beliefs to curtail others beliefs and rightS?

Fascinating hypocrisy.
 
Your Star said:
Where have I said this?
Click to expand...
Lol, you don't even see it. Both sides are equally guilty of trampling on the other sides rights all in the name of "thier" beliefs.
 
Renae said:
Lol, you don't even see it. Both sides are equally guilty of trampling on the other sides rights all in thr nsme of "thier" beliefs.
Click to expand...

I have to hear this, give us an example of a right that is trampled by gay marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…