It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why would someone support Gay Rights if they are not gay?

page: 3
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Iamschist
a reply to: KnightLight

Didn't mean to trick anyone. You have a fine answer, I loved the 'I am everyone part' Big truth!


Yea man. It's quite easy to hate differences in people, but it's just as easy to realize you are different as much as someone is different to you.

Freedom goes beyond personal judgement based on feelings localized around what is close to you.. As far away from you as someone is in their wants and desires, you are far away from them, and they aren't attacking you.





posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Dumbest thread ever, ops son was gay and god killed him, because god is an asshole who plays favorites with his children.

The problem with the idea of gay rights is that somehow gays are different to begin with, they don't need rights they have them.

And the more parents tell there daughters all men are rapists and the more men don't want to put up with women and the more society prizes beauty and skinny jeans over the natural order the more gays are going to represent the majority and everyone else will need straight rights...haha



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 03:25 AM
link   
a reply to: circuitsports

Wow Sunshine, having a bad day?
edit on 20-10-2014 by Iamschist because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 03:27 AM
link   
Why support gay rights? Because it is the right thing to do for any group that is being oppressed by the majority. Hating what is different from yourself is easy and sadly many people lack the intelligence to understand and accept this.

It's how we treat others - especially those who are different than ourselves - that defines our humanity.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 03:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

Well and beautifully said Heff, thanks for stopping by. :-)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker
radio.foxnews.com...


That is a for-profit BUSINESS, not a church. Their city (Coeur d’Alene) has an ordinance that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. Let me repeat: THIS IS NOT A CHURCH. They charge a fee. It's a business. And as a business owner, the Knapps agree to follow all business laws of the city.



10. Ordinance §9.56 prohibits a “public accommodation” from denying “any person because of sexual orientation and/or gender identity/expression, the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement.”

11.The Hitching Post Wedding Chapel is a public accommodation under this ordinance because the Knapps open the chapel to the public and offer wedding services in exchange for a fee. According to the City, the Knapps and Hitching Post, LLC also deny privileges based on sexual orientation under this ordinance because they perform wedding ceremonies for opposite-sex couples and do not perform these services for same-sex couples.


Source

If they cannot bring themselves to marry every legally eligible couple, they should stop marrying people altogether and they'd be fine.



I just can't wait to see what the reaction is going to be when they force Islamic Mosques to do this.


That is a CHURCH and cannot be forced by law to marry people.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: circuitsports




And the more parents tell there daughters all men are rapists and the more men don't want to put up with women and the more society prizes beauty and skinny jeans over the natural order...


I agree with this part, tho i think this is not the thread for it.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

You win.

If a for profit, you must kneel to the state, not state opinion, etc..

If not-for-profit then you must kneel to the state, not state opinion as it can be taken politically,IRS, 501c problems etc.

See the problem here?

oh, I quit on this topic since I have been docked 1000 points and threatened with being banned.

Going back to news.
edit on 20-10-2014 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker
If a for profit, you must kneel to the state, not state opinion, etc..


Well, if obeying the laws is "kneeling to the state", then yes. We all have to obey the laws, change the laws or face the consequences.



If not-for-profit then you must kneel to the state, not state opinion as it can be taken politically,IRS, 501c problems etc.


Again, even churches need to obey the law. If they are going to preach politics and endorse certain political views or candidates, they need to pay taxes.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Y'know, the only arguments against equal rights for everyone are the same ones that have been repeated over and over for centuries.
When all of us scream out for homosexual people to have the same rights as all the rest of us, the tiny, ignorant minority rehash the same old protests they've made since the quest for equal rights began.

"We'll be overrun!" "They have an agenda!" " is secretly in a relationship with one!" "The media is run by them!"

We had the same arguments when women wanted equal rights, when ethnic minorities wanted equal rights, etc etc etc. And guess what!? The world is still inherently the same. It's just that now there are even MORE people who can be miserable, but we can all do it together!



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide




Because it is the right thing to do for any group that is being oppressed by the majority.



Yes, because democracy can become mob rule without representation. Although even that can become mob rule when only half the reps believe in something as in The Affordable Care Act.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker
Please try not to feel too bad. I have been docked lots and lots of points too, because I usually will not back down when people become agitated by my viewpoints.

I have had a lot of self-righteous anger directed at me by people who just know they are right. But you know, sometimes off-topic posts are the only way some viewpoints can be re-engineered. I find that people who push democracy all the time do not like it when the vast majority believe otherwise. It's only fun for them when they can get everybody on board with their program. And usually it is done by nefarious means, like disinfo in the media, or at least media spinning something in an unusually biased manner which may have only half-truth in it.
Common Core is an example of indoctrinating millions and millions of unsuspecting children and youth into a way of thinking, in effect it is social engineering by radicals, and it is led by none other than Bill Gates, our favorite depopulation expert(that is next to John Holdren and David Rockefeller).
So while many people don't even realize they are tied in to a conspiracy, as in people who think they want to get married, because it is some kind of coveted social status, many of those same people may be doing it as a way to engineer change in society and marriage traditions. What better way to do that though than by indoctrinating all our youth. This is why Common Core is being pushed on the parish and private schools as well, being pushed into the Catholic schools, in much the same fashion as Marxism has moved into the Catholic Church as a means to destroy it from within.
The National Sexuality Education Standards specifically are designed to mess with children's sense of normalcy they get from their parents by placing pictures that disorient their understanding of gender identity. I've seen these books. Girls heads on boy bodies and such. Now comes a mayor of a large city who won't let her gender identity law die on the vine so she is fighting back by demanding sermons from pastors as a way to clobber anyone who may stand against her plans, thus it is an effort to intimidate people into compliance, and has a chilling effect on free speech and religious liberty. But the social engineers are all secular humanists and this is perfect according to their plan.
Of course on another note, my heart does go out for the OP's personal loss, because that is just something you never recover from, no matter what the gender identity or orientation of the person is.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: JackofBlades




And guess what!? The world is still inherently the same. It's just that now there are even MORE people who can be miserable, but we can all do it together!



That is especially true for socialism, which demands that everyone pay for the social engineering of the few. But is the world really still the same? If so, then why the cry for more Progress and Change?



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic




Well, if obeying the laws is "kneeling to the state", then yes. We all have to obey the laws, change the laws or face the consequences.



That is pretty much true regardless of the moral right of the law at hand. Statists generally seem to believe that forcing everyone into their favorite mold is the way to go in getting compliance with their plans, whether it be pushing Sharia Law, or gender identity rules forcing a change in bathroom habits of schoolchildren, or toppings on wedding cakes and such. It is all related to enforcing a Police State because the Statists believe they are morally correct. But when they cannot do it by obvious means of passing specific laws, they do it by underhanded modes, such as using picture books to teach your children well.....to use Crosby Stills and Nash lyrics.
I will have to say however that sometimes natural laws trump human made laws.

edit on 23-10-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

So now the Knapps private business enterprise is a "public accommodation", like bathrooms in the airport or the Lynx buses in Florida?



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

So now the Knapps private business enterprise is a "public accommodation", like bathrooms in the airport or the Lynx buses in Florida?



The Hitching Post is and always has been a public accommodation, not a private anything. Public accommodations are like a hotel, a bakery, a restaurant, a grocery store, a wedding "store". A business that sells a product, service or entertainment.



Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreation facilities and service centers.


Source

Private clubs and religious institutions (churches) are NOT public accommodations, and are exempt from laws applying to public accommodations.

To prevent this thread going off topic, there is a thread specifically about this case. www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Thanks for all your contributions :-).



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Yes, I see now that you are correct on that, as apparently according to the laws, public and private "accomodations" are all lumped in together. So public transportation such as buses and airport restrooms are together with private businesses such as restaurants, bakeries, etc.

I found this interesting article which expounds on unintended consequences of laws which are meant to provide equal access to everyone...and it involves the ACLU which is patently, even from it's inception, a Kollectivist organization with mostly radical Progressive interests.


There are several remarkable things about this story, which occurred in 1986. First, the ACLU of Southern California represented the Nazis, yet, at least by the late 1980s, this local ACLU branch was known as a vigorous proponent of hate speech regulations. How to square that circle, I don’t know. Perhaps the organization had a sudden and dramatic leadership shift. Perhaps the local ACLU leaders saw this as “discrimination based on ideology in public accommodations” and somehow didn’t notice it was also the suppression of hate speech. Perhaps they just had their heads up their behinds.
Second, why was the ACLU concerned about the rights of the Nazi patrons, but not the owners? Why didn’t the owners have a right to send a message that they disapprove of Naziism?


Fourth, under current hostile environment law, the restaurant could get in serious trouble for not ordering the Nazis to stop wearing the swastikas. Tolerating swastika-wearing patrons would be considering by some to be the creation of an “illegal hostile public environment” for Jews, Gypsies, and others.


volokh.com...

One wonders why the ACLU chooses to defend these types of cases.

Oh yes and I see that you have quickly decided to redirect the thread again right after you "derailed" it with your discussion of public accommodations.
Nice move Ben!

On topic, why would someone support gay rights if they are not gay? I guess the answer could be that it's the same reason the ACLU will defend Nazis.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Oh yes and I see that you have quickly decided to redirect the thread again right after you "derailed" it with your discussion of public accommodations.


Actually, infolurker brought up the case. www.abovetopsecret.com...
and I responded to that post and then you joined in and I responded to you. www.abovetopsecret.com...

At that point, I wanted to keep it from going further off topic, so yeah, I redirected it back to the original topic and gave you a link if you want to discuss it further, which I'd be glad to do. Is that a problem?
edit on 10/23/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Nope not a problem whatever.

oops needed a second line.

None of this is really a problem, it's just discussion of a heated topic.
edit on 23-10-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join