Bobby Jindal Promises Executive Order Allowing Discrimination Against Gay People

a reply to: beezzer

ya know, I haven't worked a job where I wasn't paid the same amount as the guys doing the same jobs have gotten, and I already posted the story about tx and their "Men need jobs, they have families to support, women have a men supporting them or danged well should have."

businesses can find some pretty danged creative ways to discriminate if they want to, even with the laws.
it's something that I've accepted as just being a fact of life! But well it seems to me that what some want now is an open license to discriminate which would only make things worse.
and well it would be like the gov't encouraging such practices!

To each states his own... The wonderful thing about life is that you can change states or even change countrys.


Or you can even fight those with causes you don't like...


Much ado about nothing.

a reply to: Nyiah

When it comes to morals it's not the governments job to decide. If someone believes it is wrong according to their belief systems the government should not get involved. Because the minute they do they open the door for other moral decisions to be decided by rhem. Look I don't care if gay couples get married it doesn't contradict any of my morals.But now if you say we'll they have the same rights as anyone where morally do we draw the line. We say they have no control there born that way ok what about child molesters you could argue they arepredisposed for their behavior. Do we restrict their freedoms or allow it with comsent?? How about polygamy ok with this?? Society decides morals has been that way for centuries. If groups on society don't agree with morals you can't force them to. And you should never try it's not our place in this case yes gas will be inconvenienced but with a religion your doing far more damage. In this case forcing someone to do something they find morally reprehensible is far worse than the inconvenience caused by the gay couple going somewhere else.

If this point keeps being forced mark my words it's only going to lead to violence when people feel they no longer have any recourse people will start dying. In this case we just need patience eventually no one will care just look at the last 50 yrs. But do this to early you will galvanize society. And you'll end up with the situation in Russia where gas are being actively hunted.

a reply to: dragonridr

it's a crime to sexually abuse a minor, the child is a victim of a crime.
homosexual behavior that is between two consenting adults has no victim and is no crime'

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: beezzer

ya know, I haven't worked a job where I wasn't paid the same amount as the guys doing the same jobs have gotten, and I already posted the story about tx and their "Men need jobs, they have families to support, women have a men supporting them or danged well should have."

businesses can find some pretty danged creative ways to discriminate if they want to, even with the laws.
it's something that I've accepted as just being a fact of life! But well it seems to me that what some want now is an open license to discriminate which would only make things worse.
and well it would be like the gov't encouraging such practices!

When you have some politicians aiding and abetting some factions and other politicians aiding and abetting other factions then you ultimately have government controlling and aiding in separating all of us further.

I've dealt with bigotry, racism and overt hostility all my life. You can either let that dictate how you go about life or you can see that their bias is their weakness and has nothing to do with you as an individual.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: dragonridr

it's a crime to sexually abuse a minor, the child is a victim of a crime.
homosexual behavior that is between two consenting adults has no victim and is no crime'

Problem becomes we can't prosecute someone if they are born that way. That would he wrong unless we make a moral decision it's wrong. As far as consent a lot of countries is 13 middle ages it was 10 again society decides when you have the right to consent.It is a moral decision. If gays or any other behavior is accepted from society doesn't matter. But than who's to decide those morals you me the government. We cannot start a society where ones persons morals trumps another it's just wrong. What a society does is look for compromises to keep everyone's best intrests. When unable to do this then you go with least harm. Neither of these options would lead to forcing morals on someone contradictory to their beliefs.

originally posted by: dragonridr
Problem becomes we can't prosecute someone if they are born that way. That would he wrong unless we make a moral decision it's wrong. As far as consent a lot of countries is 13 middle ages it was 10 again society decides when you have the right to consent.It is a moral decision. If gays or any other behavior is accepted from society doesn't matter. But than who's to decide those morals you me the government. We cannot start a society where ones persons morals trumps another it's just wrong. What a society does is look for compromises to keep everyone's best intrests. When unable to do this then you go with least harm. Neither of these options would lead to forcing morals on someone contradictory to their beliefs.

Doesn't matter if you're born a Pedo or not. If you abuse anyone, regardless of age, it's a crime. Abuse is Abuse. A child cannot give consent for sex with an adult. If you violate someone sexually, it's a crime, regardless of age. If you violate a child sexually, it's a crime. So no, it's not a problem at all actually. It rather simple and reasonable too unless you go out of your way to made it difficult. Then it's a problem. Your problem.

The consent age in other countries, while perhaps an interesting topic, has nothing to do with laws here in the U.S. and therefor doesn't make any difference in this argument.

Laws do not limit anyone's morality either. They limit their actions. Morally you might think sex with children is perfectly fine or totally wrong. Legally it doesn't matter what you think about it. It only matters what you do about it.

a reply to: beezzer

ya sure, unless of course you are an african american in the south during the 50's or 60's, then well, it could very well have lots to do with you!! since you would be the target of the discrimination!
but well what can ya say right?? it's all good, even when such crap ends up hurting people.

a reply to: mOjOm

I kind of think that some here would consider the idea that there is laws stating an age of consent as being useless and not productive....

a reply to: dawnstar

You can choose to be a victim or not.

The choice is ultimately yours.

a reply to: mOjOm

The problem with your argument is that in many societies, homosexuality was considered just as taboo and despicable as pedophilia up until a few centuries ago. It didn't matter if it was consensual, they were still treated as criminals.

It is not impossible to imagine a future where even our most universal of values have been forsaken. Not all traditions should be torn down for the sake of 'progress.'

Do I need to bring up Brave New World?

a reply to: mOjOm

And the point your not getting if discussing age of consent or if gays can marry is a moral issue. If society deems 13 yr old girls can consent to sex it's ok. Morals decide right and wrong in a society. But now when you have morals that cretins groups have and others do not do we legislate morals?? Flip side is countries like Russia most Russians don't a prove of gays. They however don't have to what they do have to do is not mistreat them. They are not required to accept them. Government can't dictate who a group like dislikes refuses to talk to help. this is personal decision based off their morals. It's not my place to decide gays are right and their morals are better than Christians or muslims.THE Only Concern IS Simple does it cause physical harm. If the answer is no than leave these people to believe what they will and these groups can just avoid one another.

a reply to: beezzer

lol they used to lynch people in the south!!! did they give them a choice as to weather or not they wanted to be victims?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: mOjOm

I kind of think that some here would consider the idea that there is laws stating an age of consent as being useless and not productive....

Then I guess they'll have to change the law as far as consensual sex is concerned. The age of consent isn't the same everywhere in the states either. Not long ago it was pretty standard for someone to get married at 13 as well. We changed that to 18 most places, 17 or 16 in others.

As far as sexual abuse goes, that is still another issue though.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: beezzer

lol they used to lynch people in the south!!! did they give them a choice as to weather or not they wanted to be victims?

So you're equating lynching with religious freedoms.

*sigh*

Jump the shark.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: mOjOm

The problem with your argument is that in many societies, homosexuality was considered just as taboo and despicable as pedophilia up until a few centuries ago. It didn't matter if it was consensual, they were still treated as criminals.

It is not impossible to imagine a future where even our most universal of values have been forsaken. Not all traditions should be torn down for the sake of 'progress.'

Do I need to bring up Brave New World?

How is that a problem with my argument???

If we change our values we change them. We can and do change them all the time. Calling them values is sort of funny too. Where is the value in slavery??? Where is the value in unequal rights??? Some "values" when viewed as no longer having any value are changed.

a reply to: beezzer
prejudice and bigotry leads to all kinds of offenses, even death!!!

it wasn't even a few centuries ago that there was no such thing as a husband raping his wife, at least legally and well he was pretty able to beat the crap out of her if he saw fit without much in legal hassles...
that was all based on religious beliefs also!

a reply to: dragonridr

Allowing gays to marry doesn't change anything for the people who don't approve of it. They can still disapprove of it all they want. However, legally they have no grounds to stop it. So gays will get married legally.

Gay's might also disapprove of Christians going to church, having pot lucks, praising Jesus, singing hyms and reading the bible, but there isn't anything legally allowing them to stop it. So Christians will do all those things legally.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: dragonridr

Allowing gays to marry doesn't change anything for the people who don't approve of it. They can still disapprove of it all they want. However, legally they have no grounds to stop it. So gays will get married legally.

Gay's might also disapprove of Christians going to church, having pot lucks, praising Jesus, singing hyms and reading the bible, but there isn't anything legally allowing them to stop it. So Christians will do all those things legally.

Now your getting it finally if Christians or muslims decide not to participate in a wedding it can still go on. Exactly my point and we don't have to force them to through legislation either. SEE It's Really very simple. If they have a means to get married and it doesn't rely on a priest to give up his morals Or be forced to condone a marriage his religion says is wrong. As I said yeah its stupid for someone to morally object I agree I don't think it's wrong but I also say they have that right.

Kind of telling that when Obama makes royal decrees (executive orders) that favor specific groups, it's all well and good, but if someone from another party does it, it's fascism, bigotry, racism, and whatever other buzzwords that will get the automatons gathered.

I'm so bored with this game.