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.

 

Florida’s New Anti-Gay, Anti-Woman Bill May Be the Most Malicious Yet

page: 12
39
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie




Or denying MEDICAL TREATMENT based on religious based bias?


hey nothing like endangering someone's life, or causing them undue pain, because your god tells you to!! soon maybe we will be able to make those nine year old rape victims become mothers of twin!!!




posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: chuck258
The more LGBT calls for special protections, the more resistant people are going to be, because they are going to feel they are being told what they can and cannot do.


What "special protections" are LGBT calling for? What "special protections" have they called for in the past? And finally, how do you feel about the actual special protections that religious people GET in this country, like the ability turn people away, because one is "religious"?


another "Frank Luntz phrase"...he's the republican wordsmith that came up with the phrases "death taxes" for inheritance taxes, and "death panels" for use against the ACA...here's his bio...
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 28-10-2015 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Apparently not merely preaching to the choir, as at least as many (including you) have arisen to combat any so-called bashing.

Since you obviously view yourself as a more fair-minded person than anyone who would stoop to "bashing" the poor, maligned, overwhelming Christian majority in this country ... isn't your own critique of that group you perceive as uniformly attacking a bit ... hypocritical? I mean, you're pointing a judgmental finger at us for pointing a judgmental finger at the Christians ... no?


Except there is a difference between judgement and ridicule. The over-use of sarcasm is indicative of this. Such criticism never really goes beyond mere joke and gloating.

I’m not criticizing any group. If my relatively benign joke does not apply to some individuals, then it does not apply to them. If it does apply, then I suppose there was some merit to it.

In the context of the OP, no one has yet proven that the bill is “anti-gay or anti-women”. It doesn’t even mention gays or women. It appears that we can only make ourselves feel better by attacking straw men arguments, and by speciously implying that a pro-religion bill is undoubtedly intended to be anti-gay and anti-women, which will ultimately proliferate discrimination, homophobia, segregation, theocracy etc.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie

originally posted by: grandmakdw
When it comes to Christians, remember
all the old testament scriptures you twisted
are swept away by the words of Jesus.
Jesus command sweeps away the Old Testament,
and the New Testament superscedes the Old.

Jesus said for Christians to love, so for Christians
you need to replace the world love for kill, etc
in all of your passages. Because Jesus did away
with the ugliness you say we think, and put
love in it's place. That was His command.
Find where Jesus said or did anything that
would support your little rant and that
Christ followers should do any of the above
and you will have credibility.
The actual words of Jesus or actions of Jesus.
That is who Christians follow. Jesus. who
swept away the old and brought in the new,
love. Not the words of Paul or others, but
the actual words of Jesus and/or His actual
actions.


Otherwise, this is a typical response of a paranoid delusional
anti-theist when it comes to Christians.

Wooooo watch out the
Christian boogie man cometh!
Lock the doors, pull the shades
or a Christian might get you.
BOO

That is why your paraphrase of old testament
passages are so twisted and distorted of their
meaning for the majority of them.
The product of a bigoted, prejudiced,
intolerant anti-theist mind who projects
their own hatred into the passages, and projecting
these onto Christians, when Christ said to substitute
love for hate and told His followers to do the same.

You also forget Jesus never said any of those things
he ate with prostitutes, people who stole, outcasts
of society and told his followers to love everyone.
Not to kill. So find a passage where Jesus said any of
these things
you are so gleeful and took such rage filled
time to find and I might find you not full of anger
rage and hate and paranoid delusion when it comes
to Christians.


People need to be free to not believe
and to believe
in the US.
People need to be free to not practice religion
or to practice religion,
that is in our constitution.


Of course, the anti-theist paranoid delusional
movement doesn't believe the constitution
applies to people of faith.
Tolerance only goes one way as an anti-theist
tolerant toward all who renounce religion,
intolerance for those who wish to practice
religion.


That's what this entire thread is really about.

Not the bill itself
but freedom from the oppressive
and intolerant anti-theist who does not want
to allow people to practice their faith outside
of their homes and the shades must be drawn,
or outside of their places of worship and
they must sneak in and not let anyone know
they are there. That is the anti-theist version
of freedom of religion,
that is why such
irrational fear and intolerance of a bill that
tries to protect that freedom.


So in one breath you admit that Jesus Christ taught love and tolerance, that he associated with the less savory and loved them just as much as his apostles.
Then in the next breath you somehow use this to justify denying other human beings. Not just services- such as a wedding cake- but the adoption of children and the receipt of needed medical treatment.

I'm not the anti-theist boogey man. I embrace all religions, all my fellow humans. I've read the words of Jesus. It truly saddens me when people use his teachings to justify the shunning, the scorn and the discrimination against others. I can just picture a tear streaking down his cheek in response to this hatefulness.


You twisted the meaning of my words.

I embrace all religions and all fellow humans.

I am not justifying scorning anyone.

I am saying that we need to allow people to be
free to practice their religion rather
than held hostage to anti-theist intolerance
of all beliefs.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: grandmakdw

Refusing others based on your religion is not practicing it, it is forcing it on others. Your rights end where mine begin, don't like it? Get out of the public sector. I would be willing to bet they don't mind taking the help of the tax payer for thier business without caring where that money comes from.
You practice it at home or in your place of worship.

Oh and save the "the OT doesn't apply to Christians" you guys follow the 10 commandments right? Isn't that part of the US is a Christian nation argument, that our laws are based on those commandments?


Where there are so many options available to people
why would someone want to force others to participate
in their wedding, someone who doesn't want to?
Why bring that negative karma to what should be a joyous
time just to make a point?
There are options in the US everywhere, and to pretend
their isn't is dishonest.

I would not want to force an anti-theist who hates all
religion and religious people to decorate my church
for Christmas. That is wrong to force them to do it
just to make a point that I can force them to bend
to my will if I want to.
It is divisive and creates more hatred between people
and does nothing to really bring people together, rather
it creates more and deeper hatred of ones fellow man



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: grandmakdw

So please tell me why this bill has been brought forth. Is it because Christians don't want to do business with gays or any "gay behavior"? Why is that, when Jesus didn't say anything against gays? Why would Christian's religious views preclude them from doing business with gays? Why would there be a law to allow people to follow a religious view that doesn't even exist, according to Jesus?


Because what purpose does it serve to
force people to do things against their will?

Does it make them love more? No.

Does it make them accept the other person more?
No, it causes their misguided feelings to morph
into hatred and deepens the division between people.

Does it create understanding between people?
No,it deepens the misunderstanding by forcing
people to do things against their will.

Does it make the world a happier and better place
and increase good karma?
No, it increases negative karma and makes the event
that people are forced to participate in full of
negative karma.

Forcing people to do things against their will to make
a political statement, only deepens the divide, and
creates hatred, and misunderstanding and does nothing
to really heal wounds and bring people together.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw
I embrace all religions and all fellow humans.

I am not justifying scorning anyone.


LOL! Oh, yeah, grandma, your words are just full of the love of Jesus!


originally posted by: grandmakdw
paranoid delusional anti-theist
bigoted, prejudiced, intolerant anti-theist mind
the anti-theist paranoid delusional movement
oppressive and intolerant anti-theist


Ah... sounds just like something Jesus would say.

No one has to twist your words to feel the rage and hatred.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And that is why I will stand by my first post that the bill even If happen to be passed by the political morons in Florida in the name of their God, is going to be deemed discriminatory and racist.

I can only imagine all kind of sign that could be posted in business doors, even schools, churches and you name it, if such bill ever become law.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Florida wants to pass an adoption law that mirrors evolution. So does that make evolution is so homophobic or just anti-gay?

The state should follow evolution's lead and only give kids to a man and a women. Not a single man, not a single women, not two women, and not two men. I am sorry, I shouldn't be talking about evolution on this page, I should follow the hate for religion theme.

So many bitter people on ATS. Some say religion brings peace and reduced the bitterness, just sayin....



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

If the bill passes, lawsuits will follow.

Unfortunately, the cost of the lawsuits will be passed to the taxpayers.

Sad we still have to deal with homophobes who are still living in the dark ages.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Is that rationality I see? And I had almost given up for a moment there.

You sure you don't want to drag some Christians over the coals first? Everybody's doing it.


Meh, there's always tomorrow for that.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Metallicus

As a champion of personal freedom above all else, who are you to say what is an inappropriate attraction for any one but yourself?

That seems like a deeply conflicted position to hold, honestly.



I certainly support their right to participate in their homosexual activities, just as I support abortion rights and legal marijuana, however I still consider those things all to be poor decisions and fundamentally wrong behaviors.


Just curious why you find homosexuality to be fundamentally wrong? No one is killing or harming anyone. There are no victims. Being a homosexual doesn't mean you can't be financially successful, or that you can't do good deeds for others. What is fundamentally wrong about it?


I believe it to be immoral behavior and a crime against nature. That being said there are many things people do that I find disgusting that aren't illegal. I simply avoid people with incompatible lifestyles and behaviors in my personal life. However, I would totally bake their gay wedding cake if that were my job. As a professional person I am able to maintain a professional relationship with clients and customers.


I agree with you on the civil war btw. i even found examples of lincoln overstepping his bounds breaking amendments.

Anyway back on topic. If its a crime against nature why do animals do it as well? If it wa sun natural woudnt God had made it so the animals would not do something like that? I thinhk the existence of gay people is a sort of population controlling mechanism. Im in a unique place myself due to my dysphoria and wanting to eventualy transition to female one day. I love women though and also like transgenders in th e process of becoming female as well. Sorry guys but i find you to be....just too...masculine lol. Its funny(pun intended) when ive been born as a male i would be considered a lesbian afterward huh? But technically id be straight too lol!! POint i s life is full of grey areas.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
There was a time, mostly in the South, when private businesses who had an openly offensive and bigoted business model did just fine. They were eventually forced to do things with their private property that they didn't want to do. Guess what? They got over it, or they got out of that business. And when they died, the next generation just understood that they weren't going to be allowed to have that business model. And the next generation after that wouldn't have even thought about having that business model.


Ummm, I think that you missed the part where I said, "... I think that most businesses who would have such an openly offensive and bigoted business model would eventually fail in modern times ..."

It was a prevailing culture at the time that I believe would have dissipated and petered out without government involvement. In fact, I think the harsh and swift method of the government is what caused much of the unrest and hatred during the civil-rights era. And now we've flipped the boat with the modern addition of political correctness being used to guide many government decisions.

We've lost sight of what it means to be a free nation when it comes to private business. You can bring up the past, and that's fine, as your point is somewhat valid (although I disagree that many of the business owners "got over it" as much as you claim), but we need to learn more from that time than just 'some businesses were bad, and government made them good,' because that isn't necessarily the case, and I think you know that.

But we also need to learn that even without government forcing the hand of private citizens' ethics and morals, enough people were crying out and acting for change that, eventually, change would have happened of a society's own free will. Maybe it would have taken a bit longer, but it would have been done willingly and with less disdain created for the heavy hand of government.

Sometimes slow and steady wins the race, and in this instance, I think it's a better option.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Actually, if "we" in your comment is referring to the general public, "we" do have a right to shop at public businesses.

If someone doesn't want to cater to the public (as in, the entire public without unfair discrimination) then they should offer their services through a private club model and require membership.

There's no reference here, as far as I am aware, to asking not to be "offended by someone's beliefs" ... good gravy, I'd be in a constant state of offense ... the only thing I see here is an insistence for equal treatment before the laws.


But that's my point--a private company should not have to take that extra step to pretend to be a "private club" (like Costco) to be able to deny sales to someone. That mentality is ridiculous.

And judging by the way private clubs like the Boy Scouts have been treated, even private clubs aren't exempt to the overbearing hand of government.

The reference concerning being offended by someone's belief is the basis of the opposition to these laws--the laws don't mandate bigotry, they just allow for it in constitutionally protected areas, like religious beliefs. And it's those beliefs that teach some to turn away a homosexual couple, for instance, that is creating offense to this bill.

Like I specifically stated, I know that reality doesn't necessarily align with my point of view on the protection of personal property and business (and what I deem should be a right to run it whatever way the individual sees fit), but that doesn't mean that I can't voice my opinion that political correctness is taking how we view laws and individual rights and thrown them for a loop.

ETA: Take the pro-private business stance of laws that say a company can deny the right of the individual to carry a weapon into their establishment. Do you support that form of bigotry against pro-gun people who legally carry their weapon per the constitution and state law? Even though it is a thorn in my side and I have to sometimes leave my firearm in my car, I support those laws because I believe that it should be a right of the private owner of the business to decide that, and I can proudly say that if I owned a business, it'd welcome firearms and homosexuals and anyone else who wants to come in...even firearm-carrying homosexuals! (and I do know a few)
edit on 28-10-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=19969398]Darth_Prime[/

I'm sorry, but your post appears to be just another example of the illogical, hysterical, and politically driven nonsense that we hear so often from the lunatic fringe of the left. It is clear that religiously based medical facilities should not be required to treat individuals who's behavior is in conflict with the tenet of their religions, except on an emergency basis. There are plenty of secular facilities available to provide these services.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: thinline
Florida wants to pass an adoption law that mirrors evolution. So does that make evolution is so homophobic or just anti-gay?

The state should follow evolution's lead and only give kids to a man and a women. Not a single man, not a single women, not two women, and not two men. I am sorry, I shouldn't be talking about evolution on this page, I should follow the hate for religion theme.

So many bitter people on ATS. Some say religion brings peace and reduced the bitterness, just sayin....






"hate for religion theme"???........show me where this hate has manifested itself, or, quit using it.....I think it's just a lie that religious people use......athesists don't want to live by Christians rules, and don't want it to influence our government.....it would be like YOU living by Islamic religious law, and if you didn't want to do that, then YOU ARE BITTER, AND YOU HATE RELIGION....



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: skeptikal1

I'm sorry, but your post appears to be just another example of the illogical, hysterical, and politically driven nonsense that we hear so often from the lunatic fringe of the left. It is clear that religiously based medical facilities should not be required to treat individuals who's behavior is in conflict with the tenet of their religions, except on an emergency basis. There are plenty of secular facilities available to provide these services.


What?

Is this the Mid East? Do we live under a Theocracy?

Civil Rights - Equal Treatment for all is a Lunatic Fringe of the Left. Good to know



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

This is what I don't get. People arguing in favor of this bill are arguing in favor of Segregation. It's just a different flavor. We saw that such laws were a disaster and had ZERO intention of ever going away. Heck, the resistance to desegregation was so nasty they had to call out the national guard to desegregate schools in Little Rock, Arkansas. We already KNOW how this is going to end. To pretend like it could end differently because the times are different is naive. You open the door an inch and they will kick it open a mile wide then feign persecution when you try to crack down on it.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: skeptikal1
a reply to: [post=19969398]Darth_Prime[/

I'm sorry, but your post appears to be just another example of the illogical, hysterical, and politically driven nonsense that we hear so often from the lunatic fringe of the left. It is clear that religiously based medical facilities should not be required to treat individuals who's behavior is in conflict with the tenet of their religions, except on an emergency basis. There are plenty of secular facilities available to provide these services.


it is clear that they SHOULD treat them, they are open to the public, and abortion is legal. by the way....religion, itself is illogical, after all, you pray to a mythical being



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

This is beyond Homophobes, Jrod this is about moron politicians that are so stupid that can not even tell the difference between been anti gay in the name of religion from racism and discrimination because is all in the name of their lord.

It only tells you what kind of people are been allowed to make laws in this nation.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join