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.

 

Six GOP Hopefuls Vow To Enshrine Anti-Gay Discrimination Into Law

page: 4
43
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   
The Grand Western Experiment that is the U.S of A has gone full retard in the last year.

Divided, into thousands and thousands of demographics...
These people just happen to pander to the bigotry base.

My 2cents.




posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther


So we're back to the whole debate on whether homosexuality is a choice or not. Which no one knows.

Your argument is therefore predicated entirely on emotion, and how your feelings feel about it.

lol!!! No. That's cute....

no - my argument is predicated entirely on enforcement of the law.

Homosexuality as being a "choice" - or not - is an entirely different topic, and there are plenty of heated threads that have explored it already.

There is no LAW AGAINST homosexuality.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: AudioOne




Jeez... All your sophistic rhetoric where you think you are being witty doesn't hide the fact that in reality this law is an outlet to let businesses and even federal institutions discriminate against people who don't live by the same religious standards as they do.

Your arguing obtuse linguistic theory (rather badly as any linguist will tell you that these words like freedom and liberty are up for grabs depending on who is using them) and everyone else is arguing based on reality, businesses and individuals who want the right to refuse services to LGBT people. Based on reality all these posters are against any legislation that would allow any religious right a$$holes from not providing services to LGBT. It's that clear. That's what this legislation was written to do, not because of derp derp pseudo linguistic adolescent analysis but because that is what the actions of the people who wrote and support it has been.

So no, religious people do not have the right to treat someone different in business because they don't line up with their religious views. Emphatically positively NO NO NO .. That is not a first amendment right.

For instance, you don't line up with my religious views. If I was king of the internet and life I'd ban you to not write more than 10 words a post and only one post a year. My religion tells me you should not post on the internet. Thank God that the first amendment doesn't allow me to limit your rights.

And in truth I am too wise to actually want to ban anyone's speech, but it was a good example.


Can't argue the issue can you. Attack me all you want. But before you do you should know what sophistry means.

So do you believe a federal government should be taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage?"



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


Why can't we just treat everyone equally? This attempt to "clarify" the 1st Amendment is as weak as the lefts attempt to "clarify" the 2nd Amendment.

Leave the Bill of Rights alone.
Leave the Constitution alone.

Treat people equally. Why is this so hard?

Beats me!

People have nothing else to bitch about, I guess?



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther


...choice...


Let's look at that closely...


Choice;
The act of selection or making a decision...



This is where you guys that side with each other about the "perversion" that is LGBT need to make a choice yourselves...

Either it is a mental illness as many claim, or a choice as the other 50% claim...

Aside from neither being true...


When did you choose your sexual preference, may I ask?

You didn't?
Oh then why do you project this mythical choice onto others?

Resentment?
Fear?
Hatred?

All of the above?


Quite...


+4 more 
posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Love it.

USA is falling apart. It got riots every other month, bankrupt city’s living in third world conditions, a Stagnant economy, half the middle east out to kill them (with weapons they supplied!), out of control police state, rampant corruption in DC, a worthless currency based on lies and pixie dust, teenage kids snapping every week and going on killing sprees, crony capitalism and corporate corruption and criminal Politian’s up there necks in crime. O and don’t forget a rise in fascism!

Yet the GOP priority is on were two consenting adults stick there junk? lol you cant make it up!

edit on 19-12-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Pathetic, isn't it??



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: buster2010

I'll ask again. Do you believe a federal government should be taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage?"

What you seem to fail to understand is that is not discriminatory action by making people follow the law. I fully support the government enforcing the law.

Now answer my question should religious people have the right to discriminate against people just because they say their religion says so?
edit on 8070000002431America/ChicagoSat, 19 Dec 2015 12:23:24 -06002010 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



So do you believe a federal government should be taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage?"

That is already protected by the 1st Amendment. Why are you stressing this? I guess you missed this next part:

In essence, the law would give individuals and businesses a license to openly discriminate against gay people and others in the name of "religious liberty," - See more at: www.rightwingwatch.org...

Text


Let me ask you a question:
Do you believe that a federal government should allow people to discriminate against other people for any reason in workplaces and businesses, especially in government offices?



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010




What you seem to understand is that is not discriminatory action by making people follow the law. I fully support the government enforcing the law.


What? You might need to reformulate this statement so I can understand it.



Now answer my question should religious people have the right to discriminate against people just because they say their religion says so?


Yes, they have the right to do whatever they want if it doesn't affect the rights of others, just as you have the right to do the same in return.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien




Do you believe that a federal government should allow people to discriminate against other people for any reason in workplaces and businesses, especially in government offices?


Yes, but the federal government should be indiscriminate.

Now let me ask you a question, and maybe you will be the first in this entire thread to answer it honestly:

Do you believe a federal government should be taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage?"

edit on 19-12-2015 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   
And here I thought we were running out of posts about Gays....geez. I feel better that I can still get my weekly 10 to 20 posts now...lol



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



What? You might need to reformulate this statement so I can understand it.

What was so hard to understand about supporting laws that do not allow people to discriminate against others because they say their religion doesn't like someones lifestyle?


Yes, they have the right to do whatever they want if it doesn't affect the rights of others, just as you have the right to do the same in return.

Denying people their services because their religion doesn't like their lifestyle is affecting the rights of others.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: NthOther




So we're back to the whole debate on whether homosexuality is a choice or not. Which no one knows.


The homosexuals know and they say it's not a choice. I believe them.



That's me.

There is no need for scientific test proof positive.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Deaf Alien




Do you believe that a federal government should allow people to discriminate against other people for any reason in workplaces and businesses, especially in government offices?


Yes, but the federal government should be indiscriminate.

Now let me ask you a question, and maybe you will be the first in this entire thread to answer it honestly:

Do you believe a federal government should be taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage?"

I am not the first to answer but ok.

Like I said that is already covered by the 1st Amendment. The government cannot make laws on beliefs and religions. People are free to believe what they want to believe. Churches are free to discriminate against gay people. Government ALREADY CAN'T discriminate against anyone!

Let's take Kim Davis as an example. Kim Davis is a government officer and she works for the government. The office is for government. Government do not discriminate. When Kim Davis refused to issue marriage certificates, she IS IN VIOLATION of the 1st Amendment.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010




What was so hard to understand about supporting laws that do not allow people to discriminate against others because they say their religion doesn't like someones lifestyle?


I think it was your typing.

But it discriminates against people who follow certain religions.



Denying people their services because their religion doesn't like their lifestyle is affecting the rights of others.


A christian wedding is not a right.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien




Like I said that is already covered by the 1st Amendment. The government cannot make laws on beliefs and religions. People are free to believe what they want to believe. Churches are free to discriminate against gay people. Government ALREADY CAN'T discriminate against anyone!


Then what's the problem?


Let's take Kim Davis as an example. Kim Davis is a government officer and she works for the government. The office is for government. Government do not discriminate. When Kim Davis refused to issue marriage certificates, she IS IN VIOLATION of the 1st Amendment.


I agree with that. How about some more examples.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



Then what's the problem?

No problem.



I agree with that.

Now you are getting it. You basically just disagreed with the bill!



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien




Now you are getting it. You basically just disagreed with the bill!


No I didn't.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

Yet the GOP priority is on were two consenting adults stick there junk? lol you cant make it up!


I love this. It originated from a poster on a Michio Kaku discussion forum.



"Suppose there was an intelligence, vast and unknowable. Suppose it lit the big bang, suppose it wrote the laws of physics, and has been subtly moulding the universe for 14 billion years. Now keep a straight face and tell me that it cares where you stick your dick."



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join