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: 6
43
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Like I said, religions and churches and religious people are already protected. The government can't discriminate against them anyway. So I wonder if it's much ado about nothing?




posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

So my choice to vote Bernie Sanders is backed up more and more by the gop, cool!

He's honestly the only one that has a real chance at the presidency that's not considering shredding the Constitution, or redefining the whole thing to fit his vision.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   
This piece of legislation is off the charts fascist garbage.
Can't our lawmakers find something useful to work on?
Something to create jobs, help the economy, stop crime.
No, they have to go bash gay people and make them second class citizens.
Shame on them all.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

As per the text in the bill itself:



To prevent discriminatory treatment of any person on the basis of views held with respect to marriage.


I wager that since the legalization of gay marriage, a counter is required for religious people and institutions.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



I wager that since the legalization of gay marriage, a counter is required for religious people and institutions.


Why? Are they afraid that the government will force churches to marry gay people?



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Seems like far too many on both sides are trying to define the Constitution and bill of rights to fit their own personal views. Sometimes I wish politics were for the average person, I'd love it if someone would actually represent the average.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: OhOkYeah

There are NO DEM CANDIDATES running for President who have signed on to it.
There are SIX GOP candidates who have.

What the hell are you talking about?



originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: OhOkYeah

Those six DID sign on to it, according to the sources.


Yea, obviously.

6 Republicans have signed onto it
4 Republicans support it but have no signed onto it
The last 4 republicans did not sign it and do not show support for it

So, where are the democrats and why weren't they included on this list?

If you can't see propaganda for what it is, you shouldn't even be bothered to vote.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Morons. Good luck trying to amend the constitution on this one.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: OhOkYeah


So, where are the democrats and why weren't they included on this list?

If you can't see propaganda for what it is, you shouldn't even be bothered to vote.

Is this set of data hard for you to sort out?

NONE OF THE DEM Candidates (of which there are THREE) have pledged/signed on to it!!! They are absent from the list because they did NOT sign the pledge.




edit on 12/19/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I've already stated all of that.

Why are you reiterating exactly what I've said?

You realize that proves my point, not yours?


(post by OhOkYeah removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: OhOkYeah

No - you keep asking where the Dems are on the list --- as if they really are (or should be) and I'm leaving it out for some reason.

There ARE NONE. If you realize that, then why are you persisting with sarcasm instead of just admitting "there are none".

Why are you nit-picking that there are still GOP runners who haven't signed it?
The OP was about the SIX WHO HAVE. It was not about the ONES WHO HAVEN'T. But now (because you kept pushing), you know how the others who responded to the request for a pledge feel about it. (Who is "Gilmore"? Never heard of him.)

Ever see an Elephant hiding in a tree?
No.
Good hiders, aren't they?


edit on 12/19/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The difference is that skin tone is not a lifestyle choice (well maybe now it is, with modern "medicine").

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.


News flash: If you have had to make a choice to be straight your whole life, you aren't straight. I hate to be the one to tell you but you are totally gay. Real straight people never had to think about it.

Do you really think gay folk (yourself excluded) wake up every morning and mentally confirm their sexuality?



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: OhOkYeah

GAHHHH!!!!!!

The OP shows WHICH OF THE candidates (SIX OF THEM) are supportive of this act.
One would hope that by seeing their names on this nefarious list, voters would write them off as the nutjobs they are. There has to be SOME WAY to winnow out the inappropriate ones. If you have 14 candidates to choose from - doesn't it behoove you (and other GOP voters) to investigate the beliefs and stances of EACH OF THEM, to weigh and balance against each other?

Have you ever worked in a hiring capacity?
There are ways to eliminate certain candidates/applicants. THIS WOULD BE ONE OF THEM.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: OhOkYeah

I understand what you're saying, you're coming off as really obtuse, though, the way you are putting things.

There's this discriminatory bill which has been signed by some Republicans, and has the support of other Republicans, but without actual signatures.

Not one Democrat has signed this bill, and not one supports this bill, as far as current information in this thread shows. If this bill is seen as bad and evil by Republicans as well, and you need your answer on whether or not dems support it, kindly visit fox news, it's sure to be there.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: OhOkYeah

No - you keep asking where the Dems are on the list --- as if they really are (or should be) and I'm leaving it out for some reason.

There ARE NONE. If you realize that, then why are you persisting with sarcasm instead of just admitting "there are none".


Ever see an Elephant hiding in a tree?
No.
Good hiders, aren't they?



Whatever you have to tell yourself to convince yourself that Hillary belongs in office.

There's no reason to include republicans that didn't support it while not including democrats that didn't support it.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: OhOkYeah

GAHHHH!!!!!!

The OP shows WHICH OF THE candidates (SIX OF THEM) are supportive of this act.
One would hope that by seeing their names on this nefarious list, voters would write them off as the nutjobs they are. There has to be SOME WAY to winnow out the inappropriate ones. If you have 14 candidates to choose from - doesn't it behoove you (and other GOP voters) to investigate the beliefs and stances of EACH OF THEM, to weigh and balance against each other?

Have you ever worked in a hiring capacity?
There are ways to eliminate certain candidates/applicants. THIS WOULD BE ONE OF THEM.


I see all 14 republicans and their support or non-support

The democrats were intentionally left off

It's propaganda. It's not hard to figure out.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: OhOkYeah

There are SEVENTEEN contenders (between the GOP and the Dems). Period.
SIX of them have signed this bigoted pledge. The other Eleven have not.

THREE of those who have signed are actually enjoying 'numbers' favorable to their ideas.
Cruz
Rubio
Carson
That should eliminate all three of them, for anyone who is not a Bible-thumping bigot, from being legitimate options.


Huckabee
Santorum
Fiorina
----not ranking anyway.

Do you people not know how to make "pro and con" lists to make choices?

edit on 12/19/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien




Why? Are they afraid that the government will force churches to marry gay people?


That seems obvious.


+1 more 
posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
It doesn't give special rights to the religious. It clearly states religious belief or moral conviction.


The only way it protects those with moral convictions is if those moral convictions are about gay people marrying or having sex, neither one of which is anyone's business.

This is a discrimination free-for-all against gay people, brought to you by the "good" people of the extremist Christian right.




top topics



 
43
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join