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: 7
43
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: OhOkYeah

OMG
The DEM candidates HAVE NOT SIGNED IT!!!

Get it?

They didn't even come into the room, let alone sign the guest-book.

They didn't buy a ticket on the crazy anti-gay train.

They're Not Interested.

If you'd like to present a letter to the three of them (Sanders, Clinton, and O'Malley) asking if they would or would NOT support it and sign the pledge, go right ahead. As of right now, THEY HAVE NOT SIGNED IT.




posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



That seems obvious.


Then I guess those Republicians and certain Christians do not trust the Constitution and the government?



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
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?


Good job for pointing out the obvious.

Now can you answer my question?



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Religions already have their freedoms, granted by the Constitution and bill of rights. They don't need more freedoms. I'm a Christian myself and have never once been denied any rights because of my religious beliefs.

There are Christians much unlike myself in high political positions attempting to put their religious beliefs into legislation. Separation of church and state makes such actions illegal. There's also other bills that make such things illegal, such as the right to privacy, and the like.

Christians pushing their religion based morality into laws is not okay in any way, shape or form, and this is coming from a Christian.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: OhOkYeah

OMG
The DEM candidates HAVE NOT SIGNED IT!!!

Get it?

They didn't even come into the room, let alone sign the guest-book.

They didn't buy a ticket on the crazy anti-gay train.

They're Not Interested.

If you'd like to present a letter to the three of them (Sanders, Clinton, and O'Malley) asking if they would or would NOT support it and sign the pledge, go right ahead. As of right now, THEY HAVE NOT SIGNED IT.





Good. I'm glad they didn't. I'm also glad that 8/14 republicans didn't sign it. Yet those 8 were included on the list while the democrats were left off.

Also, do you have a source showing that the democratic candidates did not sign it?



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: OhOkYeah

Do you have a source showing that the Dem candidates were somehow 'barred' from endorsing it?
Or that they were asked?



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Heres hoping that this proposal for a new law is just pandering for votes by the right for election day.

edit on 19-12-2015 by dukeofjive696969 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

From what I am seeing none of these people should have held any office and I thought Rubio was better than that. I am thinking he will not have another term. None of them ar presidential material.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: dukeofjive696969



Heres hoping that this proposal for a new law is just pandering by the right for election day.

I am pretty sure of that.

After discussing with LesMisanthrope I get this feeling that this is a clever ploy to make it appear that Christians need protection but all they did was reaffirm the 1st Amendment right.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

This makes me a bit sad, honestly. To think that infringing on another person's rights makes a person popular? What have we become, when we vote for one side because they seek to limit others, to discriminate, to remove rights... It happens on both sides, the gop is admittedly the more active crowd when it comes to denying rights to someone, but this happens on both sides, and I hope that we can get someone in who is not seeking to deny rights to citizens, though maybe I am just being too hopeful.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Heres hoping that this proposal for a new law is just pandering for votes by the right for election day.



That's exactly what it is and it's beginning to bite them in the butt. Moderates that once might have voted republican now see their desperation and are backing away from the GOP in droves.

Notice the damage control by some conservatives even on ATS with silly double speak and strawmen arguments.

The religious right are dooming their candidates except for Trump and he will drop our very soon.

Expect to see the right to abandon this dumbass strategy. Acting from a position of desperation usually invites failure.
edit on 19-12-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs




The derp (aka cognitive dissonance --- a term they love to use against 'liberals') is strong with these people.


Well the term does fit rather well.

After all what's their take on rich people,bankers,ceo's, and Wall Street.

I promise not to mention the G word.

And For the record there B.

Here is a BLAST from the Past.



Initially introduced in May 1996, DOMA passed both houses of Congress by large, veto-proof majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in September 1996.


en.wikipedia.org...



The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 (also known as RFRA), is a 1993 United States federal law that "ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected."[1] The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Ted Kennedy (D-MA) the same day. A unanimous U.S. House and a nearly unanimous U.S. Senate—three senators voted against passage[2]—passed the bill, and President Bill Clinton signed it into law.


en.wikipedia.org...

I sure DO see that cognitive dissonance someone is talking about.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Good afternoon, sir.

Can I help you with something? We here are talking about modern-day, real-life, on the ground, actual developments in the 2016 POTUS race. Not the past. We are talking about the present.

(Perhaps you are not aware of modern communication skills and techniques that - for maximum effectiveness - advise people to stick to the topic at hand, rather than bringing up some past transgression thing that happened decades ago in order to slam your adversary and somehow via that means make your point.)









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



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

So you really are going to ignore those discriminatory LAWS passed in the 90s.

By GOP opposites.

Ok then.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   
all one has to do is look at the source of this article to know that it has a tad bit of propaganda in it....
just like if the source if Fox, I know that there is a tad bit of propaganda to be found.
are sure those religious rights groups even asked any of the democratic candidates to sign the thing?
and why wouldn't the democratic candidates sign it, oh, ya, they don't need to pander to the christian right to win elections!
the fact that so many of the republican candidates feel that they needed to kind of tells me that there is serious problems within the republican party.
the law itself is kind of stupid in my opinion.
fact is churches don't even have to marry divorce people if they say it's against their religious views....don't believe me, find a couple with on divorced and try to get the to go to the catholic church to get married. unless there was a reason that they see justifies the divorce, they aren't gonna marry you.
another fact is that the first amendment prohibits the government from favoring any religious views over another, and any particular religious view above the other. in other words, if they make the move to protect the christians from being prohibited from discriminating against gays, then they will also have to protect other religious followers from having to acknowledge our laws that might kind of go against the grain of any of their beliefs. and well, since we are talking about not allowing a certain group rights that are now accepted as being constitutionally given, well, let's just say it's not a danged good idea!
and well, I do believe that the courts have already ruled that it doesn't have to be a belief that is held by an accepted religion, well, we are entering a free for all in my opinion if we go along with this.
and let's look back in history....
it used to be frowned upon for a women to be too friendly, or show love to her husband in public....love just wasn't in the marriage equation and many of the religious kind of viewed is as being an end to marriage when people started accepting the idea.
many still believe that women should be in the home and not in the workplace.
interracial marriage got about as much opposition from some religious groups as gay marriage is now.
marital rape was seen as something that just wasn't possible and laws making it a crime didn't start being written till somewhere around 1970 and laws against domestic violence didn't enter the picture until the mid 1850.

many of these advances went against some deeply held beliefs among the religious. and yet, well, here we are. to say that gay rights is somehow different than the belief that the races shouldn't be mixed, or that it's the husband's duty to punish his wife for disobedience isn't correct.

heck, was limiting the kings and queens all encompassing god given right to rule the people going against their religious views?



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

So you really are going to ignore those discriminatory LAWS passed in the 90s.

By GOP opposites.

Ok then.


Ok so how does that tie in with the topic? You wanted to show their track record?



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Excuse me - there are several sources in the follow-up post that back up the source of the OP -
you see, I knew someone would pull that crap....
dismissing the source because of "bias".

THAT IS WHY I posted ALL of the embedded sources - here. In my second post in the thread....
so there was no dispute over the 'biased source' on which I found it.....
these are facts.

Nice try, though.
I've had that base covered from the get-go.


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



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96


So you really are going to ignore those discriminatory LAWS passed in the 90s.

It's not the topic....
just as you attempted to shore up the asinine idea that "Fascism is Left Wing" based on past events among now defunct political entities in another inflammatory misinformed OP --


Here's the thing: IN THIS THREAD, on THIS FORUM, TODAY,
we are not talking about Nazis,
or the USSR,
or Cuba,
or the American Civil War parties,
or FDR,
or labels that various political factions have used before.

We are talking about the 2016 Presidential Election candidates' views, and ONLY those people.



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



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

So you really are going to ignore those discriminatory LAWS passed in the 90s.

By GOP opposites.

Ok then.


Ok so how does that tie in with the topic? You wanted to show their track record?


Gee how does the Defense of Marriage Act that became LAW, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that became LAW tie in to a topic about some GOP 'hopeful's that haven't even been elected yet tie in to the conversation at all.



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join