It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


One Two Punch! DOJ Moves to Undermine Gay Rights in the Work Place

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 08:28 AM
a reply to: windword

the "lgbt community" can fly their flag as high and proud as they want. i still don't understand why anyone cares who someone else is having sex with or attracted to. or why anyone cares what you dress up as or what bathroom you use. and i also REALLY don't understand why it's a political issue.

posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 09:12 AM

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

Its off topic but I wanted to address something in your post.

Let me first say that regardless of the label, I have made myself clear on supporting gay marriage.

Now to get into the weeds a little.

What is a conservative? By definition, it's somebody who wants to conserve the status quo and favors tradition over change. From my perspective, the common pattern throughout most of US history has been society struggling against conservatism to evolve itself.

I disagree with your definition and how you are using it. I will go through some points why.

1. This is just like debating feminism. Feminists use definitions to switch around and be fluid, and at the end of the day what they are saying is that everything good is feminine, and everything bad is masculine.

Similarly, you define conservative as a bunch of bad things while ignoring all of the good.

2. I would argue if being conservative is merely preserving the status quo or tradition, then progressive would seem to be wanting to change the status quo.

So by that definition, I would argue that you are conservative.

The status quo says pedophilia is bad, Progressives must want to change that.

The status quo has people having a higher standard of living in this country than almost all of history. Progressives wwant to change that.

Are you starting to see how these simplistic definitions are ridiculous?

3. Your definition is also problematic in that it would mean thaat once a policy is changed, it becomes the status quo, and hence is now a conservative position that progressives would want to change. Hence conservatives would favor gay marriage, and progressives would be against it.

4. Despite many problems, the US and other first world countries are the best countries the world has ever seen by almost any measure. Standard of living, lack of violence, fairness in law, life expectancy, rights for minority classes.

In fact, these are just about the only countries ever where the dominant groups have willingly given up much of their standing to minority groups.

Progressives seemingly are against the idea of these countries, constantly blaming them for all of the worlds problems.

Hence all of the worlds problems are because of the US. Patriarchy and whiteness can be readily called out; and in fact our academia makes this hatred towards groups a major part of is curriculum.

How many conservative universities have majors that blame homosexuals, or minorities etc. for the worlds problems. And yet almost every single one has course dedicated to whiteness and masculinity being the cause of the worlds problems.

When some jerk like Pat Robertson blames the countries ills on homosexuals on tv, just about everyone is outraged. And yet every day we here about how evil white people are or men are, and no one bats an eye.

This is the progressive vision. The conservative idea of the US being great must be eradicated, and they are willing to push identity politics and attack the US to do this.

Or maybe definitions like yours are too simplistic.

posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 09:21 AM
a reply to: windword

It's indeed a shame, but it is what it is- and basically what the Supreme Court was created for. Anyone can interpret a law or statute to mean what THEY think it should mean based on their own perspective. The job of the SC is to settle these conflicted interpretations by making a completely non-biased legal interpretation of such disputed laws and set legal prescience for future interpretation and enforcement. It's actually a pretty good system IMO.

posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 09:46 AM
a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

Well, it's the final step and the last word, when others can't see eye to eye on Constitutional interpretation.

I find it ironic that some are complaining that the LGBT community wants "special rights", when all they want is inclusion of the protections provided by Title VII, against sexual discrimination. But, it's the Trump administration and the far Right who deny that the LGBT community is protected under Title VII, and think that Congress should write "special laws" addressing LGBT concerns specifically.

new topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in