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.

 

Nebraska To Debate Bill Outlawing Local Gay Protections Laws

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Nebraska To Debate Bill Outlawing Local Gay Protections Laws


www.ontopmag.com

Nebraska will debate a bill which would bar local municipalities from enacting laws protecting gay and transgendered people, the AP reported.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Basically, Senator Beau McCoy is attempting to cut a bill being introduced in Omaha that prohibits discrimination of gays and transgenders. He is attempting to ban any anti-discrimination bills not produced by the state taking local control of discrimination out of the equation. Being a Nebraska resident and a heterosexual male this really makes me mad. People really need to get over another persons gender or sexual preference as its none of their business. It is bad enough that the state needs to tell people to mind their own business and stop discrimination but for my own Senator to attempt to stop anti-discrimination law is purely ignorant.

www.ontopmag.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Yet another state shows is caring, compassionate side..no wait, that's Washington. THIS is a state that wants to ban anti-discrimination laws from being passed? This does not sit well with me. I know, people are going to say "no, that's not what it is", and even if it is just an attempt to shut down another bill...this is just wrong. Sometimes think this country seems headed back to the days of lynch mobs...*sigh*



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
What happened to the idea of equal protection for Everybody,that way no need to single any group out for any special consideration?

Is that really so crazy?



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by On the Edge
 


I certainly don't think that's crazy. If you assault someone it shouldn't matter why, it should be assault. If I punch a black guy because I hate black people how is that different from punching a hipster because I hate hipsters (assuming it's a white hipster).



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Yeah I can't see the room.

Its full of Pink ponies, elephants and unicorns.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Agarta
 


Im curious as to how anti gay laws are even legal under the Constitution. Since its based on religious belief, I would argue its a defacto establishment of religion. Secondly, laws that target one segment of the population are also illegal.

Do people really not have enough to do where they feel the need to delve into the bedrooms of others? II say make it all equal.

* - A law that bans all marriage (straight, Gay, Transgendered)
* - A law outlawing all religions
* - A law requiring surveillance cameras in ALL houses and bedrooms / hotel rooms / etc


We face an insurmountable debt, dwindling space / science programs, our educational system sucks, threat of regional / global war, plague, disease, famine.....

After all of that, people are more concerned about whom is sleeping with whom??

At least we know HOW we got into the mess we are in....



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I agree, and what makes it even more interesting is religious groups are placed as an exception to the bill. Go figure.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   
So I guess the gist is that the state legislature likes the idea of gay people being discriminated against. What is wrong with these people?

Seriously, how can you be so hateful that you want to actively allow gays to be discriminated against?



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
 


Someone should ask these legislators if they are familiar with / endorse paragraph 175 (2nd amended). I would be curious to see how many know what it is, and how many who dont would endorse it without seeing it.


edit on 20-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Agarta
 



McCoy said businesses need uniform anti-discrimination rules.

From the OP's source

I agree. We could cherry-pick legislation based on PC setiment, or just make it uniform.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   
All those ``hate crime`` laws are unconstitutional anyways.

Remember that little passage in the constitution?

14 th amendment Section 1 :

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.

``Special laws`` for certain people are unconstitutional.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 01:48 AM
link   
The state should have no say so when it comes to religion just the same as religion should have no say so when it comes to the state. This "nanny state", as it's become, is run by a bunch of control freaks and it doesn't end with the Government telling you what to do in your own bedroom. It continues on to restricting the sale of raw milk, swat teaming the omish because they refuse to plant Government seeds, forcing children to take vaccines to attend school even when there's no law, dictating to kids what they will and will not eat, restricting the internet and the list goes on and on. Government needs to get the hell out of our lives and leave people the # alone.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   
The question being discussed isn't whether there should be anti-discrimination laws. The question is should each city in the state make up their own, or should there be one, uniform, law for the entire state.

I would rather keep things simple, one law instead of twenty.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 05:55 AM
link   
This is a good thing. Gay advocates need to stop trying to have it both ways. They want marriage to be gender agnostic, but at the same time, they want homosexuals to become essentially a priveleged caste where the law is concerned, in terms of discrimination.

The hate crime needs to be acknowledged as an emotive, rationally bogus concept which has the practical result of crime having more or less severe consequences, based on the identity of the target. The law needs to remain the same for everyone, irrespective of faith, nationality, or sexual orientation.

The zealotry of gay rights activists is ultimately self-defeating. In order for real and lasting justice to be obtained for homosexuality, it needs to be completely normalised. That means, paradoxically, that gays must stop calling attention to themselves. No more pride rallies, and no more heat and noise in general. Once they get marital equality, the best thing the gay movement will be able to do for itself, is to sit down and shut up.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
I do not agree with these hate crime laws either.

If an ignorant young person writes "I hate everybody" on a wall it's a crime of graffiti.

If that same ignorant young person writes "I hate fags" on a wall it's a hate crime and would be punished more severly?

Doesn't sound right to me.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   
I understand the desire some of you have for uniform laws State wide and at this level sometimes it makes sense but look at it this way. A conglomeration of Counties forms a State, just as a conglomeration of States form a Country, just as a conglomeration of Countries forms the planet. If you are okay with uniform laws to make it "simpler" you are saying a "One" government is okay. A lot of us on this site disagree with big Government control as well as a "One World Government". This is where they set the process of placing the powers to the next higher level of Government until they achieve their goal. Do you really want to buy into it?



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Agarta
 





I understand the desire some of you have for uniform laws State wide and at this level sometimes it makes sense but look at it this way. A conglomeration of Counties forms a State, just as a conglomeration of States form a Country, just as a conglomeration of Countries forms the planet. If you are okay with uniform laws to make it "simpler" you are saying a "One" government is okay. A lot of us on this site disagree with big Government control as well as a "One World Government". This is where they set the process of placing the powers to the next higher level of Government until they achieve their goal. Do you really want to buy into it?


How about we use that same argument. But instead of being pro-gay rights it's anti-gay rights.

Will you still stand by your statement?

Protecting the States rights to decide on same sex marriage.

Defense of Marriage Act


Section 2. Powers reserved to the states No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdRock69
 


My stand is for human rights. I dont feel ANYONE be it Government, Religion, or Individual should have the right to limit the persuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness. In the grand scheme of things a persons sexual preference is no ones concern but their own, save for under age and violent sexual acts, as both violate individual rights. All peoples should be treated equally and therefore all other separatist rights are a worthless waste of time, energy, and funds. There should be no gay rights, feminist rights, racial rights, but individual rights that are the same across the planet.

As for same sex marriage, it is seen as a contract between two(limited at this time in most places) people at the Government level. As a contract, it fits into business law and should be held to the same standards as any other business. Are businesses limited to a male and female? No, a contract is acceptable regardless of gender, so should marriage contracts, IMO. It is the input of religious morals that is causing all these issues and they need to keep their opinions of the sanctity of marriage within their congregations, not imposing it on the individual rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness of others.
edit on 21-2-2012 by Agarta because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Agarta
 


Nice way to avoid answering the question.

I asked if you agree that we should not let the Federal government (Big Brother) decide issues for us that are normally decided on a local or State level.

Or you think it's OK for Big brother to take over as long as you agree with it?




top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join