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.

 

Congrats, Bigots... Kansas Has Your Back!

page: 5
49
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   


Not at all, really. As I said earlier you are just wrong and that's that


TheConspiracyPages
reply to post by Ramcheck
 



lmao. . . well then with such a well thought out and reasoned argument what can any of us do but concede?


He really should join the debate team, shouldnt he?





edit on 2/16/2014 by CaticusMaximus because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Those supporting this law...why is it okay to be a bigot? Why is it okay to refuse service for someone because of sexual preference? Why is sexual preference wrong to you? Is this based on the bible?



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TheConspiracyPages
 


Regardless, it still is more evidence in the "homosexuality is natural" department. Where as all the evidence in favor of homosexuality is a choice department originates from heterosexuals making up assumptions about homosexuals.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by CaticusMaximus
 


Yes, as long as he's limited to debating with people that share his views I think he'll do just fine.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by CaticusMaximus
 

I think I see what you're getting at, and I do appreciate the semantic distinction you're making between subjective and objective discrimination. In an objective sense, I can agree that discrimination is discrimination regardless of the form it takes.

But in a subjective sense, I'm glad that you put the phrase "rather than on individual merit" in the definition in bold, italics, and underline. I think that's really the difference between subjectively "good" and "bad" discrimination.

In my opinion, making a choice to act hatefully towards other human beings, regardless of the reason, says a lot about one's "individual merit." And that's why I discriminate against people who do that.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 09:11 PM
link   
So the non bigots have become bigoted towards the bigots.
The non bigots sound as bad as those they attack

Hell I wouldnt eat with any of you, what oops

Gay, bigoted or whatever, I will share a meal anytime...
You can believe what you want, just dont preach your beliefs to me if I am not interested



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TheConspiracyPages
 


I cannot debate with people who are inherently wrong. There is no debate to be had. On this topic there actually IS a 'right & wrong', and unfortunately for bigots, they are wrong. End of story, tbh.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Having reviewed the text of the proposed bill, it would have far more greater ramifications than just against the LGBT community. This law in short, states that if it is against your religion, as a business owner, or a person who works in government, you could refuse service, using the reason being your religion and be protected by law.

While it does specifically mention those who are for same sex couples, it could also be used against those who are not of the same religion as you are. Think about it, say a southern Baptist person, running a business, could refuse service to say a person who was a Hessitic Jew, or a person who was Jewish of faith, turn around and use that as an excuse to refuse service to say someone who follows Islamic.

And then there are other aspects that this could be used, such as with religious holidays. If an employer celebrates a religious holiday, and an employee does not, then the employer could turn around and fire said employee.

Course then there is also the matter of privacy, with this law, all rights of privacy would be removed, as now an employer could ask on a job application about a person’s sexual orientation, along with religious affiliation, and the person would have not benefit or protection under the law or privacy from intrusion into personal matters.

So under this law, a person could look and refuse service against anyone who did not go to their church and proclaim it was against their religion. How sweet, but it appears as though those in the Senate are under threat by their political parties that if they pass it, they will be sowing a lot more than what they are reaping.

There is another issue here that we should also be looking at, since when did a national political party become a political force at the local level? After all it apparently is the National Republican party that is calling the shots, are the National political parties, that are more of a puppet master?



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by amazing
 


Well, I guess maybe Jesus was kinda a bigot too.




posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Another_Nut
 


The no shoes, no shirt thing is supposed to be due to a food and safety issue. Thats why they can put that on their door. Its not that they are discriminating against people without shoes or a shirt, they are ensuring the safety of the patron of the establishment.

I understand where you are coming from though, with wanting to allow a business owner to decide who they do and do not serve in a business they own. The libertarian side of me fully agrees with you on this, but the logical side of me is concerned. Where do we draw the line? First its barring people based on sexual orientation, then by skin color, then by hair color, and next thing you know there are Aryan cafes popping up that only allow tall blond hair blue eyed males.

This is not what America should stand for. Separation, segregation, and discrimination are all things that impede on the rights of the citizens and should not be allowed or tolerated.

Your rights end where mine begin. The rights of the business owner end where the rights of the patrons begin. Any law that allows the rights of one person impede on the rights of another is an unjust law and should be prevented from ever seeing the light of day.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 09:22 PM
link   

caterpillage
reply to post by muse7
 


Ahh, "moving forward", it's the new "hope and change".


You just hit the nail on the head.




posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 

I agree when I'm hungry I'll eat anywhere with whoever. But I believe that if you own a business you should be able to refuse service to who ever you want, you built that business, you pay taxes on it. If your religion is against gays that is your right. If you are gay why would you want to go there? Just to cause trouble? I'm not against gays I'm tired of it shoved down my throat. Being against gays imop doesn't make you a bigot , if race was involved then yeah your a bigot



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Jesus Christ was most definitely a bigot. That's obviously the impression those writers left us at least.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by magicrat
 


Your honesty is appreciated. But it is more than semantics; objective vs subjective and their transpositioning is the most severe flaw behind common arguments with a premise that something is "just wrong". People usually do not or cannot distinguish between their own subjective interpretation of the morality of something, and the objective counterpart of that something which is neither right nor wrong, but just is as it is, no matter which lens is taken to peer against it.

Its how religious wars begin, again and again, when the subjective interpretation in the mind of the person, community, or nation, becomes the objective truth that cannot be refuted, and those who do, must be killed.

Weve already seen that sentiment arise once in this thread already.


In my opinion, making a choice to act hatefully towards other human beings, regardless of the reason, says a lot about one's "individual merit." And that's why I discriminate against people who do that.


I completely agree.


edit on 2/16/2014 by CaticusMaximus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   

slednecktx
reply to post by borntowatch
 

I'm not against gays I'm tired of it shoved down my throat. Being against gays imop doesn't make you a bigot , if race was involved then yeah your a bigot


Care to explain this reasoning? Because this reads, to me, like you are saying, "I don't mind people of different sexual orientations, but I don't care if you hate them and subject them to lesser rights because they have different sexual orientations. But I do care if you do that to people of different skin colors."

Equality for all Holmes. Not just the people you deem as more equal than the rest.
edit on 16-2-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   

slednecktx
reply to post by borntowatch
 

I agree when I'm hungry I'll eat anywhere with whoever. But I believe that if you own a business you should be able to refuse service to who ever you want, you built that business, you pay taxes on it. If your religion is against gays that is your right. If you are gay why would you want to go there? Just to cause trouble? I'm not against gays I'm tired of it shoved down my throat. Being against gays imop doesn't make you a bigot , if race was involved then yeah your a bigot


and i wont disagree,it doesnt mean I dont disagree
This situation/law is deeper than a quick read and a sentence reply

Just sounds stupid here how all these anti bigots have become so bigoted to the bigots

Those protesting here have become like those they protest against



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Maybe Jesus Christ just had a bad PR team, who knows? But let's face it, the majority of people were still bigots up until the middle of the last century. It is only now that more people are starting to wake up, yes even your neighbours in the South (and Mid-West) haha. Relax, enjoy life and don't judge people on their sexuality, that's ridiculous behaviour.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Another state run by a party of bigoted haters - the GOP.

Republicans are reaching new lows of hate and bigotry. Sadly, North Carolina (just came under Republican control) is now pushing the Koch conservative agenda of hate and divisiveness. Way to go South!


1) Kansas is not in the south. 2) racial discrimination and continued segregation is much more prevelant in the north than in the south.


From Florida, I can tell you the south is more racially divided than ever, the John Birch society is strong down here, and the new GOP is a mirror of it.

F&S. Hard to believe it's the 21st century in America, the racial 'tards and GOP policies are seriously damaging this country.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Krazysh0t

slednecktx
reply to post by borntowatch
 

I'm not against gays I'm tired of it shoved down my throat. Being against gays imop doesn't make you a bigot , if race was involved then yeah your a bigot


Care to explain this reasoning? Because this reads, to me, like you are saying, "I don't mind people of different sexual orientations, but I don't care if you hate them and subject them to lesser rights because they have different sexual orientations. You just aren't allowed to do that to people of different skin colors."


I know homosexuals who hate and despise plenty of other peoples as well, equally as bad as bigots

We are all wrong, we all have our stupid beliefs, we all fail and fall

Its arrogant to say you are better than anyone, this whole thread is starting a fight.

Skin colour wasnt referred to



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 
I

I grew up southern Baptist in east Texas where homosexuality is a sin. But I joined the Marines and got away from home and saw the world. My problem is I see both sides of it now, I'm not anti gay because I worked with some in Wyoming and had gay friends. But I also see the anti gay side and understand why they believe in their believes. So who do I side with? Am I a bigot against their religious beliefs? No I served to protect their right to freedom of religion. So some of us are in the middle of this debate



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join