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: 6
49
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 09:54 PM
link   

borntowatch

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


And? Homosexuals, being people, are capable of hate. Equality for all.


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


Thanks for the zen lesson, but it doesn't really add to the conversation.


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


And I said that when? Apparently you haven't been paying attention, I'm for equality for all. That means we can all be equally happy, right, wrong, miserable, and any other human conditions you'd like to name regardless of ANY innate differences between two or more people.


Skin colour wasnt referred to


Go back and CAREFULLY reread the sentence I quoted. You'll notice the poster makes a comment about race.




posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 09:56 PM
link   
I'd like to pose a question for those that are against the Kansas bill. I pose it in an attempt to find some sort of common ground.

Say I'm running a website, a local directory. Say that I give away free listings to certain charitable groups whose causes I tend to support.

I like dogs so I'm going to give away a free listing to the local animal advocacy group.

Lets say that I'm a Christian so I give away free listings to local churches.

Now lets say that as far as businesses go, I include all businesses, (paid of course), regardless of whether or not they're owned by homosexuals, heterosexuals, Christians, Muslims, democrats or ......even republicans. BUT I refuse to publish a listing for a gay advocacy group on the site, paid or free, because I'm not inclined to advocate for their agenda.

Now I understand that you might disagree with that decision, you might even dislike me for it, but have I really violated the rights of the homosexual community? Do you think that their "rights" in this case supersede mine? Or do you think I don't have any right at all to decline to promote viewpoints that I disagree with?



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 09:56 PM
link   

amazing
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?


Not a bigot at all. For me it's about freedom. The restaurant is privately owned on private property. The owners should be able to choose who enters and stays in their establishment. Would you also like strangers coming into YOUR HOME and the government telling you that you had to let them stay so long as they are paying you?

First it starts with things like this, next thing you know the government is telling you what you can watch on tv and books to read.

Just look at Hitler in Germany. Sorry to invoke godwins law, but that's how Hitler started. He actually passed many laws against discrimination and other things that seem like "good" things to protect people. He was even a leader in women's rights and animal rights. He had women free and voting while America was still making sure they were barefoot and pregnant. Next thing you know he was banning cigarettes and alcohol in the name of the public good. (NY is already following him there.) And we all know the things he did next...



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Two posters who stuck to the OP correctly stated that this bill is not law. This was passed by the Kansas house, and the governor (Brownback, ironically) said he would sign it. But the Kansas Senate probably won't pass it, because they know it's a waste of state resources to, if it came to it, defend it in court - defending a losing cause (an obviously unconstitutional law).

So with all the arguments if gay is this, that, or the other, the threads main point concerns a bill which has no chance of surviving as a law.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Christian Voice
reply to post by rupertg
 


God did not create gays and lesbians. They choose to be that way. Anyone that chooses to be that way is insulting God by going against the natural uses of his creation.

edit on 16-2-2014 by Christian Voice because: (no reason given)


The bible says God creates all life are you saying the word of God is wrong?



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   

WP4YT

amazing
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?


Not a bigot at all. For me it's about freedom. The restaurant is privately owned on private property. The owners should be able to choose who enters and stays in their establishment. Would you also like strangers coming into YOUR HOME and the government telling you that you had to let them stay so long as they are paying you?

First it starts with things like this, next thing you know the government is telling you what you can watch on tv and books to read.

Just look at Hitler in Germany. Sorry to invoke godwins law, but that's how Hitler started. He actually passed many laws against discrimination and other things that seem like "good" things to protect people. He was even a leader in women's rights and animal rights. He had women free and voting while America was still making sure they were barefoot and pregnant. Next thing you know he was banning cigarettes and alcohol in the name of the public good. (NY is already following him there.) And we all know the things he did next...


So you are saying that discrimination is freedom? So if Kansas were to say that restaurants didn't want to serve blacks you would be ok with that.
The government does tell us what we can and cannot read. There are quite a few books that the American government has banned.
You really shouldn't talk about America and Hitler when you don't have a clue. One thing Hitler admired about America was how we let the women into the workforce. In fact it helped to defeat him.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   

slednecktx
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


I fail to see how that makes it acceptable to be selectively tolerant. Your life story isn't anything special either, I grew up in a Catholic household moving from South Carolina to Pennsylvania to Indiana to Mississippi to Maryland all before I reached high school. My immediate family (parents) has always been pretty tolerant, however my extended family can be pretty intolerant (grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc) even towards race. I joined the Army and saw more of the world. Of course the military is pretty homophobic as I'm sure you are aware. "Don't ask, don't tell"? Please, that's just downright insulting. Not letting a gay person admit as such all so he can continue to draw a paycheck.

But you know what? Despite all that, I've always NEVER thought ANY form of intolerance was acceptable. I don't like racism in any of its forms past (white on black), present (black on white and white on middle eastern looking), or otherwise, and I don't like homophobia. I don't care where the intolerance originates from. Heck religion used to preach racism when it was acceptable.

You are right, people have the freedom of religion. The freedom to PRACTICE religion, not to force their views or intolerance on others because they happen to be in the religion. Christianity is more than welcome to continue to hate homosexuals, but that doesn't mean that they should be allowed to deny rights to them because of the religion.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 10:17 PM
link   

WP4YT

amazing
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?


Not a bigot at all. For me it's about freedom. The restaurant is privately owned on private property. The owners should be able to choose who enters and stays in their establishment. Would you also like strangers coming into YOUR HOME and the government telling you that you had to let them stay so long as they are paying you?


So you feel that these, Jim Crow laws, are Constitutional right?


First it starts with things like this, next thing you know the government is telling you what you can watch on tv and books to read.


Slippery Slope fallacy


Just look at Hitler in Germany. Sorry to invoke godwins law, but that's how Hitler started. He actually passed many laws against discrimination and other things that seem like "good" things to protect people. He was even a leader in women's rights and animal rights. He had women free and voting while America was still making sure they were barefoot and pregnant. Next thing you know he was banning cigarettes and alcohol in the name of the public good. (NY is already following him there.) And we all know the things he did next...


Godwin's Law


Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies[1][2]) is an assertion made by American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990[2] that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3] In other words, Godwin said that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.

Although in one of its early forms Godwin's law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,[4] the law is now often applied to any threaded online discussion, such as forums, chat rooms and blog comment threads, and has been invoked for the inappropriate use of Nazi analogies in articles or speeches.[5]

edit on 16-2-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Aleister
Two posters who stuck to the OP correctly stated that this bill is not law. This was passed by the Kansas house, and the governor (Brownback, ironically) said he would sign it. But the Kansas Senate probably won't pass it, because they know it's a waste of state resources to, if it came to it, defend it in court - defending a losing cause (an obviously unconstitutional law).

So with all the arguments if gay is this, that, or the other, the threads main point concerns a bill which has no chance of surviving as a law.


Thank you for reading the thread before posting, how refreshing!



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Never stopped gays or minorities before. Go open a store or whatever business across the street.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 





You are right, people have the freedom of religion. The freedom to PRACTICE religion, not to force their views or intolerance on others because they happen to be in the religion. Christianity is more than welcome to continue to hate homosexuals, but that doesn't mean that they should be allowed to deny rights to them because of the religion.


But homosexuals have the freedom to not only practice homosexuality but also to force their views on others? And homosexuals should be able to deny the rights of Christians, Jews, & Muslims to live their lives according to their religious beliefs?



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   

TheConspiracyPages
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 





You are right, people have the freedom of religion. The freedom to PRACTICE religion, not to force their views or intolerance on others because they happen to be in the religion. Christianity is more than welcome to continue to hate homosexuals, but that doesn't mean that they should be allowed to deny rights to them because of the religion.


But homosexuals have the freedom to not only practice homosexuality but also to force their views on others? And homosexuals should be able to deny the rights of Christians, Jews, & Muslims to live their lives according to their religious beliefs?



Please explain to me how forcing a Christian bartender to serve a homosexual couple a drink at the bar is denying a Christian his religious rights. I don't know what bibles you've read, but all the ones I've looked at make no mention about being a sin to associate or barter with homosexuals.
edit on 16-2-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 10:29 PM
link   

buster2010

WP4YT

amazing
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?


Not a bigot at all. For me it's about freedom. The restaurant is privately owned on private property. The owners should be able to choose who enters and stays in their establishment. Would you also like strangers coming into YOUR HOME and the government telling you that you had to let them stay so long as they are paying you?

First it starts with things like this, next thing you know the government is telling you what you can watch on tv and books to read.

Just look at Hitler in Germany. Sorry to invoke godwins law, but that's how Hitler started. He actually passed many laws against discrimination and other things that seem like "good" things to protect people. He was even a leader in women's rights and animal rights. He had women free and voting while America was still making sure they were barefoot and pregnant. Next thing you know he was banning cigarettes and alcohol in the name of the public good. (NY is already following him there.) And we all know the things he did next...


So you are saying that discrimination is freedom?


Most certainly -

As long as those being discriminated against also have the freedom to shop elsewhere. Then, everyone has freedom. The bigots can be bigots, And the "victims" can shop elsewhere and give their money to someone who's not a bigot. The only thing that is hurt, is their feelings. They are still free.

The jim crow laws were at the other end of the spectrum. That was state sponsored discrimination. Those being discriminated against didn't have the opportunity to shop elsewhere. That's the complete opposite of anti discrimination laws. I think the middle ground is best - no stupid laws. Laws are just a way for the government to rob our pockets.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 





Please explain to me how forcing a Christian bartender to serve a homosexual couple a drink at the bar is denying a Christian his religious rights. I don't know what bibles you've read, but all the ones I've looked at make no mention about being a sin to associate or barter with homosexuals.


Sure, as soon as you tell me how a bar owner who refuses to host a wedding reception for a gay couple is violating that gay couples rights.

You see there is way too much time spent by both sides on this topic trying to find a "winner takes all" solution. Homosexuals are not going to prove the "rightness" of homosexuality to Christians and Christians aren't going to prove it's "wrongness" to homosexuals. In order to by equitable and avoid a tyrannical solution there is going to have to be some compromise on both sides and some mutual respect.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Krazysh0t

TheConspiracyPages
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 





You are right, people have the freedom of religion. The freedom to PRACTICE religion, not to force their views or intolerance on others because they happen to be in the religion. Christianity is more than welcome to continue to hate homosexuals, but that doesn't mean that they should be allowed to deny rights to them because of the religion.


But homosexuals have the freedom to not only practice homosexuality but also to force their views on others? And homosexuals should be able to deny the rights of Christians, Jews, & Muslims to live their lives according to their religious beliefs?



Please explain to me how forcing a Christian bartender to serve a homosexual couple a drink at the bar is denying a Christian his religious rights. I don't know what bibles you've read, but all the ones I've looked at make no mention about being a sin to associate or barter with homosexuals.
edit on 16-2-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)


It doesn't matter.

If those are that Christians views, they are his views as in individual and his rights have views and opinions. Just as the gay couple should have a right to not want to serve heteros in their gay bars as well. Actually, in some gay bars they actually do throw people out if they are not gay. Just as they should be able to. It's their property.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TheConspiracyPages
 


reply to post by WP4YT
 


Personal freedom stops and ends with you, the person. When upon exercising your freedoms, you infringe on someone else's freedoms you are wrong. Denying service to another person due to some innate difference between the two people is infringing on someone's freedoms. The freedom to travel anywhere and buy and sell anywhere.

I mean you might as well be arguing in favor of Jim Crow laws. Look how well those worked out for our country.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 10:49 PM
link   

TheConspiracyPages
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 





Please explain to me how forcing a Christian bartender to serve a homosexual couple a drink at the bar is denying a Christian his religious rights. I don't know what bibles you've read, but all the ones I've looked at make no mention about being a sin to associate or barter with homosexuals.


Sure, as soon as you tell me how a bar owner who refuses to host a wedding reception for a gay couple is violating that gay couples rights.

You see there is way too much time spent by both sides on this topic trying to find a "winner takes all" solution. Homosexuals are not going to prove the "rightness" of homosexuality to Christians and Christians aren't going to prove it's "wrongness" to homosexuals. In order to by equitable and avoid a tyrannical solution there is going to have to be some compromise on both sides and some mutual respect.



Most homosexuals that I am friends with would not do something stupid like asking a Catholic priest to marry them in church.

Two lesbian friends of mine actually told me when they were shopping for wedding videographers, many would not return their calls, some hung up on them, and others flat out told them they don't work with gay couples. I was shocked, but my friends didn't care. They just moved on, didn't complain, and found a videographer that would work for them. And he was great and made an amazing video and got a good review.

Point being, most people don't whine and complain, they just move on. I bet most people on this thread complaining are not even gay people and just think they can earn a medal by championing what they think gay people believe in. Just last week I was told i had to leave the grocery store because I had a ski mask on. I understand why, but mind you it was 0 degrees outside. I just left... didn't complain. And last year I was told I couldn't eat at an Italian restaurant because I wasn't dressed nice enough. I respected the owners request, and went to Denny's across the street. I understand and respect they have a certain atmosphere they want to maintain in their restaurant. Just as some may want a heterosexual atmosphere...



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Don't shoot the messenger but Leviticus 20:13 " if a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must both be put to death; their blood will be on their heads"



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 





When upon exercising your freedoms, you infringe on someone else's freedoms you are wrong. Denying service to another person due to some innate difference between the two people is infringing on someone's freedoms.


Yes, but requiring a person to preform an action that they believe violates their religious or philosophical beliefs is an infringement on their freedom.

Get it?

Nobody in this debate is going to get to live in what they would see as a perfect world. This needs to be a balancing act.

Taking all your posts in this thread together, you're basically asking people, who for religious reasons, think homosexuality is wrong to "closet" themselves.

Should someone that believes there will be eternal consequences to even a tacit acceptance of a certain sexual orientation be forced to violate their beliefs to spare someone else a walk across the street to another pub?



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 10:53 PM
link   
There is oil there somewhere, right?

Id be worried. Welcome to the new middle east.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join