I am genuinely concerned about the LGBTQ people, and what they will be facing in a Trump Presidency

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Teikiatsu

That's true, there are still too many homophobes and transphobes out there, but there are quite a few who strongly support anti-discrimination laws for the LGBT community.

www.freedomforallamericans.org...

www.csmonitor.com...

Have you not learned yet? Throwing around crap like "###phobe" is one of the main reasons you lost the election. Here's an idea: Stop trying to shut down conversations by calling people something they are not, and actually discuss the issues.

Or should I call you a heterophobe, theophobe or reasonphobe and walk away?

a reply to: Teikiatsu

And? Are you saying the President doesn't have that power? EO's are not law.

No, I'm not saying he doesn't have the power. I'm saying that it's the wrong thing to do, especially given the fact that there are 32 states where LGBT people can be fired and denied housing and services.

Pen and a Phone!

Oh! Now the Trumpeteers think a pen and phone are good tools, because before they were suggesting pitch forks and torches, muskets and firing squads.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Interesting response, since I didn't call you anything.

Care to respond to the links I posted, or just want to deflect because you don't have a good response?

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Have you not learned yet? Throwing around crap like "###phobe" is one of the main reasons you lost the election.

Are you upset because there's word that defines a certain set of deplorable people?

The problem with these anti-discrimination laws is that the government shouldn't be able to tell anyone how to run his or her business. People have always been able to deny service to anyone for any reason. And that's the way it should be. That's the way America works.

It's okay when people disagree. People are going to be offended. That's part of life.

Think of the reverse example: What if a gay couple wanted to open a bakery and bake nothing but cakes for gay people? A straight couple walks in and demands that the gay bakers bake a cake for them. The gay bakers refuse.

Even though I don't agree with the politics of or the practices of this gay bakery, they should still be allowed to have their all gay bakery if they so choose, and they should have the right to deny straight people's business.

If businesses unfairly discriminate against any particular group of people, that business loses potential customers. If it gets bad enough, people may organize peaceful protests and/or boycott the shop.

But the government forcing a small business to do something against its owner's will is unAmerican, unless what they're doing is actually doing physical or monetary harm to other people. You can't change someone's opinions, beliefs, or thoughts with a law. I don't think homophobia is a good thing, and if I had a small business I certainly wouldn't discriminate against gay people. But you can't legislate away "homophobia" any more than you can legislate away anger, fear, liberalism, conservativism, love, or hate.

a reply to: Farlander

People like you said the same thing when Jim Crow laws were threatened in the South. But you know what? They got over it, and now no one thinks much about having to serve blacks as well as all other races.

originally posted by: Bedlam
The people who need to be worried are lifetime career politicians on both sides of the aisle. Something bad is about to happen to their future, I think.

Nah, most all of those 'lifelong' House and Senate members can rest cozy and secure.

Seems every state is convinced that their 'lifelong representative' is one of the only good guys, and it's all those 'lifelong representatives' from the other states that are the real issue in DC.

originally posted by: windword
Are you upset because there's word that defines a certain set of deplorable people?

I'd imagine that if Teikiatsu were upset it would be because such labels are so commonly misused and thrown around against non-deplorable people that such labels have largely become meaningless to rational individuals.

At this point, for many, homophobe no longer really carries any connotations of fear or hatred towards the LGBTQ community. It's been misused and tossed around so casually that it's now pretty much the same as being called any number of common everyday derogatory expletives.

a reply to: redmage

Perhaps that could be annoying. But the post he's complaining about, in which the word "homophobe" was used, was not in any offensive context. Words exist for a reason.

The deflection is obvious.

originally posted by: windword
Words exist for a reason.

Yup, and those reasons (and vernacular definitions) evolve over time.

We've reached a point where labels/insults such as misogynist, homophobe, racist, and many others have pretty much all been so commonly misused that they've all but completely lost their former definitions.

In today's vernacular they all just mean "person who has the audacity to disagree with me".

a reply to: redmage

Okay, you tell me what word to use for people who think that all blacks are lazy and stupid? What word do I use for people who think homosexuality is an abomination and evil and disgusting?

Since those words don't work anymore, what new words are there that I CAN use?

a reply to: kaylaluv

I'm not personally an etymologist, but I'm sure if you contact one they might be able to help you come up with some new labels to use.

Just be careful and measured in how you apply them so that your new labels don't loose their meaning through common everyday misuse like the old ones have.

Or, you could just fall back on the tried and true "idiots" (formerly an actual medical/psychological label for the specific IQ range below 30).

originally posted by: windword
No, I'm not saying he doesn't have the power. I'm saying that it's the wrong thing to do, especially given the fact that there are 32 states where LGBT people can be fired and denied housing and services.

And I can easily say it was wrong for the President to write them in the first place.

Oh! Now the Trumpeteers think a pen and phone are good tools, because before they were suggesting pitch forks and torches, muskets and firing squads.

I think you need a sarcasm transfusion, so I'll elaborate.

Liberals have no foundation to deny Trump anything he does based on precedents set in place by Obama. Irony. Get it? I'm not saying Trump should do anything like what Obama did. That does not mean I think Trump should do it.

Obama opened Pandora's box a lit bit more. Thanks libs.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Interesting response, since I didn't call you anything.

Care to respond to the links I posted, or just want to deflect because you don't have a good response?

Yes you did. Anytime you speak about the people you disagree with using those terms, you are making a broad generalization of people you do not know or understand. Including me.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Have you not learned yet? Throwing around crap like "###phobe" is one of the main reasons you lost the election.

Are you upset because there's word that defines a certain set of deplorable people?

Upset is not the right word at all.

I'm not surprised you have a false premise of people you disagree with.

Meanwhile I'm amused you use a word that is a mangling of greek (homo-) and latin (-phobus) origins, and think it's clever.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Liberals have no foundation to deny Trump anything he does based on precedents set in place by Obama.

We have every right to criticize and persuade using our 1st Amendment rights, to speak out against what we find to be wrong.

You think that it was wrong for Pres Obama to use his authority to give LGBT protection against discrimination. I think its wrong to say "# You" to the LGTB community and its supporters, and pull those protections out from under them.

I don't believe that Trump victory gives him any mandate or carte blanche to exercise his campaign promises. He still has to answer to the people, ALL the people, even the 47% of the population that voted against him.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Meanwhile I'm amused you use a word that is a mangling of greek (homo-) and latin (-phobus) origins, and think it's clever.

I'm amused that you think you're making any sense?

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: windword
Are you upset because there's word that defines a certain set of deplorable people?

I'd imagine that if Teikiatsu were upset it would be because such labels are so commonly misused and thrown around against non-deplorable people that such labels have largely become meaningless to rational individuals.

At this point, for many, homophobe no longer really carries any connotations of fear or hatred towards the LGBTQ community. It's been misused and tossed around so casually that it's now pretty much the same as being called any number of common everyday derogatory expletives.

It's just another liberal attempt to mass classify people they don't agree with, and a flag that they should be able to legitimately dismiss opposing argument.

"You are a homophobe. Your argument is invalid."

Nevermind what the argument is, or the legal and logical origins behind it. It's mean words, and the echo chamber can't afford to hear dissenting opinion.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Liberals have no foundation to deny Trump anything he does based on precedents set in place by Obama.

We have every right to criticize and persuade using our 1st Amendment rights, to speak out against what we find to be wrong.

You sure enough do, and look like hypocrites in the process

You think that it was wrong for Pres Obama to use his authority to give LGBT protection against discrimination. I think its wrong to say "# You" to the LGTB community and its supporters, and pull those protections out from under them.

It's wrong for any President to push forward any orders that give benefits to a specific group of people.

I don't believe that Trump victory gives him any mandate or carte blanche to exercise his campaign promises. He still has to answer to the people, ALL the people, even the 47% of the population that voted against him.

Amazing how you carry that tune now. I didn't hear a lot of it for Obama and us bitter clingers.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Meanwhile I'm amused you use a word that is a mangling of greek (homo-) and latin (-phobus) origins, and think it's clever.

I'm amused that you think you're making any sense?

I'm amused that you're amused that I'm amused that you think you are still clever.