GOOGLE Lists GOP NC Senator As 'BIGOT'

a reply to: DBCowboy

Who knew that Aldous Huxley was a prophet, eh?

a reply to: luthier

Crying racist does not make a person racist. It may be pathetic but explain how that makes someone racist?

I already did.

If the term "racist" is used to mean something like "I don't agree with you and I can't explain why" (which it does), then what do you use to label actual racists? Pretty soon, the term becomes meaningless (as it has) and actual racists are no longer seen as being the evil they are.

The legal term is "aiding and abetting."

So understand this: the moment you call someone a racist, I consider you a racist. The moment you call someone a bigot, I consider you a bigot. The moment you call someone homophobic, I consider you homophobic. And I'm apparently not alone; a freakin' New York real estate tycoon with an ego large enough to block the sun just got elected to the highest office in the land because that many other people are tired of the labels, too. We're not "deplorable"; Hillary is! She admitted it when she used the label on us.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: luthier

I don't care if you don't like gay people. Or that your god tells you gays are bad. That is your personal belief.

I don't care if you don't like religious people. Or that your lack of a god tells you religious people are bad. That is your personal belief.

TheRedneck

Who says I am not religious? Are you saying the majority of religious people believe gays should be separate but equal?

I am not religious. I am agnostic. But my wife is..

No problem with religious people. Or go's for that matter. I argue against zealous atheists all the time.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: luthier

Crying racist does not make a person racist. It may be pathetic but explain how that makes someone racist?

I already did.

If the term "racist" is used to mean something like "I don't agree with you and I can't explain why" (which it does), then what do you use to label actual racists? Pretty soon, the term becomes meaningless (as it has) and actual racists are no longer seen as being the evil they are.

The legal term is "aiding and abetting."

So understand this: the moment you call someone a racist, I consider you a racist. The moment you call someone a bigot, I consider you a bigot. The moment you call someone homophobic, I consider you homophobic. And I'm apparently not alone; a freakin' New York real estate tycoon with an ego large enough to block the sun just got elected to the highest office in the land because that many other people are tired of the labels, too. We're not "deplorable"; Hillary is! She admitted it when she used the label on us.

TheRedneck

Oh I see the "i know you are but what am I" argument.


Doesn't have much logic.

a reply to: luthier

Who says I am not religious?

You did:

I am not religious.

Are you saying the majority of religious people believe gays should be separate but equal?

No, you are.

Strange to watch you argue with your own words.

TheRedneck

a reply to: luthier

Oh I see the "i know you are but what am I" argument.


Doesn't have much logic.

No, it doesn't. That's why I wish you would quit causing it to work.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: luthier

Who says I am not religious?

You did:

I am not religious.

Are you saying the majority of religious people believe gays should be separate but equal?

No, you are.

Strange to watch you argue with your own words.

TheRedneck

I never said I don't like religious people and until that post you had no idea.

And I never said religious people believe that. I said this lady does.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: luthier

Oh I see the "i know you are but what am I" argument.


Doesn't have much logic.

No, it doesn't. That's why I wish you would quit causing it to work.

TheRedneck

You make no sense..

a reply to: luthier

And I never said religious people believe that. I said this lady does.

You've been rambling on for several pages now about how her religious beliefs are somehow "wrong" and shouldn't be allowed.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: luthier

And I never said religious people believe that. I said this lady does.

You've been rambling on for several pages now about how her religious beliefs are somehow "wrong" and shouldn't be allowed.

TheRedneck

Can you show me where I said her beliefs are wrong and shouldn't be allowed?

a reply to: luthier

Can you show me where I said her beliefs are wrong and shouldn't be allowed?

No.

Two reasons: one, if I did point it out, your response would be to try and twist it around so I said it, and two, I need to run to town for a minute.

That should give you plenty of time to go back and read what you wrote.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: luthier

Can you show me where I said her beliefs are wrong and shouldn't be allowed?

No.

Two reasons: one, if I did point it out, your response would be to try and twist it around so I said it, and two, I need to run to town for a minute.

That should give you plenty of time to go back and read what you wrote.

TheRedneck

Lol. I never said her beliefs are wrong and shouldn't be allowed chief.

But go ahead and find them. I said they don't belong in legislation..they don't.

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.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: luthier
People love name calling.

The problem I personally have with her and people like her believe it's the government's place to use moral legislation based on their personal religious beliefs. Like gay married partners shouldn't get Healthcare because God said so.

So you wouldn't mind GOOG listing your or a family member's photo with the word 'FASCIST' stamped under it?

I have never made fascist comments or run for office making fascist statements.

It would probably say libertarian skeptic.

Or possibly cynical crank.

So you think one ideology should be able to determine for everyone else what that person is or thinks or feels?

You just described the left.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: luthier
People love name calling.

The problem I personally have with her and people like her believe it's the government's place to use moral legislation based on their personal religious beliefs. Like gay married partners shouldn't get Healthcare because God said so.

So you wouldn't mind GOOG listing your or a family member's photo with the word 'FASCIST' stamped under it?

I have never made fascist comments or run for office making fascist statements.

It would probably say libertarian skeptic.

Or possibly cynical crank.

So you think one ideology should be able to determine for everyone else what that person is or thinks or feels?

You just described the left.

It's a description of both the far left and the far right.

originally posted by: luthier


I already did. Doing everything possible to make sure her personal beliefs about marriage and same sex families were legislation. She championed a bill to let people out of doing there public service jobs if they had religious beliefs.

Saw that one... She voted yea on a bill that a person is not forced to do something against their religion. In this case I believe would be issuing marriage licences to gay couples. The person can take a 6 month removal from the whole process as in not giving any at all. In a case like this if a person's religion prevented them from doing a good amount of their job then they would need to be either resigned or let go. This bill also protects other religious believes and not just a "gay" thing.

I don't care if you don't like gay people.

I don't think it is a like or dislike event here. Everyone see things as morally right and wrong. I agree it is about time that Government got out of marriage and leave marriage to groups that want to support it, but personal morals change much slower than society norms it seems.

However I don't see a big difference from say wanting to restrict blacks, whites, Latinos, Asians...in my opinion it legislative targeting.

I think there is a difference, these you listed are not a behavior. Gay, straight, in between etc are all behaviors.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Gay, straight, in between etc are all behaviors.

Sexual orientation is not a behavior. That's like saying that Catholic priests "act" like straight people.

originally posted by: TheRedneck


The true racists are those who scream "RACIST" every time they see something that offends them.

TheRedneck

True...anyone that lives primary by the color of their skin is a racist. I feel the same with the #metoo movement where they have desensitized people to true sex crimes and now anything can be inappropriate behavior...

originally posted by: RowanBean

Sexual orientation is not a behavior. That's like saying that Catholic priests "act" like straight people.

It is based on behaviors...behaviors that people may or may not agree with. Pedophilia is a incurable "sexual orientation" too but it doesn't me the behavior associated with it is within society norms. So a person says they are straight or gay, that means little if there are no behaviors associated with it.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: luthier


I already did. Doing everything possible to make sure her personal beliefs about marriage and same sex families were legislation. She championed a bill to let people out of doing there public service jobs if they had religious beliefs.

Saw that one... She voted yea on a bill that a person is not forced to do something against their religion. In this case I believe would be issuing marriage licences to gay couples. The person can take a 6 month removal from the whole process as in not giving any at all. In a case like this if a person's religion prevented them from doing a good amount of their job then they would need to be either resigned or let go. This bill also protects other religious believes and not just a "gay" thing.

I don't care if you don't like gay people.

I don't think it is a like or dislike event here. Everyone see things as morally right and wrong. I agree it is about time that Government got out of marriage and leave marriage to groups that want to support it, but personal morals change much slower than society norms it seems.

However I don't see a big difference from say wanting to restrict blacks, whites, Latinos, Asians...in my opinion it legislative targeting.

I think there is a difference, these you listed are not a behavior. Gay, straight, in between etc are all behaviors.

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.

Creating legislation about homosexuaity is a constitutional problem.

If you can't support the law get out of a public service job.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: RowanBean

Sexual orientation is not a behavior. That's like saying that Catholic priests "act" like straight people.

It is based on behaviors...behaviors that people may or may not agree with. Pedophilia is a incurable "sexual orientation" too but it doesn't me the behavior associated with it is within society norms. So a person says they are straight or gay, that means little if there are no behaviors associated with it.

Sexual orientation just means you are attracted to certain sex. It's their choice to act on it.