News1 min ago
Bigots On The March Again In The States
http://
These people would repeal all equality laws if they could. Disgraceful.
These people would repeal all equality laws if they could. Disgraceful.
Answers
> http://
16:08 Wed 01st Apr 2015
Plenty but not as big a proportion as in the States Booldawg. I have travelled extensively over there in the last 35 years and sometimes the backward thinking takes your breath away. But in a country where millions of people believe that the Grand Canyon and dinosaurs existed side by side, about 6000 years ago, I suppose we shouldn't be terribly surprised.
But if you look at the link and see the list of critics of this new law, it heartening to see that the bigots are not having it all their own way.
But if you look at the link and see the list of critics of this new law, it heartening to see that the bigots are not having it all their own way.
Why are you bothered about another country's state laws, unless it gives you yet another chance to air your insulting vocabulary.
If you must speculate what might effect homosexuals in distant lands, I suggest that you criticise those people from other countries that throw homosexuals from high buildings.
If you must speculate what might effect homosexuals in distant lands, I suggest that you criticise those people from other countries that throw homosexuals from high buildings.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
We have rules here that excuse people who work in shops from serving customers with certain items on the grounds of faith. For example the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain allows pharmacists the right to refuse to serve birth control products. That’s wrong too – but the law appears to allow it. Religion holds far too much sway.
It seems that my reply to you AOG was removed, so in that case I am only too happy to apologise. It was an customary slip on my part.
What I should have said instead was that your reply was extremely odd, without implying anything else. And I still think that it was odd.
You seem to bother yourself about a sorts of different things, on a very regular basis, and this results in lively debates on AB, which I welcome
......but why is it OK for you to comment on current affairs and not me ?
And its people like these daft Americans, that are trying to put their country back into the dark ages that I think are bigots Apariah. Most people on here seem to agree with my sentiments.
What I should have said instead was that your reply was extremely odd, without implying anything else. And I still think that it was odd.
You seem to bother yourself about a sorts of different things, on a very regular basis, and this results in lively debates on AB, which I welcome
......but why is it OK for you to comment on current affairs and not me ?
And its people like these daft Americans, that are trying to put their country back into the dark ages that I think are bigots Apariah. Most people on here seem to agree with my sentiments.
In the last several months numerous instances of militant (my adjective) homosexuals have forced a small Mom and Pop bakery out of business, caused a catering business owned by a single, working Mom, to close, forced a small photography business run by a husband and wife to close their business, a family-owned farm in mid-state New York is facing a human rights complaint after refusing to host a lesbian wedding in 2012, after refusing to host a gay wedding (reported in August), and after refusing to host a gay wedding the owner of another catering business, received threatening calls and e-mails and now must contend with a complaint the couple has filed with the state (Iowa) civil rights commission.... and literally dozens more such incidents.
It's amazing to some of us that a segment of the population totalling, by latest counts, less than 2%, has the power to force so many other people to conform to their wishes through coercion, backing of the entertainment media and liberal press. Seems to me the intolerance is on the side of the LGBT community.
Most States have either approved "gay" marriage or are in the process, and along with civil rights and anti-discrimination laws that apply to racial, disability and other easily recognizeable minorities protections that now have been extended to the homosexual community such incidents of disregard for others continues.
Look, several years ago a friend made the statement that there are four "P's" when it comes to government involvement in this issue; first is Prohibition, next is Permission, followed by Protection and the last (where we are now) is Promotion. He was definitely prescient!
Your comment "And its people like these daft Americans, that are trying to put their country back into the dark ages that I think are bigots Apariah. Most people on here seem to agree with my sentiments"... simply overlooks the rights of "millions" here in the U.S. The only reason the "religious" issue is used as a defense is that the First Amendment to the Constitution is supposed to guard the public against Governmental interference... in several apects of life:
"It prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights..." But, it seems, the only right being criticized is the "free exercise of religion". If there was any other medium to protecting the rights of all citizens the reliance on the religious issue wouldnt be a, well... issue.
Homosexuals of both genders lives are at least 20 years shorter, they have, by far more health issues during their shortened lives, expend an enormous amount of public money addressing the health issues. As addressed in the British Journal of Psychiatry: "... Dr. Chakraborty believes the findings are “very worrying.” He said, “This study is the first time the mental health and well-being of gay, lesbian and bisexual people has been examined in a random sample of the population.
“Our study confirms earlier work carried out in the UK, USA and Holland which suggests that non-heterosexual people are at higher risk of mental disorder, suicidal ideation, substance misuse and self-harm than heterosexual people.”
So, why am I and the vast majority of other citizens required to not only pay for a self-induced "life-style" but approve of the persons so engaged to the point of being persecuted for disagreeing on moral grounds?
It's amazing to some of us that a segment of the population totalling, by latest counts, less than 2%, has the power to force so many other people to conform to their wishes through coercion, backing of the entertainment media and liberal press. Seems to me the intolerance is on the side of the LGBT community.
Most States have either approved "gay" marriage or are in the process, and along with civil rights and anti-discrimination laws that apply to racial, disability and other easily recognizeable minorities protections that now have been extended to the homosexual community such incidents of disregard for others continues.
Look, several years ago a friend made the statement that there are four "P's" when it comes to government involvement in this issue; first is Prohibition, next is Permission, followed by Protection and the last (where we are now) is Promotion. He was definitely prescient!
Your comment "And its people like these daft Americans, that are trying to put their country back into the dark ages that I think are bigots Apariah. Most people on here seem to agree with my sentiments"... simply overlooks the rights of "millions" here in the U.S. The only reason the "religious" issue is used as a defense is that the First Amendment to the Constitution is supposed to guard the public against Governmental interference... in several apects of life:
"It prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights..." But, it seems, the only right being criticized is the "free exercise of religion". If there was any other medium to protecting the rights of all citizens the reliance on the religious issue wouldnt be a, well... issue.
Homosexuals of both genders lives are at least 20 years shorter, they have, by far more health issues during their shortened lives, expend an enormous amount of public money addressing the health issues. As addressed in the British Journal of Psychiatry: "... Dr. Chakraborty believes the findings are “very worrying.” He said, “This study is the first time the mental health and well-being of gay, lesbian and bisexual people has been examined in a random sample of the population.
“Our study confirms earlier work carried out in the UK, USA and Holland which suggests that non-heterosexual people are at higher risk of mental disorder, suicidal ideation, substance misuse and self-harm than heterosexual people.”
So, why am I and the vast majority of other citizens required to not only pay for a self-induced "life-style" but approve of the persons so engaged to the point of being persecuted for disagreeing on moral grounds?
Describing it as a "lifestyle" is not really a promising start. Homosexuality is not really a choice, but is how some people are. By contrast, religion is a bona fide lifestyle choice, and thus any balance between the two should reflect that. Unfortunately religion is a long-established and so deeper part of public life; in attempting to redress the balance, there is going to be a lot of bad blood, some people pushing things too far, etc.
The legal situation is perhaps different in the US and that makes things harder (on general grounds, I think writing a constitution and then sticking to it for a couple of centuries is just a dodgy idea, the world changes faster than the law then does) -- but a law that grants religious groups the freedom to discriminate ought to be recognised as bad by nature.
The legal situation is perhaps different in the US and that makes things harder (on general grounds, I think writing a constitution and then sticking to it for a couple of centuries is just a dodgy idea, the world changes faster than the law then does) -- but a law that grants religious groups the freedom to discriminate ought to be recognised as bad by nature.
"...Homosexual activists have a clear agenda as well. It is an agenda that demands the universal acceptance of homosexual acts and relationships--morally, socially, legally, religiously, politically and financially. Indeed, itcalls for not only acceptance, but affirmation and celebration of this behavior as normal, natural, and even as desirable for those who desire it. There is nothing shadowy or secretive about this agenda--in fact, it has become nearly impossible to avoid encountering it..."
My private life is exactly that... no one else's business. This simply isn't true in many cases involving the LGBT "community". In fact the parades and other "in-your-face" acts are designed, in my opinion, to rub societies collective face in their "chosen" style.
You must know, jim, there's probably as much scientific evidence to indicate that homosexuality is a choice and not inborn... one example:
"...These problems led two psychiatrists to conclude,
“Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking. . . . In fact, the current trend may be to underrate the explanatory power of extant psychosocial models.”5 The matching footnote is from William Byne and Bruce Parsons, “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised,” Archives of General Psychiatry, 50 (March 1993): 228, 236.
Your disagreement on our long standing and cherished Constitution and Bill of Rights lends itself to an ephemeral existence... not knowing from one generation to the next which "rights" the citizen can depend on if it's constantly revised to meet the "waving in the wind" mores and changing with the times... but that's certainly your choice.
My private life is exactly that... no one else's business. This simply isn't true in many cases involving the LGBT "community". In fact the parades and other "in-your-face" acts are designed, in my opinion, to rub societies collective face in their "chosen" style.
You must know, jim, there's probably as much scientific evidence to indicate that homosexuality is a choice and not inborn... one example:
"...These problems led two psychiatrists to conclude,
“Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking. . . . In fact, the current trend may be to underrate the explanatory power of extant psychosocial models.”5 The matching footnote is from William Byne and Bruce Parsons, “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised,” Archives of General Psychiatry, 50 (March 1993): 228, 236.
Your disagreement on our long standing and cherished Constitution and Bill of Rights lends itself to an ephemeral existence... not knowing from one generation to the next which "rights" the citizen can depend on if it's constantly revised to meet the "waving in the wind" mores and changing with the times... but that's certainly your choice.
Latest Posts
This Will Put The Cat Amongst The...
News3 mins ago
Inflation Rockets By 13% In A Sigle...
News7 mins ago
News11 mins ago
Uk Diplomats Meet Rebel Leader In...
News12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.