Republicans plan to reintroduce Anti-LGBT ‘religious freedom’ bill supported by Trump

then open a private establishment, else, then muslims can discriminate against you.

- - - Updated - - -

I did, and still do!!!

 

it is time for republicans to grow up and realize their world isn't everyone else's

 

In America today, it appears it is their world. They WON.

 

There was of course no need for any such concern, since that doesn't violate freedom of association. You're welcome.

Not really, since the "right" to "gay marriage" does not proceed from anything in the BoR.

And how, precisely, does a homeowner compromise his right to freedom association by merely becoming a business owner?

Actually, were the term properly understood, it would also be understood that they don't need balancing.

He shouldn't.

For the same reason they think if you're an unrepentant adulterer you're not a Christian. You're welcome.

Sure, they can be inhabitants of a fool's paradise if that's their pleasure; but that hardly implies any obligation on the rest of us to refrain from pointing and laughing.

No, they're causing trouble by insisting others fulfill that desire against their will.

Make me.

No doubt the devil would love for Christians to buy into such drivel.

 

Those words apply to the democrats whom cant seem to stop wanting to dictate how everyone else lives and what they can and cannot do.

 

I woukd like Congress to pass a law making Christianity the official religion on the land. Anyone agree with me?

 

You found out this time around. Not only was Hillary rejected but the whole Democrat party taking only 2 seats in the Senate and 6 in the House.

- - - Updated - - -

THAT would be most Unconstitutional.

 

You are trying to argue the 1st Amendment protects discriminating against gays because SOME religions discriminate against gays.

- - - Updated - - -

Did you not see the word "should" in my post?

 

Notice religion and religious practice is a protected class by not only the First Amendment to the Constitution as a constitutional right but also Codified in the Civil Rights Act. Alas LGBT is simply not there. That puts them in the same category as folks with red hair or thick mustaches and bushy eyebrows.

 

How is it a special right? Its an equal right for everyone.

- - - Updated - - -

I support freedom of association for every consenting adult in America.

 

Believe all the stupid fairy tales your ignorance desires. When you use that made up garbage to discriminate against others is where there is a problem. Look, if you want to lie to your kids and waste your money on the pedophiles and scam artists of organized religion, go for it. When you want to use that BS to refuse service, that doesn't make you religious, it makes you discriminatory.

 

Although I am a supporter of LGBT rights, I think I'd like to see this particular issue go in favor of conservatives. I think handing authority to the government to control this sort of discrimination is unnecessary, and potentially dangerous in the long run. I think We the People can control this sort of discrimination better, and with less room for conservative backlash, locally, through boycotts, protests, just getting the word out on which businesses are enacting such policies and which aren't.

 

I think all religion is dumb. Thats my opinion. Other people have the same freedom to disagree with me. In the U.S. this is protected under your first amendment. Only a truly ignorant person doesnt understand why the freedom of speech and religion are the most cherished of freedoms. How about I make you show up for church? Would you object to that?

 

How is same-sex marriage a special right?

 

Yes!!!

In the Minneapolis airport, looking for Larry Craig

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!

 

No it isn't. Its exclusive to homosexuals. If it were equal it would be for all sexual preferences.

Then you don't support freedom for all. Who are you to choose an age of consent? Why should everyone bow to your moral and ethical standard?

Welcome to the world of LGBT hypocrisy.

- - - Updated - - -

Because its exclusive to homosexuals only and not open to all sexual preferences.

 

Hetero couples go weddin cake tasting so why can't gay couples? Oh that's right because they belong locked away in the closet right crank?

 

Was there something about the ruling I missed that says two heterosexual men are banned from engaging in a same-sex marriage?

 

Good, squash the left and their intolerance.

 

And, of course, people choosing associations in a manner that offends your sensibility justifies using violence against them. You really are no better than those believers in fairy tales. LIke many of them, you believe your morals so superior that they justify being shoved down the throats of others. They deify a sky daddy and get right and wrong from a book. You deify the government and get right and wrong from the dictates of politicians.

 

Would you laugh if I told you I started off as a Liberal? Not really a Progressive per say. Born in 1992, I was indoctrinated into the Bill Clinton era. And things were looking good then. I did believe in the society of acceptance, I believed in lending a hand to other people. And I believed that everyone had potential. Of course, as a naive child I didn't know that a lot of the good happened in spite of but not because of Bill. And the only reason I was ever indoctrinated was because my grandmother mentioned his name once.

That happenstance mention by someone who normally doesn't care about politics, was perhaps a wind of fate that propelled me into politics. Without it, I might not be posting on the forum. But generally speaking, I was a Blue Dog Democrat. I would so remain until mid-2008/2009 as a supporter of President Obama in his first run. But then he betrayed several key promises. The reenacting of the Patriot Act, the bailouts for Main Street and then the ACA disaster we've come to know. I then toyed around with Libertarianism for a little bit.

And you'll be surprised to find there's a lot in common with the Libertarian State and the Fascist State. Both philosophies believe in the utility of people, the great difference in the Libertarian State is that this can be achieved without political force. Yes, maybe in a utopia. Maybe as we humans evolve in our conscious, we can act consciously of each other instead of against each other.

One could say that the Libertarian Society(just as the Fascist-Technocratic society) would be the purest, most organic expression of human society. In fact, it can only come about from an organic natural progression. There can't be a single politician or force(by its nature) that can force Libertarianism. It must be a conscious(almost cosmic-like) decision to reach it. That's why we'll never reach it.

So despite Libertarianism's beauty, its inability to maintain its beauty is its ultimate flaw. Whereas, I say this: All governments are authoritarian. The governments that are not, either don't last(Libertarian) or are Anarchic in principle. The reason being, is because of the passions of mankind which lead itself to its own destruction, sadly and unfortunately.

Thus when Fascism was created and the synergy between the State and Individual was bore, a new philosophy to usher mankind in a new age was born. Of course, the Third Positionists had one weakness. They didn't view this from the standpoint of strengthening humanity, They viewed it as strengthening the State first and foremost, the benefits of the citizens would come as a natural concurrence with the State.

The problem of course, is when the State's benefits did not coincide with the Citizens. Then the concurrence didn't happen. It was Fascism's one and only flaw. That's why I looked at Technocracy, the other ideology that arose in the 20th century. In Technocracy, the State is managed by the professional class, at all its levels. And the belief is that the utility of the State through well-managed hands would perform the best for everyone.

The problem with Technocracy ironically lied in its strength: It was non-political, so it lacked the pull necessary to gain traction and support. So in Fascism-Technocracy, in a yin-yang principle these two seemingly polar extremes can merge to create the greatest political mechanism ever devised: A Political State whose sole purpose is the sustenance of the collective(yet individual) lifeforms on our planet. I truly believe this philosophy of mine can lead the human race forward.

 

At this point, its kind of a nonissue. In all but the most backwards (*)(*)(*)(*)holes of the country publicly persecuting homosexuals will likely lead customers to use their freedom to not buy from (*)(*)(*)(*)ty people.

At a certain point laws just help horrible people get away with being horrible.

 

I think you have a very different definition of fascism than me, because fascism generally strikes me as the antithesis of market libertarianism.

Reading through it again, you must have taken a weird detour through libertarianism and didnt absorb any of its philosophical roots.

 

Really? It's the left that's intolerant? Intolerant of the same nonsensical right wing religious nonsense that uses garbage fairy tales to persecute people. Tolerating stupid, antiquated views because of some dusty old book of idiocy called the bible is not tolerance.

 

Just because you are insecure about your sexuality, doesn't mean everyone around you is as well. Thank goodness people like you are dinosaurs who are dying off.