LGBTQ

[BrownFlush]

Well, it is the BROWN cafe.

 

[El Correcto]

Oh, ok, missed that. Do you equate your sexuality with women's biology? Tell you what, when you get pregnant and they want to fire you I will stand up for your rights.

That wasn’t your arguments. Your argument was I have the same exact rights as everyone else. I don’t.
Now you’re changing the goal posts once I showed you gays do not have equality under civil rights laws and didn’t even have any coverage until 2020.

The argument for firing pregnant women isn’t about the situation of the woman, it’s about the reasoning behind the employer. If the employer is religious he still can’t discriminate against women who are not following the rules of his faith. That doesn’t apply to gays under federal law.

 

[MrFedEx]

Well, it is the BROWN cafe.

Thou doth protest too much, or however that goes. I think you might be conflicted after all.

 

[Babagounj]

The title of this thread needs an update; LGBTQIAP2S+

 

[El Correcto]

Free speech absolutist btw, lol.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

To

View attachment 433855
Free speech absolutist btw, lol.

Top tier trolling.

 

[MrFedEx]

View attachment 433855
Free speech absolutist btw, lol.

He’s pretty Trumpy. For a “genius”, he sure self-owns a lot.

 

[vantexan]

That wasn’t your arguments. Your argument was I have the same exact rights as everyone else. I don’t.
Now you’re changing the goal posts once I showed you gays do not have equality under civil rights laws and didn’t even have any coverage until 2020.

The argument for firing pregnant women isn’t about the situation of the woman, it’s about the reasoning behind the employer. If the employer is religious he still can’t discriminate against women who are not following the rules of his faith. That doesn’t apply to gays under federal law.

So the Supreme Court ruled in 2020 it is illegal to fire someone based on sexual orientation but a gay person can still be fired if the employer has religious objections? Where has that happened since the 2020 ruling? Has SCOTUS made that an official exception to the 2020 ruling?

I would have to ask why would a gay person subject themselves to a hostile work environment unless only to provoke their employer and co-workers?

Is this why you are so openly hostile to Christians?

You say it isn't about being a woman but the woman's behavior that they can't fire her for. But gays are adamant that they are born gay, it isn't a choice. But now you want to restrict an employer from firing you for your behavior that he has religious beliefs against.

Your best bet is to work for people who don't object to you being gay and stay away from people who do. Because you aren't going to get the uniformity you wish for in how these matters are handled because other people have rights also. They don't have the right to demand your employer fire you or else they won't patronize his business. But if they have religious beliefs they do have the right to hire based on wanting someone who reflects their values. If a gay person is deceptive to get a job should the employer be forced to keep him?

This goes back to what I said earlier. If gays keep their sex lives to themselves as everyone should, don't act in a lascivious way, aren't flamboyant, they are likely to get a lot less resistance. But many gays do want to be flamboyant, want you to know they are gay, are always talking about it. And want to make everyone accept that. Seems you want SCOTUS to guarantee you can act however you please without repercussions.

 

[vantexan]

Thou doth protest too much, or however that goes. I think you might be conflicted after all.

You always go back to that. Always trying to get a reaction rather than discuss anything in a rational manner.

 

[El Correcto]

So the Supreme Court ruled in 2020 it is illegal to fire someone based on sexual orientation but a gay person can still be fired if the employer has religious objections? Where has that happened since the 2020 ruling? Has SCOTUS made that an official exception to the 2020 ruling?

I would have to ask why would a gay person subject themselves to a hostile work environment unless only to provoke their employer and co-workers?

Is this why you are so openly hostile to Christians?

You say it isn't about being a woman but the woman's behavior that they can't fire her for. But gays are adamant that they are born gay, it isn't a choice. But now you want to restrict an employer from firing you for your behavior that he has religious beliefs against.

Your best bet is to work for people who don't object to you being gay and stay away from people who do. Because you aren't going to get the uniformity you wish for in how these matters are handled because other people have rights also. They don't have the right to demand your employer fire you or else they won't patronize his business. But if they have religious beliefs they do have the right to hire based on wanting someone who reflects their values. If a gay person is deceptive to get a job should the employer be forced to keep him?

This goes back to what I said earlier. If gays keep their sex lives to themselves as everyone should, don't act in a lascivious way, aren't flamboyant, they are likely to get a lot less resistance. But many gays do want to be flamboyant, want you to know they are gay, are always talking about it. And want to make everyone accept that. Seems you want SCOTUS to guarantee you can act however you please without repercussions.

They refused to answer that question and said it would be addressed at a later date.
Why? If you’re going to shoe horn in lgbt civil rights under the “sex” part of civil rights why are you not going to expand it wholeheartedly in the same way it is applied to women who are covered under it?

Makes no sense whatsoever and is a good example of the legal differences between lgbt people and everyone else under law.
You can no longer justify racist or sexist views against others with religious freedom arguments, you can still justify homophobic ones.

 

[El Correcto]

So the Supreme Court ruled in 2020 it is illegal to fire someone based on sexual orientation but a gay person can still be fired if the employer has religious objections? Where has that happened since the 2020 ruling? Has SCOTUS made that an official exception to the 2020 ruling?

I would have to ask why would a gay person subject themselves to a hostile work environment unless only to provoke their employer and co-workers?

Is this why you are so openly hostile to Christians?

You say it isn't about being a woman but the woman's behavior that they can't fire her for. But gays are adamant that they are born gay, it isn't a choice. But now you want to restrict an employer from firing you for your behavior that he has religious beliefs against.

Your best bet is to work for people who don't object to you being gay and stay away from people who do. Because you aren't going to get the uniformity you wish for in how these matters are handled because other people have rights also. They don't have the right to demand your employer fire you or else they won't patronize his business. But if they have religious beliefs they do have the right to hire based on wanting someone who reflects their values. If a gay person is deceptive to get a job should the employer be forced to keep him?

This goes back to what I said earlier. If gays keep their sex lives to themselves as everyone should, don't act in a lascivious way, aren't flamboyant, they are likely to get a lot less resistance. But many gays do want to be flamboyant, want you to know they are gay, are always talking about it. And want to make everyone accept that. Seems you want SCOTUS to guarantee you can act however you please without repercussions.

You are very silly and I don’t read half the rants you spew into once you get proven wrong.

I’m not looking for your advice we are discussing how basic rights are not applied across the board for lgbt people like you claim it was.
You can’t just say oh you’re right my bad, I didn’t realize I was talking out of my ass.

 

[vantexan]

They refused to answer that question and said it would be addressed at a later date.
Why? If you’re going to shoe horn in lgbt civil rights under the “sex” part of civil rights why are you not going to expand it wholeheartedly in the same way it is applied to women who are covered under it?

Makes no sense whatsoever and is a good example of the legal differences between lgbt people and everyone else under law.
You can no longer justify racist or sexist views against others with religious freedom arguments, you can still justify homophobic ones.

Is discrimination against homosexuals codified?

 

[vantexan]

You are very silly and I don’t read half the rants you spew into once you get proven wrong.

I’m not looking for your advice we are discussing how basic rights are not applied across the board for lgbt people like you claim it was.
You can’t just say oh you’re right my bad, I didn’t realize I was talking out of my ass.

I'm asking questions which apparently makes you angry because instead of giving answers you get personal. If you can't answer simple questions then why should anybody stand up for your point of view? You do know the Supreme Court asks questions of anyone arguing before them? They don't just give opinions.

 

[El Correcto]

Is discrimination against homosexuals codified?

I'm asking questions which apparently makes you angry because instead of giving answers you get personal. If you can't answer simple questions then why should anybody stand up for your point of view? You do know the Supreme Court asks questions of anyone arguing before them? They don't just give opinions.

Instead of saying yes you’re right the basic rights in this country don’t all apply to lgbt people you’re going on rants about how homos provoke Christians and asking stupid questions trying to change the subject like the one I just quoted.

This isn’t the subject we are discussing, we are discussing your original statement that basic rights apply to gays as well, then you got proved wrong and now you’re spiraling into defending the unequal treatment instead of just saying oh you were right I was wrong.

 

[bottomups]

No, the Apostle Paul was pointing out that under the old law which he had lived under most of his life the penalty for such things was death but under the new law we have freedom in Christ. Not the freedom to do whatever we like without repercussions however. If you live in sin, and refuse to turn away from it, it's a Christian's duty to warn you what will happen to you. That you will spend eternity in hell. And if you continue to live in sin Christians are to reject you, shun you until you do repent and stop doing that particular sin.

Christians should mind their own damn business.

 

[bottomups]

View attachment 433424
You people never wanted to address anti-sodomy laws of the west that were in effect up until my lifetime in some states.

Are we just gonna deflect and change the conversation now that it is proven Christians are pretty terrible. Hell my state still won’t remove the sodomy law from the books even though they can’t enforce it.

What does that say about them?

These are the same whack jobs who believed in witchcraft and executed people for practicing it.

 

[vantexan]

Christians should mind their own damn business.

If a Christian is running a business is it his damn business he's minding?

 

[vantexan]

These are the same whack jobs who believed in witchcraft and executed people for practicing it.

No, those were different people in a different time.

 

[BrownFlush]

Infidels and sin are the business of Christians.

 

[vantexan]

Instead of saying yes you’re right the basic rights in this country don’t all apply to lgbt people you’re going on rants about how homos provoke Christians and asking stupid questions trying to change the subject like the one I just quoted.

This isn’t the subject we are discussing, we are discussing your original statement that basic rights apply to gays as well, then you got proved wrong and now you’re spiraling into defending the unequal treatment instead of just saying oh you were right I was wrong.

Basic rights do apply to you. You want special exceptions.