# Christian Conservative Republican homophobia on open display



## 7stg (Sep 29, 2014)

If there is any doubt as to the true nature of Christian Conservative Republicans, Their major conferences such as CPAC and the values voter summit provide a venue where their views are openly expressed. Before watching, be prepared to be filled with disgust as bigotry and discrimination are enthusiastically promoted as positive values. The values voter summit was held last weekend and they delivered as usual. 

This clip from the Panel: Marriage in America: The Road Ahead shows that it is praise worthy to discriminate against homosexuals.


Here is the full clip. scroll down the list about mid way to Marriage in America: The Road Ahead. The segment starts at 15:00
2014 Values Voter Summit


----------



## Explorer (Sep 30, 2014)

Let me summarize the viewpoint of the woman in the video:



> I'd really love that two people would want to get married! Love is wonderful!
> 
> (bursts into tears)
> 
> But then it turned out they was two fags! No Way! That's the wrong kind of love!


It's the same story as all those court case testimonies against miscegenation and interracial marriage. Should a venue or service provider be able to deny service to interracial couples?

And apparently the answer is, yes!


----------



## crg123 (Sep 30, 2014)

wow what a nutter. "If they asked for me to a make their cake I would feel so honored to be a part of such a special day" - except if they're gay - how disgusting. She doesn't even realize how hateful she is.

edit: 

The first comment on the video tells you how these people really feel. How could they not realized how evil it is to say that about someone:



> This woman obviously has an emotional connection with her occupation; she pours her heart into her work and she does it in contemplation of adding beauty to the beautiful arrangement of a marriage (man+woman); now, she has to bake cakes for a deformed, twisted and immoral version of a marriage that disgusts her and she has to swallow it...end result: forced out of business. Nice. &#65279;


----------



## Explorer (Sep 30, 2014)

BTW, I think this video is interesting, in that when a kid is talking about why there shouldn't be same sex marriage, they really couldn't articulate an answer.



I wonder what new prejudices the right will rush to embrace in the future? They're losing so many battles n their war to retain descrimination....


----------



## tacotiklah (Sep 30, 2014)

Explorer said:


> BTW, I think this video is interesting, in that when a kid is talking about why there shouldn't be same sex marriage, they really couldn't articulate an answer.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what new prejudices the right will rush to embrace in the future? They're losing so many battles n their war to retain descrimination....




Great video. I died laughing at the two minute mark because she's all "I can't even."


----------



## Explorer (Sep 30, 2014)

crg123 said:


> wow what a nutter. "If they asked for me to a make their cake I would feel so honored to be a part of such a special day" - except if they're gay - how disgusting. She doesn't even realize how hateful she is.
> 
> edit:
> 
> ...



Again, that same reasoning was a good reason to enforce anti-miscegenation laws.

To me, this woman, and the conference which embraces her, are part of the same bigoted American subculture which lead to all the racist comments on that biracial couple on that Cheerios commercial.


----------



## ZeroTolerance94 (Sep 30, 2014)

Every time I see a thread like this, I have to post this...

I myself, as a registered Republican in the state of the Florida, a christian conservative;

We are not _all_ racist, homophobic bigots. 
But _all_ racist, homophobic bigots are Republican. 

Same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization, and some other topics of controversy in the US of A, should not be categorized into a Democrat/Republican battle. I know Democrats who are against same-sex marriage, and I also know Republicans who are all for same-sex marriage. 

Please don't slur the political party I belong to (nobody has, but in case somebody plans on it) because of a few folk who have controversial views that many folk do not agree with. Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, as fvcked up as it may seem sometimes. 
I chose the political party I belong to for my *political* views. Not whether I want pot to be legal, or two men to get married, or any other stupid controversial arguments like that.


----------



## 7stg (Sep 30, 2014)

Here is the playlist for CPAC 2014 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmqnjF1D2hhbFKIqBIVzhCK54eef2DZol I got about half way.

I am not a democrat or a republican. As I see it, it's a false dilemma, it's like being asked what would you like to get hit in the face with, a lead pipe or a baseball bat, I don't want either. 

Here is some fun with Democrats.


----------



## Explorer (Oct 1, 2014)

ZeroTolerance94 said:


> Same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization, and some other topics of controversy in the US of A, should not be categorized into a Democrat/Republican battle.



It's a lovely sentiment.

I'm not sure there are a lot of legislative initiatives on the Democratic side to support it. 

I do think the Democrats are in favor of sexual orientation being protected from employment discrimination. How do the Republicans score on that?

I understand that there are people who feel strongly enough about some issues that they can overlook how their party as a whole treats those deemed undesirable. Does that make those people bad who let things like that happen?

I guess I wonder... is it your view that Democratic initiatives against gays just aren't publicized, and that they are about even with Republicans?

Or are you thinking that there are enough antigay Democrats to equal the antigay Republicans?


----------



## pwsusi (Oct 1, 2014)

> I do think the Democrats are in favor of sexual orientation being protected from employment discrimination. How do the Republicans score on that?


You tell us, how do the republican's score on that? Name one piece of legislation that the republican party has tried to pass that would exclude gays from protection from employment discrimination. There isn't one. You are taking views of certain people and painting with a broad brush to apply to all republicans. Should we start listing certain anti-semetic quotes from certain democrats and make an assertion that the democratic party hates Jews?


Most conservatives that I know aren't anti-gay, they just believe sexuality isn't something that the federal government needs to be involved with. Some of the most religious people I know are democrats. While they may not be as extreme as some of the people in the videos they happen to be members of the church that considers homosexuality a sin. So I guess the logical conclusion is that democrats are anti-gay right (guilt by association)?


I'm not a republican, but these democrat vs. republican p*ssing matches have to stop; it's childish. The political elite are only interested in dividing and conquering in pursuit of power. Don't fall into their trap.


----------



## ferret (Oct 1, 2014)

pwsusi said:


> You tell us, how do the republican's score on that? Name one piece of legislation that the republican party has tried to pass that would exclude gays from protection from employment discrimination. There isn't one.



It's more that such protections don't really exist to begin with, and the Republicans aren't trying to create them. I.e. leaving the protections non-existent or opposing bills that would create protections is the same as passing a bill that deliberately excludes them.



pwsusi said:


> Most conservatives that I know aren't anti-gay, they just believe sexuality isn't something that the federal government needs to be involved with.



Then, they should be calling for DOMA and such to be repelled and sexuality removed from Federal law. Which, from my humble position, isn't happening at all from the conservatives. Even from the conservative glorified position of "states rights" they aren't attacking these federal laws.


----------



## asher (Oct 1, 2014)

pwusi: anectodal evidence is anectodal. We all know not every Republican is a racist homophobic bigot. But as you say, all racist homophobic bigots are Republican. And enough of them to keep sending like ones into local, state, and federal government. When that's what party line is and it's what most voters support, it's very difficult to say that's not what the party is about.

Prop 8 in CA - Exit polls indicate 82% of Republicans voted Yes, 64% of Democrats and 54% of Independents voted No. Plus, go do some homework about who was pushing it:
Local Exit Polls - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

Bush II denounces gay marriage in SOTU, proposes possible Constitutional ban:
Bush Denounces Gay Marriage in State of the Union | Democracy Now!

Republicans in Arizona author and pass bill to legalize discrimination against LGBT:
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes SB 1062, controversial anti-gay bill - CNN.com

And that's just off the top of my head. I know I could find a lot more. Have you looked into how many gay marriage bans have been struck down by state courts in the last few years? And this list gets much, much bigger if you also look at women's (reproductive) rights, marijuana, immigration, voter ID, etc... all (or almost all, depending on whether you think voter ID is as racist as its effects have been shown to be) social but highly political issues that Republicans pass legislation against.


Social issues are politics. People make campaigns out of them _all the time_. Saying that politics are only economics and foreign policy is burying your head in the sand. If only a small handful of people held these views, we wouldn't be seeing such a crazy rightward shift in the GOP.


----------



## vilk (Oct 1, 2014)

You can tell me that it's wrong to do, but I generally receive someone telling me they are republican/conservative as full-on admission that they are on some level racist/homophobic/anti-science/anti-poor(aka racist)/. I think it's almost funny that some people don't. It's really a pretty logical conclusion to jump to. I'm not even sure if it's ever wrong. 

However, we do have to remember that these people are programmed to be this way. You almost can't blame them considering the people around them have been reinforcing these ideas since they were born. 

So go on ahead, tell me how you're a moderate conservative/republican. I'll tell how and why that makes you a bigot. But I won't necessarily hold it against you.


----------



## Explorer (Oct 1, 2014)

@vilk - I don't necessarily think that all Republicans are racist and homophobic.

However, I do think that either they are, or they care more about economics and foreign policy than about freedom and the Constitution. 

"I care about job creation... and am willing to sacrifice those who other Republicans view as undesirable, and not give *those* people the same job protextions as others are entitled to." 

"I believe more strongly in this aspect of dealing with foreign countries... and so I'll vote in those who attempt to keep actual US citizens from voting, because fvck the Constitution and civil rights. Breaking a few eggs, you know?"


----------



## pwsusi (Oct 1, 2014)

> Then, they should be calling for DOMA and such to be repelled and sexuality removed from Federal law. Which, from my humble position, isn't happening at all from the conservatives. Even from the conservative glorified position of "states rights" they aren't attacking these federal laws.


I'll say it again, there should not be federal legislation surrounding what consensual adults do in the bedroom, DOMA or otherwise. You're missing the point though. The issue is that our legislatures are smart enough to fix the problem but won't. Why, because the left is pandering to their base, and the right to theirs. Why, money and power. If they wanted to solve the issue they would. Here's a novel idea, why not decouple marriage from the benefits/protections that married people are entitled to? You know, laws that didn't give special treatment to special groups of people (including marriage, race, gender, etc). Do that and and the "marriage" label becomes moot. Consider the other side's argument though. Marriage is one of the 7 sacraments of the church and homosexuality is a sin. Whether you and I agree with that or not is irrelevant. Just like we wouldn't want the church making laws based on religion I would argue we don't want laws telling the church that they must redefine marriage (separation of church and state). Decouple the two things, compromise and make progress. But our legislators won't. They would rather divide us and conquer, that is a higher priority to them than doing the right thing for the people of the nation.



> pwusi: anectodal evidence is anectodal. We all know not every Republican is a racist homophobic bigot. But as you say, all racist homophobic bigots are Republican...


uhhhh, i never said that. But do seriously believe that is true?
_&#8220;White folks was in the caves while we [blacks] was building empires &#8230; We built pyramids before Donald Trump ever knew what architecture was &#8230; we taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it."

"Do some cracker come and tell you, &#8216;Well my mother and father blood go back to the Mayflower,&#8217; you better hold your pocket. That ain&#8217;t nothing to be proud of, that means their forefathers was crooks."
_ - Al Sharpton, Democrat, Racist, Homophobe



> You can tell me that it's wrong to do, but I generally receive someone telling me they are republican/conservative as full-on admission that they are on some level racist/homophobic/anti-science/anti-poor(aka racist)/. I think it's almost funny that some people don't. It's really a pretty logical conclusion to jump to. I'm not even sure if it's ever wrong.
> 
> However, we do have to remember that these people are programmed to be this way. You almost can't blame them considering the people around them have been reinforcing these ideas since they were born.
> 
> So go on ahead, tell me how you're a moderate conservative/republican. I'll tell how and why that makes you a bigot. But I won't necessarily hold it against you.


I don't know if this was directed at me or not, but if so I will reiterate that I'm not a republican. But I will admit I will be voting for the openly gay republican running for congress up here in my state (Tisei). I'm not sure if this makes me and/or him a racist/homophobic/anti-science/anti-poor person somehow, but if so would love to hear how and why i'm a bigot.


----------



## flint757 (Oct 1, 2014)

In politics the parties are like a hive. It doesn't really matter if many are sane if the bulk of the republican party whom actually take action isn't. No one is any of those slurs for simply being a republican, but you do implicitly allow it to continue by allotting power to a group who has no qualms with being all of the above slurs.

On an idealistic level I get what you're saying about how social and financial/international issues should be decoupled (maybe making the republican party a better fit for you), but in the real world they do decide on the everyday laws and social issues, they vote in judges who make major changes in federal law, etc.. So in reality social issues matter from a voter standpoint because someone a long time ago decided to write laws about them. There is no going back and even if they were that isn't all that relevant to the here and now.

It's important to not be so steadfast in your ideals that you let reality pass you right by.


----------



## pwsusi (Oct 1, 2014)

> In politics the parties are like a hive. It doesn't really matter if many are sane if the bulk of the republican party whom actually take action isn't. No one is any of those slurs for simply being a republican, but you do implicitly allow it to continue by allotting power to a group who has no qualms with being all of the above slurs.


I don't disagree with you, but will only add that i feel the same way about the democrats


> On an idealistic level I get what you're saying about how social and financial/international issues should be decoupled (maybe making the republican party a better fit for you), but in the real world they do decide on the everyday laws and social issues, they vote in judges who make major changes in federal law, etc.. So in reality social issues matter from a voter standpoint because someone a long time ago decided to write laws about them. There is no going back and even if they were that isn't all that relevant to the here and now.
> 
> It's important to not be so steadfast in your ideals that you let reality pass you right by.


I hear you man. I agree social issues do matter, but not the way the parties go about solving them. I guess in many ways it's just the lesser of two evils, which is why I wish we had run off elections, but that is a whole different topic. So for me it it's basically whoever has the better chance of keeping us safe and making sure we had laws in place to protect the rights of citizens as defined by our forefathers. Not someone who will bypass laws if they don't agree with them, but will seek to change them the proper way. Someone who who offers solutions to problems (even if i don't agree with them) with a roadmap to get from point a to point b and not just feel good legislation, kick the can down the road mentality or pandering to a special interest groups. Basically someone who for the most part will just leave me alone, take responsibility and not talk to us like we are in 2nd grade . With the current landscape of political leaders there aren't many that fit that description, so as you said you go with whatever is closest to your beliefs in the areas that are most important to you at a given point in time (i.e. social, vs. financial vs international issues).


----------



## asher (Oct 1, 2014)

pwsusi, my bad! I conflated your post with ZeroTolerance94's in my head.

That being said, you asked for examples of legislation by Republicans to discriminate against LGBT, and I provided several...

Policy is not a vacuum. Obviously, in an ideal world we don't need the Civil Rights act, or the Voting Rights legislation that the SCOTUS recently disembowled, we wouldn't need to challenge same-sex marriage bans into the SCOTUS, etc... but until that large racist bloc goes away, people need to push back.


----------



## Grindspine (Oct 2, 2014)

pwsusi said:


> You know, laws that didn't give special treatment to special groups of people (including marriage, race, gender, etc). Do that and and the "marriage" label becomes moot. Consider the other side's argument though. Marriage is one of the 7 sacraments of the church and homosexuality is a sin. Whether you and I agree with that or not is irrelevant. Just like we wouldn't want the church making laws based on religion I would argue we don't want laws telling the church that they must redefine marriage (separation of church and state). Decouple the two things, compromise and make progress. But our legislators won't. They would rather divide us and conquer, that is a higher priority to them than doing the right thing for the people of the nation.


 
Marriage may be a sacrament of the church, but it is also present in other religions, also it is (more relevant to this discussion) a secular, legal institution.

All marriage in this country is governed by law. Whether or not the ceremony happens within a particular religious center is beside the point, because not all marriages happen within one given religion.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Oct 2, 2014)

Marriage as discussed is a contract. Even though we have a whole set of emotional values, life projects and expectations, it legally stands as a contract. Religious marriage is a completely separate institution, and as such has no place whatsoever in the discussion. 

Gay couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual ones constitutionally. This includes the protection afforded to either spouse on a marriage contract, eventual tax benefits, you name it. A secular state has long shown to be the best grounds for equality and justice before religious plurality, so the constant attempts to introduce religious concepts in it by these so-called "conservative Christians" is mind boggling to me.


----------



## crg123 (Oct 2, 2014)

Another thing that's confused me (correct me if I'm wrong). Isn't one of the core values of the republican party is to decrease government regulation on daily life? So, aren't things like trying to restrict civil liberties like gay marriage, women's rights to abortions, and birth control kind of Anti-that? It's weird to me that religion or value has any part of the discussion since we were clearly founded on a separation of church and state. So when we're referred to a "a nation founded on christian values" I'm confused. I understand that the majority of people in the united states are christian but who care's really? The thing that great about this county is its diversity and the ability to celebrate any sort of beliefs you have. *shrug* I'm not sure how you can even start to defend that mentality.

I don't see how you can change the narrative so much:

How can you take a story about a bigoted women refusing to serve someone based off of their natural sexual preference and change it to a " poor christian women" forced to create wedding cake for "evil" homosexual agenda. It's madness and can't believe they'd want to be on that side of history of civil rights. what if you took the word "homosexual" and replaced it with black, or interracial couple? 50-60 years ago you'd prolly see people doing the same thing when "forced" to serve people they "didn't believe" they should serve.

I'm not as well informed about politics as I should be at 25 but it's things like that which confuse the hell out of me.


----------



## asher (Oct 2, 2014)

crg123 said:


> Another thing that's confused me (correct me if I'm wrong). Isn't one of the core values of the republican party is to decrease government regulation on daily life?



Only as it pertains to their individual lives. Otherwise, the government is a tool to keep other people from doing things not approved of.


----------



## vilk (Oct 2, 2014)

pwsusi said:


> I don't know if this was directed at me or not, but if so I will reiterate that I'm not a republican. But I will admit I will be voting for the openly gay republican running for congress up here in my state (Tisei). I'm not sure if this makes me and/or him a racist/homophobic/anti-science/anti-poor person somehow, but if so would love to hear how and why i'm a bigot.


It wasn't directed at you. I was thinking more about my roommate who works for a republican campaign. He's a really nice guy, and he's not overtly bigoty or hickish or christian or anything like that... but he's helping a guy try to pass laws that make it more difficult for Hispanics population to vote, ban gay marriage, minimize available welfare in neighborhoods that are already so incredibly poor, redraw lines so that areas that are non-white's votes get overpowered, give more leniency to companies caught polluting, etc, etc,... point being that it doesn't matter what you believe personally if you're contributing to a racist/homophobic/anti-science regime. I think Flint summed up what I was really trying to get at with better words.

Having said that, I do agree like you suggested, that voting republican/conservative does not necessarily make you republican/conservative. But it's still a bad thing to do. And I don't care how gay black or otherwise that dude on the ticket is--if he's working for the GOP he's working against equality.


----------



## pwsusi (Oct 2, 2014)

> It wasn't directed at you. I was thinking more about my roommate who works for a republican campaign. He's a really nice guy, and he's not overtly bigoty or hickish or christian or anything like that... but he's helping a guy try to pass laws that make it more difficult for Hispanics population to vote, ban gay marriage, minimize available welfare in neighborhoods that are already so incredibly poor, redraw lines so that areas that are non-white's votes get overpowered, give more leniency to companies caught polluting, etc, etc,... point being that it doesn't matter what you believe personally if you're contributing to a racist/homophobic/anti-science regime. I think Flint summed up what I was really trying to get at with better words.
> 
> Having said that, I do agree like you suggested, that voting republican/conservative does not necessarily make you republican/conservative. But it's still a bad thing to do. And I don't care how gay black or otherwise that dude on the ticket is--if he's working for the GOP he's working against equality.


I don't disagree with what your saying about republicans and equality when it comes to gay marriage, but I also question democrats when it comes to legislation around religious freedoms. Both are forms of discrimination in my view. 

As for your roommate, if they are openly doing that kind of thing it is just wrong. Although I must admit dems are guilty of it also when it comes to voter id. I think its reasonable to assume we can find a way to implement something like this in a way that doesnt surpress anyone's vote. I think electring the president is something important enough to warrent measure that ensure the results are accurate and everyone who wanted to vote had the access to it and that all votes are legit.Both sides seem to want to rig things in their favor. It's not worth arguing who is more or less guilty of it. They need to find a real solution and not one that is designed to only work in their favor. I fail to see either side doing that.

As far as your points on pollution and poverty...i disagree. Sure republicans may be guilty of not doing enough...but dems are not solving the problems and killin the middle class in the process with all the spending. Spending money sounds good and all and gets you votes, but if it's not addressing the heart of the problems then it's a waste. We should spend as much as necessary but only after we have a plan to fix things and not use it as a tool to buy people's votes. Simple things ...like helping to train people for jobs that are in high demand instead of writing checks indefinitely and complaining about lack of work for skills no longer needed in today's economy.


----------



## flint757 (Oct 2, 2014)

What religious freedom has any representative of any party removed? Please avoid mentioning all the ones where religious people blatantly misinterpret a ruling so that it sound much more devious than it actually is.


----------



## pwsusi (Oct 2, 2014)

Hobby lobby is one example. As ridiculous as I think the church's position is on use of contraception, the federal government should not be mandating that business owners provide health insurance paying for contraception that in their faith is a sin. 
There is a big difference between this and the gay marriage issue imo. unlike gay marriage failing to provide contraception does not infringe on one's rights or discriminate against a certain group of people. People still have the means to go buy contraception like they always have in the past and frankly IMO it is their responsibility to take care of their own contraceptive needs. If they don't like it they can go work somewhere else. If you flip it around...if you were a business owner you wouldn't want the government forcing you to buy some religious crap that you found objectionable....at least I wouldn't. 

If you don't agree that a liberal judge's vote against hobby lobby is infringing on religious freedoms then I guess we can agree to disagree


----------



## asher (Oct 2, 2014)

It's not because for women contraceptive care is more than just "I can have sex without a condom or IUD" but has other positive health care management effects for their body. Not to mention _the decision lets them ignore the science on several of the contraceptives in question, which AREN'T abortifactents._

Not to mention that employers are NOT the same as their business. There are lots of other things the Federal government gets to mandate about your business that one could conceivably claim some religious exemption to but are discriminatory or exploitative all the same (see the FLDS thread below for an example).


----------



## ZeroTolerance94 (Oct 2, 2014)

crg123 said:


> Another thing that's confused me (correct me if I'm wrong). Isn't one of the core values of the republican party is to decrease government regulation on daily life?



That is _mostly_ the reason I'm registered as a Republican. I believe in a smaller central federal government, and stronger state governments. 

Quite honestly... lately... Fvck the US Government, and fvck every politician involved. They're all crooked liars and thieves. Every. Single. One of them.


----------



## ferret (Oct 2, 2014)

ZeroTolerance94 said:


> That is _mostly_ the reason I'm registered as a Republican. I believe in a smaller central federal government, and stronger state governments.



I've always found this topic interesting, because someone can always go a step further... "I believe in a smaller state government, and a stronger county government" ... followed by "I believe in a smaller county government, and a stronger city government", etc.

Just a thought and not a criticism. Carry on.


----------



## vilk (Oct 2, 2014)

crg123 said:


> Another thing that's confused me (correct me if I'm wrong). Isn't one of the core values of the republican party is to decrease government regulation on daily life?


 You're thinking of libertarianism. Republicanism is more about decreasing government responsibility towards the communities that it serves.


----------



## ZeroTolerance94 (Oct 2, 2014)

ferret said:


> I've always found this topic interesting, because someone can always go a step further... "I believe in a smaller state government, and a stronger county government" ... followed by "I believe in a smaller county government, and a stronger city government", etc.
> 
> Just a thought and not a criticism. Carry on.



Definitely possible to keep taking it a step further and further. And I find it logical.

One thing I've thought of... Is this:
The United States is a vast country, with _vast_ amounts of people. It's a melting pot of cultures, and racial diversity. And because of this, it's hard to make laws for _everybody_ that make sense for _everybody_. Oddly enough, even though it's such a diverse country, people stick to that of their own kind for the most part. I can drive to parts of Florida where not a _*SINGLE PERSON *_will speak English... Where it is quite literally Northern Cuba. 
So, some laws that make sense in Hialeah, FL... don't make sense in Yeehaw Junction, FL. 

I think ultimately, boiling down the strongest government to the county level would be ideal. That government could govern it's communities the way the people in that county wish to be governed. 

This is all hypothetical, we all know that could never happen. Just something I've thought of before.


----------



## pwsusi (Oct 2, 2014)

> It's not because for women contraceptive care is more than just "I can have sex without a condom or IUD" but has other positive health care management effects for their body. Not to mention the decision lets them ignore the science on several of the contraceptives in question, which AREN'T abortifactents.



It doesn't matter if there are other beneficial effects or not. According to the Rick Santorum's of the world you are interfering with the creation of life as God is intending through sexual intercourse. Again, I don't agree with this, but people like him consider it a sin to even use a condom. So it's not just about terminating a life, it's also about preventing one. Furthermore, they are not disqualifying people employment for using contraception or anything like that ...they are simply staying out of it and telling people they need to take care of this on their own because it's something they cannot condone. 


> Not to mention that employers are NOT the same as their business. There are lots of other things the Federal government gets to mandate about your business that one could conceivably claim some religious exemption to but are discriminatory or exploitative all the same (see the FLDS thread below for an example).


Sure, the government can mandate lots of things from businesses. I would argue such things that should apply include things that directly affect the civil rights of others. This isn't a civil rights issue though and these are products that can be freely acquired by other means. If the govt were to mandate this type of thing it would be discriminating against people of a certain religion because it would automatically disqualify them from owning a business and would not have the same opportunities as those who fine contraception acceptable. Sure the federal government should make sure that the company is creating a safe work environment that doesn't discriminate, but this is completely different regardless of what science says about the other health benefits...it's irrelevant.


----------



## Explorer (Oct 2, 2014)

I think it was ruled quite a few decades ago that someone couldn't opt out of taxes which get used for the military based on one's religious beliefs. 

It was already mentioned, but I'm not sure how a for-profit corporation which has no clear religious mission is considered to be a person with religious rights. 

However, the Satanic Church has already started its efforts to have women avoid receiving mandatory pro-life counseling based on religious freedom grounds, so I wonder if the owner of a for-profit corporation could state that supporting untruthfulness is against the corporation's beliefs... so no watchers of Fox News will be hired. It's not about a political belief, because Fox is "fair and balanced," but about Fox not beinf "fair and balanced," so the religious belief is that such people would be dishonest and therefore "shunned" under the corporation's faith. 

I'm waiting to see the amount of trolling which happens under this law.

*Incidentally, the owner of Hobby Lobby didn't originally start with the religious arguments. He actually stated in numerous interviews that he just didn't want to pay because he wanted to stick it to Obama. That someone had to grab onto an opportunistic liar on the right to make a case about faith being under attack is sad, but par for the course. *


----------



## Grindspine (Oct 2, 2014)

pwsusi said:


> It doesn't matter if there are other beneficial effects or not. According to the Rick Santorum's of the world you are interfering with the creation of life as God is intending through sexual intercourse. Again, I don't agree with this, but people like him consider it a sin to even use a condom. So it's not just about terminating a life, it's also about preventing one. Furthermore, they are not disqualifying people employment for using contraception or anything like that ...they are simply staying out of it and telling people they need to take care of this on their own because it's something they cannot condone.


 
Shouldn't a woman's health care (or anyone's health care) be an issue between the individual, their health care provider, and NO ONE ELSE? As someone who has worked in the medical field for eight years, I still wonder how the employers got involved in this. It is up to the patient and the physician to decide on any and all medical care.

If an employer offers health benefits to employees, that should not give the employer rights to invade health privacy laws. HIPAA anyone? Health Information Privacy

The corporate involvement is ludicrous.


----------



## Explorer (Oct 3, 2014)

And now it has been established that someone who has legal power of attorney for a person (including a corporation) can declare that such a person is of a particular religious faith. 

Does that mean, if someone else buys or acquires Hobby Lobby, that the corporation might change its religious views, or become an atheist? 

----

Sorry. I just remembered that this topic is actually about some folks who are meeting to strategize about bringing religious freedom to discriminate against others to a wider audience, and how to protect such disgusting and unchristian behavior from the law. 

These people show that quite a few Christians just don't give an actual sh1t about the teachings of Jesus Christ, for whom they took the name but not the examples for their religion of hate.


----------



## pwsusi (Oct 3, 2014)

> Sorry. I just remembered that this topic is actually about some folks who are meeting to strategize about bringing religious freedom to discriminate against others to a wider audience, and how to protect such disgusting and unchristian behavior from the law.
> 
> These people show that quite a few Christians just don't give an actual sh1t about the teachings of Jesus Christ, for whom they took the name but not the examples for their religion of hate.



You're probably right about them, and yes they are despicable. But did you ever notice that the media and society in general seems to be selective when highlighting the extremists. Usually it is racist or homophobic Christians and/or conservatives. There are plenty of racists and despicable people of all colors, religions with different political affiliations. Maybe it's because people are afraid to call out those from certain groups because they are afraid if it being turned around on them and they themselves being labeled as racists/homophobes. Or perhaps it's because they have ulterior motives so they can put a negative label on an entire group for political gain or to somehow push a particular agenda. Or maybe a little of both. 

Anyway, i'm not disagreeing about the religious folks in the video above, but just find it interesting that we never tend to see or talk about extremists on the other side; in fact the groups that they are associated with are often praised. 

Also, as bad as some people are, we cannot have thought police. You can pass legislature to make it illegal to discriminate in the workplace etc, but you cannot control people's thoughts through legislation. Sadly there will always be people who hate and laws won't fix that; education is the only hope. The problem is both sides of the aisle (I would argue dems more than republicans) try to divide us further through class warfare and legislation that gives preferential treatment to certain groups. This is not the way to unite and promote tolerance. It breeds anger, hatred, resentment and sometimes violence.


----------



## vilk (Oct 3, 2014)

Dudes, am I confused or are all you guys saying that girls (who don't work at hobby lobby) are able to get contraceptive pills on their insurance? Seriously? Why the .... doesn't my insurance pay for my rubbers then?


----------



## asher (Oct 3, 2014)

vilk said:


> Dudes, am I confused or are all you guys saying that girls (who don't work at hobby lobby) are able to get contraceptive pills on their insurance? Seriously? Why the .... doesn't my insurance pay for my rubbers then?



Sigh.

*Because many contraceptive pills have very positive effects for managing a woman's health aside from being anti-pregnancy.* And they're not one-size-fits-all (or almost all, hyuk hyuk) because it involves fvcking with your hormones, which reacts differently person to person, instead of popping something on/in.


----------



## ferret (Oct 3, 2014)

Because your rubbers don't have any bearing on the rest of your health. Contraceptive pills are often prescribed and used by women for reasons other than, well, contraception.


----------



## vilk (Oct 3, 2014)

If that's truly the case then how can there even be insurance policies that wouldn't cover that under just plain ol' medical?


----------



## asher (Oct 3, 2014)

Because slutty sluts doing slut things.

(read: people are assholes. the whole case is about using privately held religious beliefs to ignore science and not pay benefits for those claims or medications specifically)


----------



## ferret (Oct 3, 2014)

Lots of insurance policies don't cover lots of things. Or rather, they didn't before the ACA was passed. Hobby Lobby was in essence a company using "religious freedom" to get out of the requirements by ACA that insurance include contraceptive products for women. Viagra for men they're ok with, but anything that acts as a contraceptive for women, regardless of the reason the woman is using that medication.........


----------



## vilk (Oct 3, 2014)

And our ....in social justice system held that up? What a bunch of pricks.


----------



## asher (Oct 3, 2014)

vilk said:


> And our ....in social justice system held that up? What a bunch of pricks.



Guess how the SCOTUS split on Hobby Lobby?


----------



## vilk (Oct 3, 2014)

I don't even want to.

Edit: I looked it up. It was 5-4. That's not so bad I guess, almost an even split. The way you said it was so ominous like they unanimously supported Hobby Lobby lol


----------



## Grindspine (Oct 3, 2014)

Us & Them mentalities are generally bad and tend to dehumanize the "other".

Unfortunately, those who ascribe to no faith find themselves being the "other" in conservative media. This puts atheists and agnostics in a defensive position where it is easy to see conservatives as the "other". It is difficult for either side to have meaningful conversation or debate when defensive positions are so strongly reinforced by attacks.

That all being said, I wish that others in the world would just pick up more books, take an ethics class, take a trip to another country/culture, and try to be more sympathetic toward other worldviews in general.

It is entirely too unfortunate when groups try to dictate laws on the private/personal behaviors of others; that is something against which we all need to defend.


----------



## asher (Oct 3, 2014)

vilk said:


> I don't even want to.
> 
> Edit: I looked it up. It was 5-4. That's not so bad I guess, almost an even split. The way you said it was so ominous like they unanimously supported Hobby Lobby lol



5/4 party line split, but the majority's legal reasoning is complete garbage.

ed: added hyperlink reference.

PPS: It also bears repeating that Hobby Lobby's pre-ACA health plans already supported the contraceptives in question, making any claims that it's a religious argument, not political, complete bullshit.


----------



## Explorer (Oct 3, 2014)

pwsusi said:


> You're probably right about them, and yes they are despicable. But did you ever notice that the media and society in general seems to be selective when highlighting the extremists. Usually it is racist or homophobic Christians and/or conservatives.



Were you aware that the 2012 National Republican Party platform specifically called for a Constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage? 

I don't know if you're claiming that the National Republican Party is made up of extremists... in which case, why are you arguing with the portrayal of Republicans based on the actions of the National Republican Party, as well as those who are members and contributors?

That 2012 platform, in the wake of the whole whacky GOP "legitimate rape" stuff, also included a call to recognize a fetus as a human being, creating a conflict which they didn't resolve (read as, didn't address specifically because it would make their thinking obvious) regarding cases where the life of the mother was in danger, or in cases of rape. 

It's that kind of thing which makes people view the National Republican Party, and its members and contributors, as the national leaders on that kind of stuff. 

You know, because they've done that kind of stuff. 

I recognize that now, some strategists have realized that they're losing votes from younger voters, and so they have to recruit more moderates.

But that just means all that sh1t apparently wasn't a principled stance for some, but treating other human beings in a sh1tty way because it got them more votes. 

In other words, profit, no matter who gets hurt. 

Again, that doesn't make then look very good. 

It's pretty ridiculous to say that people who generally fight for equal rights are trying to maintain the status quo in order to hold onto votes. In that case, if the actual generators of divisiveness just allowed equal rights (including voting rights, religious rights, rights to decide their own reproduction, and marriage rights), then the Republicans would have stripped away that strength from the Democrats. 

That's a completely inverted and silly point of view. It's like making the asinine assertion that abolitionists and slaves wanted to maintain slavery in order to hold onto power. 

Seriously?


----------



## pwsusi (Oct 3, 2014)

> Were you aware that the 2012 National Republican Party platform specifically called for a Constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage?
> 
> I don't know if you're claiming that the National Republican Party is made up of extremists...


No. what i'm saying is both sides have extremists and both have moderates; it has been like that since our country was founded. it's not fair to label people because of the views of the extremists in their party. I know you're going to say that even if one says they're not a racist that they are enabling racism because of party affiliation....and perhaps even making them a racist (guilt by association). But that is a simplistic view of the world imo. I know we (unfortunately) have a 2 party system and that automatically aligns people with some moderates of their own kind but unfortunately also the extremists. The reality is we have many problems and issues to debate; not just the one at hand. There will always be people that blindly tow the party line, but most thinking people are not like that (left and right alike). The problem is most of our politicians (on both sides) ARE like that...they will tow the party line and i think this is mostly because they have to do this for their own self-preservation (pander to your base and have the backs of your party members). It sucks, but it's reality. And just because the politican's do this doesn't mean we should be as shallow (even though they want us to be because it helps them stay in power).

In the real world most reasonable people have to pick their poison, and if the party you share views with the most is off the mark on something the best you can do is hold your nose and vote, and try to influence change within the party. The republican party is split in several pieces right now partly for this reason. As much as I'm sure you hate all sides of the republican debate, I view this turmoil as a good thing. It means there is change coming...it may be for the worst, but may be for the better. It's a chance worth taking because what was there before was nothing to write home about. 




> why are you arguing with the portrayal of Republicans based on the actions of the National Republican Party, as well as those who are members and contributors?


The homophobes in your video are not being misrepresented; they are biggots. It's just that liberals love to point out bigotry coming from Christians and use it to talk about how tolerant and interested in equality they are. Yet mysteriously they completely ignore bigotry coming from their own side. Interesting that you did the same thing with my previous post. Why aren't we hearing dems denounce the black panther party for showing up to polls with clubs intimidating people? Why do they call for professional sports team owners to resign for racist comments (rightfully so) yet defend democrats who have made numerous racists comments? Why aren't we calling for people like Sharpton to step down as TV show host with all the anti-semitic crap he has spewed over the years? Why are dems pushing so called anti-hate bills that the Attorney General himself admits discriminates against certain people and justifies it? We go on and on and on about racist republican's but sweep these things under the rug. Why, because we think one side is "not as bad" as the other? Because one form of intolerance is more acceptable than the other? Because one says they're more tolerant than the other or we tell ourselves they care about us more than the other side? I call bullsh1t. They pin us against each other and put on a charade like they really care. Dems are pandering to their base, and republican's to their's to raise money and keep themselves in office. It's that simple. They are all full of sh1t for different reasons. it goes back to my point about picking your poison and having to cast your vote based on more than just one issue and hoping you can get some reasonable people in there than can compromise and do what's best for the people and not themselves. 

You may believe that the dems are actually seeking equality...good for you....i disagree. If one thinks that makes me a racist then so be it. Remember obama himself was anti-gay marriage the first time he ran in 2008. I wonder if a change in popular opinion over the years had anything to do with his about face. He "evolved" just like many others on both the left and right have "evolved" on issues...unless the person is of the other party in which case we call them a flip flopper. The whole bunch of them are full of crap and the people that blindly follow are just as bad. This country is going to sh1t and we have law makers trying to limit the size of our sodas and who are in constant campaign mode blaming the other side day after day after day ad nauseum instead of going behind a closed door and working things out like leaders are supposed to. They are more interested in putting on a dog and pony show on TV and dividing us to get votes....and then after the election do all the unpopular sh1t that they promised their donors they'd do but didn't have the balls to do prior to elections. All i see is dividing and conquering coming from the top down on the left. And yes I also see hatred on the right too. They do what they do in the name of God who is supposed to be all loving and forgiving. It is a complete contradiction and just plain stupid. 


anyway, rant off....peace.


----------



## Explorer (Oct 4, 2014)

I'm not sure how much racist civilian groups, like the leftist Black Panthers and the socially conservative Ku Klux Klan, have to do with national political parties engaging in bigoted behavior. 

You originally felt that Republicans are unjustly viewed as bigoted, when Democrats propose just as many bigoted legislative initiatives (or so you claimed). 

With the example of the National Republican Party enshrining bigotry in their party platform only two years ago, I was hoping you'd say, well, yeah, as a political party the Republicans are pretty bigoted.

Instead, you're pulling an Orson Scott Card, who claimed that opposition to bigotry is bigotry. "Democrats are bigots and trying to keep bigotry alive for political purposes!" That reasoning is a fail. Bigotry (against blacks, whites, gays, women) is a form of intolerance, but intolerance of bigotry is not bigotry. That's why the Nazi bigotry was definitely intolerance, but US intolerance of the Nazis wasn't bigotry.

It would be asinine to claim that the Allies loved having the Nazis around because it made them look good. It was about getting rid of that threat. 

And some view bigotry in the same way, as something to be opposed and removed from the lives of innocent people. 

That's some scary logic, to be able to paint fighting bigotry as a bad thing. It's hard for me to credit it as sincere.


----------



## AxeHappy (Oct 11, 2014)

pwsusi said:


> If the govt were to mandate this type of thing it would be discriminating against people of a certain religion because it would automatically disqualify them from owning a business and would not have the same opportunities as those who fine contraception acceptable.



Saying everyone has to play by the same rules is literally the exact opposite of discrimination. 

You don't get to say, "But I have these provably erroneous beliefs so I get to ignore laws that others have to follow."


----------



## Explorer (Oct 11, 2014)

asher said:


> It's not because for women contraceptive care is more than just "I can have sex without a condom or IUD" but *has other positive health care management effects for their body.* Not to mention _the decision lets them ignore the science on several of the contraceptives in question, which AREN'T abortifactents._





pwsusi said:


> *It doesn't matter if there are other beneficial effects or not.* According to the Rick Santorum's of the world you are interfering with the creation of life as God is intending through sexual intercourse. Again, I don't agree with this, but people like him consider it a sin to even use a condom. So it's not just about terminating a life, it's also about preventing one. Furthermore, they are not disqualifying people employment for using contraception or anything like that ...they are simply staying out of it and telling people they need to take care of this on their own because it's something they cannot condone.



*Do you folks remember when the prescription hormonal therapy known as "the pill" became part of federal health care?*

IIRC, it was initially *denied for a long period of time.*

But *something else was covered, a quality of life prescription*, which the Rick Santorums of the world embraced.

*Erectile dysfunction medication*. 

It was pointed out that *certain members of Congress were fighting for men's sexual quality of life*, and *against *the same quality of life for *women*. 

You'll notice that the Hobby Lobby case didn't make mention of their desire to avoid paying for prescription Viagra and such. 



asher said:


> Not to mention that employers are NOT the same as their business. There are lots of other things the Federal government gets to mandate about your business that one could conceivably claim some religious exemption to but are discriminatory or exploitative all the same (see the FLDS thread below for an example).





pwsusi said:


> Sure, the government can mandate lots of things from businesses. I would argue such things that should apply include things that directly affect the civil rights of others. *This isn't a civil rights issue though and these are products that can be freely acquired by other means. If the govt were to mandate this type of thing it would be discriminating against people of a certain religion because it would automatically disqualify them from owning a business* and would not have the same opportunities as those who fine contraception acceptable. Sure the federal government should make sure that the company is creating a safe work environment that doesn't discriminate, but this is completely different regardless of what science says about the other health benefits...it's irrelevant.



To choose an easy example... is a member of both the American Nazi Party and the Ku Klux Klan automatically disqualified from owning a restaurant? I'm completely unaware of such a law or statute. 

Is a Klan member banned from employment as a firefighter? Not that I'm aware.

I think what you're saying is, if someone wants to work in a particular field or to own a business, then they are free to do so, but if they then decide they refuse to respect the law regarding the rights of others, then they violate the law and lose the employment and/or license which they agreed to follow when they signed for the license or job application.

If someone would argue that a business owner has the right to keep out n*ggers or to leave them in a fire because of a sincerely held belief... *no, they don't have a right to that business license or employment if they insist on their beliefs being more important than the rights of others. *

*A strict Buddhist can apply for and get a job as a butcher... but a reasonable accommodation for that job would not include being exempted from working with meat. 

Same thing. If your idea of a reasonable accommodation for your business license is to be free of n*ggers, or to discriminate against others, then you lose.*

----

How far does someone have the right to extend their fist?

They cannot extend their fist far enough to violate someone else's rights.


----------



## 7stg (Oct 11, 2014)

I think that if it involves the government, tax payer money, or tax breaks there should be the strictest of nondiscrimination laws. For example, if a church or other non-profit is preaching hate and they are a 501c3 we are funding that.

If a person wants to be a bigot, as long as they are not harming another person they should have that right. The question is how far does that go in employment and business.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 15, 2015)

At this point, it's interesting to re-read this topic, and there have been many developments. 



Explorer said:


> I do think the Democrats are in favor of sexual orientation being protected from employment discrimination. How do the Republicans score on that?





pwsusi said:


> You tell us, how do the republican's score on that? Name one piece of legislation that the republican party has tried to pass that would exclude gays from protection from employment discrimination. There isn't one.



There have now been numerous Republican legislatures which have acted to limit LGBT equality, and to codify the ability to discriminate against LGBT Americans. I can't think of a single one passed by Democrats. I guess that the person betting on the Republicans not being antigay lost that one, based upon actual actions of said Republicans. 

----

Regarding the bakery, it turns out they were fined because they doxxed the lesbian couple on social media, giving out the couple's personal information. That led to the couple suffering from death threats and other harassment. That isn't an issue of freedom of speech or religion. It's deliberately putting someone's personal info out there to cause trouble, and the court stated as much. 

Further, the only things the bakery owners were prevented from talking about were the couple, and any assertions that they would deliberately break state antidiscrimination laws by refusing to serve all members of the public. You can't state that you are going to discriminate in your business under Oregon law. They were told that, and they said they weren't going to follow that law, but that's not the same as a gag order. 

That's not quite what conservative news sources were saying about any aspects of the case.

Here's the thing which immediately springs to my mind: If you have to lie in order to make yourself sympathetic, that should be your huge waving red flag that you're in the wrong. 

If a news organization can't bother to find out the facts, it's not a real news organization. 

If a news organization knows the facts, but lies to gain ratings or to ingratiate itself with a group, it's not a real news organization.

That's a lot of lies which are now cleared up. 

And a lot of clarity arising from Republican legislators putting their bigotry into law. 

And that's the wrap up!


----------



## pwsusi (Jul 15, 2015)

My guess is that very few people know about the social media aspect of the case, which as you state is one of the reasons for the fine and so called "gag order". I would agree, you're not going to hear about that on conservative news stations...and does leaving this information out fuel the fire of the religious freedom crowd? Yes! But come on, are you honestly saying that all the other major news outlets are not equally guilty of the same thing? Have you heard any of them talking about the social media piece that you call out conservatives for leaving out? No! Why? They are fueling the fire from the other side. They absolutely love demonizing Christians. The truth of the matter is this type of refusal of service goes on every single day, whether we agree with it or not. Look up some of the hidden cam stuff when people have gone into Muslim bakeries asking for gay wedding cakes. Is this any less hateful? These don't get any media attention though, why is that? Is it because there's no social media slandering component to it...i would say not since no one is talking about that on either side of the aisle. It's all about ratings and pushing a social agenda. You will never see the Muslim thing on the news, just like you won't see any stories on discrimination against white people, black on white crime, or a negative piece on illegal aliens. 

As for the whole Republican's are biggots thing. Most people i've spoken to that are against gay marriage (and yes democrats are christians too) don't really care what gay people do. They don't hate them at all or want to deny them anything, they just cannot recognize the union under the eyes of God because they think it's a sin. They also don't want acceptance to be forced on them, just like the secular world doesn't want religion forced on them. The problem is until we separate the legal rights of married people from the religious sacrament of marriage we will continue to talk about this until blue in the face. In this case there is no separation of church and state there should be, because at the end of the day from a legal perspective all it really is, is a contract between two people that has certain legal implications. What is interesting though is that if there are so many "benefits" to being married that too in itself discriminatory. Where is all the outcry for single people 

There is a lot of intolerance in the name of tolerance.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 15, 2015)

pwsusi said:


> They also don't want acceptance to be forced on them





pwsusi said:


> just like the secular world doesn't want religion forced on them.



Do you _really_ consider these to be equal statements?

[EDIT]

I should also point out the Christians also want the second statement along with the first. No Christian wants a foreign belief thrust upon them legally or socially, a Lutheran wouldn't want Catholicism thrust upon them, etc. The issue that arises is many still want to be the ones forcing the beliefs, but they want the group that makes these decisions to be like-minded folk (IE of the same belief).

When you take this into account the notion is redundant on the positive end. If you're already of the same faith what benefit does a law asserting what you already assert as truth going to do? This indirectly implies that the only purpose is to in fact force these beliefs on those who don't share identical beliefs as themselves.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 15, 2015)

pwsusi, I didn't use the word "Christian" in that last post at all, not even when mentioning the Republican antigay legislation which attempted to do exactly what you specifically claimed they didn't do any more than Democrats. 

Further, you said it was wrong to claim that Republican, Christian and antigay actions were tied together. 

It's hard to credit your previous statements when you suddenly acknowledge that connection yourself.

Anyway, the Republicans have definitely passed more antigay legsilation than the Democrats, and they have done so in order to support religious prejudices against gays, as opposed to honoring the Constitution. 

When the majority of your own party, including Presidential candidates, manage to get in digs at gays, it puts one int he awkward position of losing plausible deniability regarding those facts. You can continue, if you want, but if it is an easy matter to refute those mistaken claims, is there anything to be gained by making them again?


----------



## pwsusi (Jul 16, 2015)

> pwsusi, I didn't use the word "Christian" in that last post at all, not even when mentioning the Republican antigay legislation which attempted to do exactly what you specifically claimed they didn't do any more than Democrats.


Sorry, the whole thread is about biggoted Christians so maybe i misunderstood. I never said Republicans and Demoncrats are equal with respect to gay/religious legislation. Clearly the republicans pander to religious, gun right groups,etc and democrats pander to gay, minority, and other special interest groups. The point was, as long as we have a religous instiution like marriage that is used as the foundation for legal status in the secular world we're going to have problems like this. I think you're point is that fighting to keep gays from being married is homophobic, while i'm saying that this is a group of people who are trying to preserve something in their faith and prevent changing it to something that they believe is a sin. So separation of church and state was my point. There is no reason we couldn't have a fair tax system that doesn't get marriage all wrapped up in it. There are also ways we could address things like healhcare proxy etc if we used the energy to solve the problems instead of wasting time calling each other names.




> When the majority of your own party, including Presidential candidates, manage to get in digs at gays, it puts one int he awkward position of losing plausible deniability regarding those facts. You can continue, if you want, but if it is an easy matter to refute those mistaken claims, is there anything to be gained by making them again?


The republican party isn't my party, not sure how you jumped to that conclusion. If there are republicans that have "taken digs" at gays then shame on them. So i guess that disqualifies all republicans and they all become biggots because of certain individuals? No all republicans believe the same thing. If you haven't noticed there are quite a few splits in the party proving my point (moderates, tea party, libertarian, etc). To stereotype or label the whole party is wrong. Are you prepared to stand behind every statement every democrats has made? it's time to stop labeling people based on party affliation, gender, race, etc. We are all Americans. Isn't that what the left wants...tolerance? It seems the left is just as guilty as the right at smearing and waging war on the opposition. Divide and conquor and stay in power, that's what i see coming from both sides. Keep talking about wars on woman and anti gay christians while muslims have woman covered from head to toe and throw gays from tops of buildings. haven't seen one thread about these things or news stories.


----------



## AxeHappy (Jul 16, 2015)

The concept of marriage predates the concept of religion. .... off with that religious institution boulderdash.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Jul 16, 2015)

I am a Christian. I promptly admit that it is a belief system, which involves a number of unverifiable truths I choose to believe in.

Unverifiable, thus potentially incorrect data which is not even viable for testing has no place whatsoever in any country's policies, which have the duty of ensuring quality of life in equal fashion for guys with my belief system, slight variations of it, big variations of it, no belief system at all, completely different belief systems, you name it.

I find it incredibly backwards to see Christianity used as a political tool AND purpose to boot. History is filled of examples of why that is completely not functional or remotely fair, if the most basic common sense isn't enough.


----------



## vilk (Jul 16, 2015)

You're European? Well that explains it. Round these parts we fuggin dance with rattlesnakes because the holy spirit wont let them harm us. In my experience, the admittedly religious Europeans I've met wouldn't even register on the American Zeal Scale.

They're all young people though. I could see some old European catholics taking it very seriously. But TBH even in USA the Catholics are considered the least radical/hateful of Christian sects--you know, aside from raping little boys.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Jul 16, 2015)

Honestly, I've always found the conservative religious agenda in the US utterly mind boggling, let alone its obvious influence in the political spheres, promoting hateful behaviours, limiting freedoms that are down to each individual to choose and even going as far as imposing ancient Judaic / Christian precepts on ALL people regarding morality and decency according to a specific view of the scriptures and Bible translation - how can this even be a thing in this day and age?


----------



## RustInPeace (Jul 16, 2015)

There was a documentary called Jesus Camp a few years back, outlining the Evangelicals agenda to do all these ....ty things.


----------



## vilk (Jul 16, 2015)

^lol, that movie was out a few years back when I watched it 5 years back. And the freakiest thing about it though, is that while I watched it I considered Evangelicals to be a relatively small, unimportant number of Christians in the USA, because I hadn't realized that it's an overarching term that includes major Protestant sects... which I unfortunately have found out since is at least a quarter of all people who live here.

I'm still pretty sure that Jesus Camp was specifically about one of the smaller, freakier Evangelical sects.


----------



## Faldoe (Dec 28, 2015)

ZeroTolerance94 said:


> Every time I see a thread like this, I have to post this...
> 
> I myself, as a registered Republican in the state of the Florida, a christian conservative;
> 
> ...



I think it's an important point. 

As someone that has in the past identified with being on "the left," I've more recently started to notice the hypocrisy and lack of critical thinking in many left venues. This is not to saying I'm moving to the right but rather realize issues should be examined in a case-by-case basis and looking at the facts and thinking critically instead of sticking with what a party or group says.

There is actually data showing a lot of young republicans/libertarian leaners support gay marriage.

It's an easy thing to say "all X are like this."


----------



## Thorerges (Dec 28, 2015)

Falode said:


> I think it's an important point.
> 
> As someone that has in the past identified with being on "the left," I've more recently started to notice the hypocrisy and lack of critical thinking in many left venues. This is not to saying I'm moving to the right but rather realize issues should be examined in a case-by-case basis and looking at the facts and thinking critically instead of sticking with what a party or group says.
> 
> ...



Thats exactly how I approach these issues, well said sir.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 29, 2015)

ZeroTolerance94 said:


> Same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization, and some other topics of controversy in the US of A, should not be categorized into a Democrat/Republican battle. I know Democrats who are against same-sex marriage, and I also know Republicans who are all for same-sex marriage.
> 
> I chose the political party I belong to for my *political* views. Not whether I want pot to be legal, or two men to get married, or any other stupid controversial arguments like that.





Falode said:


> There is actually data showing a lot of young republicans/libertarian leaners support gay marriage.



I'm not sure what made this bump-worthy, but given the understandable desire to distance oneself from bigots... is there currently parity in terms of the political parties having presidential candidates who are still making public statements against marriage equality after the Supreme Court decision?

Or, if only one party still has candidates arguing this point... is it at all possible that there is only one party where such thinking is still acceptable at a national level?

Please notice that the question isn't whether all members of such a party support it. I'm asking if only one party doesn't yet repudiate such thinking automatically, possibly even active courting those who hold such views. 

If that would seem to cast a pall over those who deplore belonging to such an organization, that pall wouldn't the fault of those who are noting the behavior, but instead of the party continuing to engage in such behavior, wouldn't it?


----------



## Faldoe (Dec 29, 2015)

Explorer said:


> I'm not sure what made this bump-worthy, but given the understandable desire to distance oneself from bigots... is there currently parity in terms of the political parties having presidential candidates who are still making public statements against marriage equality after the Supreme Court decision?
> 
> (1) Or, if only one party still has candidates arguing this point... is it at all possible that there is only one party where such thinking is still acceptable at a national level?
> 
> ...




6 Presidential Candidates Pledge to Support Bill to Protect Gay Marriage Opponents

The Republicans have a lot of issues to deal with besides gay marriage right now. While it was certainly an upfront issue in past elections, it isn't currently, but that doesn't mean Republican candidates don't still oppose it.

Rubio: The Supreme Court's Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Is 'Bad Law' [VIDEO] | The Daily Caller

1/ 1-b - I don't follow what you're asking here.

2 - Maybe you need to rephrase that. Again; I don't follow.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 29, 2015)

ZeroTolerance94 said:


> Same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization, and some other topics of controversy in the US of A, should not be categorized into a Democrat/Republican battle. I know Democrats who are against same-sex marriage, and I also know Republicans who are all for same-sex marriage.



Not to mention every time there's a gun control debate I get to read a bunch of stupid, "Goddamn liberals" comments.

The funny thing is that depending on the issue I get told that I'm either far too conservative or far too liberal? Which am I then? I'll be glad when we stop viewing the world through these goggles as well.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 29, 2015)

Explorer said:


> I'm not sure what made this bump-worthy, but given the understandable desire to distance oneself from bigots... *(A)* is there currently parity in terms of the political parties having presidential candidates who are still making public statements against marriage equality after the Supreme Court decision?
> 
> Or, *(1)* if only one party still has candidates arguing this point... is it at all possible that there is only one party where such thinking is still acceptable at a national level?
> 
> ...





Falode said:


> 6 Presidential Candidates Pledge to Support Bill to Protect Gay Marriage Opponents
> 
> The Republicans have a lot of issues to deal with besides gay marriage right now. While it was certainly an upfront issue in past elections, it isn't currently, but that doesn't mean Republican candidates don't still oppose it.
> 
> ...



You skipped my first question, now labeled A above, but let me ask them again to eliminate your confusion, with answers provided, so that you can then provide evidence in the form of examples to disprove them.

(A) Have both parties had equal amounts of presidential candidates, or even equal proportions of presidential candidates, who have come out during the campaigns against marriage equality?

No. Only one party has had presidential candidates using that as part of their campaign, not both parties. Just as one example, in various fundraisers, Ted Cruz continues to argue against marriage equality, and even in the past month, has stated that he will direct the federal government to ignore the Supreme Court decision allowing marriage equality... among other words about his feelings about gays getting legally married.

(1) Does that mean that there is only one party where such bigotry wouldn't automatically get a candidate rejected? 

It appears so, yes. 

(1b) Does that party not only *not* reject that bigotry, but instead actively court those who espouse such bigotry?

This has historically been an active part of that party's political strategy since it was first embraced as the "Southern Strategy," hoping to gain the votes of former Democrats who didn't agree with the Democratic Party's support of civil rights.

(2) To whom would fall the blame for gaining a reputation of associating with such bigots, the national party which chooses to not only associate with, but even actively court such bigots... or those who point out the happy association and courting?

I would say that any group which engages in an action is responsible for that action's resulting effect on the group's reputation. 

It's been interesting to watch Lindsey Graham this election and in the past as well. He has consistently argued that there are not enough angry white males coming into existence to match the numbers of other voters, and that the Republican Party therefore needed to stop focusing on placating that group and try to grow its appeal to those other voting blocs. He also was possibly the only candidate who agreed with the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming, for what it's worth.

Anyway, I do hope that clarified not just my questions, but what answers to those questions are easily supported by evidence. 

----

I think you wanted to argue that there was some internal opposition to such bigotry, but without having to acknowledge that such bigotry actually exists and is even openly embraced and courted in one of the parties. Hopefully my being extremely explicit will help you acknowledge that point, as well as the fact that only one party is doing so on a national level.


----------



## asher (Dec 30, 2015)

Falode said:


> I think it's an important point.
> 
> As someone that has in the past identified with being on "the left," I've more recently started to notice the hypocrisy and lack of critical thinking in many left venues. This is not to saying I'm moving to the right but rather realize issues should be examined in a case-by-case basis and looking at the facts and thinking critically instead of sticking with what a party or group says.
> 
> ...



What they say they support is irrelevant when they will still go and pull the lever for candidates who are strongly anti-LGBT rights.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 30, 2015)

Talk. Is. Cheap.

I honestly don't believe a lot of what many politicians say for the simple fact that they'll openly talk about things like "trying to get the female/minority vote"... To say that suggests you're willing to say whatever appeals to the widest audience and that you're less likely to tell the truth. Maybe I'm just a pessimist...


----------

