LGBT Activists Spend $15 Million Reminding Voters about Biden’s Most Unpopular Agenda

[RileyG]

Didn’t President Trump issue a Presidential Memorandum to bar transgender people from serving in the Armed Forces?

Yes. I was referring to homosexuals only, not transsexuals.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Correct. There are a lot of people who rebrand what Christ taught and then decide to live by that instead.

It's just as fake as all the "gender identities" we see.

I think both sides ignore parts of the Bible. Politicians aren't supposed to please just religious people. They're supposed protect all people. Religious people need to stay out of everyone's business.And they don't want that. But , since they can't stay out of everyone's business. It will become a war. Since Christians won't leave religious belief out of politics .It will be wars between religion and secular people.

 

[RileyG]

I think both sides ignore parts of the Bible. Politicians aren't supposed to please just religious people. They're supposed protect all people. Religious people need to stay out of everyone's business.And they don't wanthat. But , since they can't stay out of everyone's business. It will be

You’re right.

But I will also argue secular atheism functions like a religion and they should stay out of religious peoples business.

No, no politicians should be using the Bible to justify their ideas.

 

[Zaha Torte]

I think both sides ignore parts of the Bible. Politicians aren't supposed to please just religious people. They're supposed protect all people. Religious people need to stay out of everyone's business.And they don't want that. But , since they can't stay out of everyone's business. It will become a war. Since Christians won't leave religious belief out of politics .It will be wars between religion and secular people.

I believe politicians should fight to protect the interests of their constituents.

We all live together in our society and as a result will constantly be coming into contact with each other and our ideas.

This is just a part of life and we should accept it.

I don't see any reason to believe that only Christians and other religious people are sharing what they believe.

The OP claims that millions of dollars were spent to support an LGBT agenda and I do not believe they are all Christian or religious.

I don't see a war starting.

 

[Pommer]

Yes. I was referring to homosexuals only, not transsexuals.

Are you suggesting that the LGB would leave their T brethren behind, because they got a better deal from 45?

 

[RileyG]

Are you suggesting that the LGB would leave their T brethren behind, because they got a better deal from 45?

No. Not what I am saying at all.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Are you suggesting that the LGB would leave their T brethren behind, because they got a better deal from 45?

I don't understand why the Ts are involved with the other letters in the first place.

 

[A2SG]

I don't understand why the Ts are involved with the other letters in the first place.

Common enemy?

-- A2SG, could be....

 

[Zaha Torte]

Common enemy?

-- A2SG, could be....

They have an enemy? Who would that be?

 

[A2SG]

They have an enemy? Who would that be?

Those who oppose their lifestyle, I suppose. Which would include things like who they're allowed to marry, which merchants they're allowed to patronize, and what health care choices are available to them.

-- A2SG, y'know, all kinda stuff like that there....

 

[Zaha Torte]

Those who oppose their lifestyle, I suppose. Which would include things like who they're allowed to marry, which merchants they're allowed to patronize, and what health care choices are available to them.

-- A2SG, y'know, all kinda stuff like that there....

So, we should consider everyone who disagrees with us to be our enemy? Is that your message?

 

[A2SG]

So, we should consider everyone who disagrees with us to be our enemy? Is that your message?

If you want to do that, that's your business. I'm not proposing any message.

-- A2SG, you did see the question mark in my first response, didn't you?

 

[Zaha Torte]

If you want to do that, that's your business. I'm not proposing any message.

-- A2SG, you did see the question mark in my first response, didn't you?

I believe your question mark was for the purpose of the Ts being mingled with the LGBs - not that you were questioning that they had a common enemy.

Why do you believe that people that don't agree with their lifestyle, who don't want them changing the definition of marriage, who don't want to force people to participate in activities that they find morally objectionable and who do not think cutting off healthy body to better conform to their delusion - makes them their enemy?

 

[A2SG]

I believe your question mark was for the purpose of the Ts being mingled with the LGBs - not that you were questioning that they had a common enemy.

My question mark was there indicating a common enemy may be the answer to your query. I posed it as a question because I'm not in a position to speak for them, or those who oppose them.

Why do you believe that people that don't agree with their lifestyle, who don't want them changing the definition of marriage, who don't want to force people to participate in activities that they find morally objectionable and who do not think cutting off healthy body to better conform to their delusion - makes them their enemy?

Because they sure seem to act like it.

-- A2SG, recalling the old adage about ducks and walking and quacking....

 

[Zaha Torte]

My question mark was there indicating a common enemy may be the answer to your query. I posed it as a question because I'm not in a position to speak for them, or those who oppose them.


Because they sure seem to act like it.

-- A2SG, recalling the old adage about ducks and walking and quacking....

How do they act like enemies - exactly?

 

[A2SG]

How do they act like enemies - exactly?

Opposing their right to live their lives as they wish to.

Simply disagreeing with someone else's choices doesn't necessitate an attempt to legally prevent them from making those choices. That goes above and beyond just disagreeing, I'd have to say.

-- A2SG, you can disagree with who someone is marrying and still make a cake for them.....

 

[Zaha Torte]

Opposing their right to live their lives as they wish to.

How? By force? Threat of fine or imprisonment?

Isn't that what they did to those Christians that didn't want to make cakes for a same-sex wedding?

Simply disagreeing with someone else's choices doesn't necessitate an attempt to legally prevent them from making those choices.

They do not qualify as candidates for marriage if they intend to "marry" a member of the same sex.

That is not what marriage has ever been about.

I can't compare preventing someone from doing something they have no business doing and violating the First Amendment by forcing someone to violating their religious beliefs.

That goes above and beyond just disagreeing, I'd have to say.

Agreed.

-- A2SG, you can disagree with who someone is marrying and still make a cake for them.....

Heaven forbid some people actually practice what they preach.

 

[A2SG]

How? By force? Threat of fine or imprisonment?

Sure. Possibly by other means, such as legally preventing them from services or rights that others freely enjoy.

Isn't that what they did to those Christians that didn't want to make cakes for a same-sex wedding?

Nope. They asked a baker to bake a cake. If baking cakes somehow violates their religion, maybe they're in the wrong business.

A real life example: I used to work for a printer. He was once asked to print a flyer for a KKK rally (he's Jewish, by the way). He printed it. I asked him why, and he said, simply, that a job's a job. He didn't feel he had to agree with everything he printed, he just had to print it.

BTW, he told me later on that he donated every nickel he made from that job to the B'nai B'rith Anti Defamation League.

They do not qualify as candidates for marriage if they intend to "marry" a member of the same sex.

Sure they do. Some states tried to create laws to prohibit same sex marriages, but those laws have been ruled unconstitutional. See Obergefell v. Hodges.

Churches can do whatever they like, but states can't discriminate based on sex.

That is not what marriage has ever been about.

Any marriage is only about whatever the individuals who are married decide it's about.

I can't compare preventing someone from doing something they have no business doing and violating the First Amendment by forcing someone to violating their religious beliefs.

I know the SCOTUS decided that was the case, but I admit, I fail to understand how doing something you have set up a business to do violates your religious beliefs. I guess I tend to agree with my old boss in that matter.

Agreed.

Heaven forbid some people actually practice what they preach.

Yeah, there does tend to be a shortage in that capacity these days.

-- A2SG, would that it were not, but it is.....

 

[Pommer]

So, we should consider everyone who disagrees with us to be our enemy? Is that your message?

If we’re going to have brouhahas over common rhetorical utterances then I’ll go make popcorn.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Sure. Possibly by other means, such as legally preventing them from services or rights that others freely enjoy.

What exactly are you referring to?

Nope. They asked a baker to bake a cake. If baking cakes somehow violates their religion, maybe they're in the wrong business.

It's not that simple.

There was a case where a man wanted a baker to make a cake that had both homophobic rhetoric and Biblical verses that condemned homosexuality written on it - she refused.

She offered to bake the cake and to supply the man with everything he would need to decorate it himself. He sued - and she won - thank God.

You believe that this woman should have been forced by threat of fines or jail to decorate that cake - or choose to abandon the business she made - risking financial ruin for herself and her family because of this man?

A real life example: I used to work for a printer. He was once asked to print a flyer for a KKK rally (he's Jewish, by the way). He printed it. I asked him why, and he said, simply, that a job's a job. He didn't feel he had to agree with everything he printed, he just had to print it.

When I went to get a massage this last week - my wife got me one for my birthday (I hadn't had one since before COVID) - I had to sign a form about inappropriate behavior - that I was free to end the session if the massage therapist did anything I felt was inappropriate and she was free to do the same if I did something she found inappropriate.

During the session I asked her about the form and if that sort of thing happened a lot - she claimed that nothing had ever happened to her - but she shared that another massage therapist refused to massage men because of something that had happened to her.

Discriminatory? A job is a job? Could I sue if I don't get the massage therapist of my choice?

BTW, he told me later on that he donated every nickel he made from that job to the B'nai B'rith Anti Defamation League.

Neat.

Sure they do. Some states tried to create laws to prohibit same sex marriages, but those laws have been ruled unconstitutional. See Obergefell v. Hodges.

The State could also claim that a man is a woman - that would not make it so.

Something being legal does not mean it is morally right or factually correct.

Churches can do whatever they like, but states can't discriminate based on sex.

It is not discrimination to offer a privilege only to those that qualify.

Any marriage is only about whatever the individuals who are married decide it's about.

So, the term is meaningless?

A banana is whatever the individuals who have it decide that it is?

I know the SCOTUS decided that was the case, but I admit, I fail to understand how doing something you have set up a business to do violates your religious beliefs.

The baker in question offered to bake cakes for the event - even the wedding cake - they just did not want to decorate it.

They felt that decorating it - turning it from any cake into a "wedding cake" - would be directly supporting the event.

You see - their objection was to the event - not the individuals who were purchasing the cake.

You think they would have been fine with making the wedding cake for a "same-sex wedding" if the person asking had been heterosexual?

You see - this was the "slippery slope" that many Christians had claimed would happen if "same-sex marriage" became legal.

These bakeries had been around long before this decision was made - so up until that point they never had any conflict with baking cakes and their religious beliefs.

Yet the State made a decision that now potentially put them at odds.

Their business did not change. Their religion did not change. But the State changed everything - so you cannot blame the bakers or their religion for the conflict - because they are guaranteed the right to free expression of their religion.

I blame the same-sex couple who demanded the cake from that particular bakery.

If their only motivation had been getting a cake for their "wedding" - then they would have just gone somewhere else, but they chose that bakery and sued because they were making a statement.

They were even referred to another bakery that would accommodate them.

By the way - many Muslim-owned bakeries refuse to bake cakes for "same-sex weddings" too - but we barely hear about them.

I wonder why?

I guess I tend to agree with my old boss in that matter.

You are free to do so.

Yet - I hope you would have supported any decision he made.

Or would you have abandoned him?

Yeah, there does tend to be a shortage in that capacity these days.

-- A2SG, would that it were not, but it is.....

Maybe because they are called bigots and threatened with jail and financial ruin if they do?