Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Pennsylvania borough set to repeal LGBT protections 4 months after passing them
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bradskii" data-source="post: 76496136" data-attributes="member: 412388"><p>It's noted that you're sliding away from your original position. Now it's not necessarily what group someone belongs to (Christians, gay people, black people), it's what individuals do. But just because you don't want, quite reasonably, to have someone shouting religious slogans over your fence and annoying your neighbours, it's completely unreasonable to therefore say you're not going to allow any Christians to rent your place. Likewise it's not unreasonable to not have people walking around your garden in their underwear. But utterly unreasonable to therefore say that you can therefore discriminate against gay people.</p><p></p><p>Discrimination laws are put in place precisely to prevent people using these type of arguments. Your type of arguments. Which is using negative stereotypes and one off incidents to demean an entire group of people. "Gee, they exhibit themselves in women's toilets and walk around in female underwear so it's ok to say 'no gays allowed'."</p><p></p><p>That's what some think is a considered and reasonable argument? It's shameful. It's the very basis of bigotry.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bradskii, post: 76496136, member: 412388"] It's noted that you're sliding away from your original position. Now it's not necessarily what group someone belongs to (Christians, gay people, black people), it's what individuals do. But just because you don't want, quite reasonably, to have someone shouting religious slogans over your fence and annoying your neighbours, it's completely unreasonable to therefore say you're not going to allow any Christians to rent your place. Likewise it's not unreasonable to not have people walking around your garden in their underwear. But utterly unreasonable to therefore say that you can therefore discriminate against gay people. Discrimination laws are put in place precisely to prevent people using these type of arguments. Your type of arguments. Which is using negative stereotypes and one off incidents to demean an entire group of people. "Gee, they exhibit themselves in women's toilets and walk around in female underwear so it's ok to say 'no gays allowed'." That's what some think is a considered and reasonable argument? It's shameful. It's the very basis of bigotry. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Pennsylvania borough set to repeal LGBT protections 4 months after passing them
Top
Bottom