- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Anti-First Amendment Rights LGBT activist decry Kansas new law
Posted on 2/14/14 at 11:30 am
Posted on 2/14/14 at 11:30 am
This is from the Yahoo article regarding that is actually inappropriately headlined "Anti-gay marriage bill wins Kansas House Approval."
The response from the lgbt activist was this.
So the first amendment rights be damned, according to Meade. You make her "feel like a second class citizen" if you do not follow her dictates. Meade is an anti-freedom, anti-liberty, intolerant, tyrannical bully that doesn't just want marriage, as I have told all, she wants your rights denied because of her "feelings."
People that argue that discrimination is wrong should never vote because voting is discriminatory. Of course, she's pro-discrimination and she wants it done with government force.
LINK
quote:
The bill would prohibit government sanctions or anti-discrimination lawsuits against individuals, groups and businesses over faith-based refusals to recognize marriages, civil unions or domestic partnerships or to provide goods, services, accommodations or employment benefits to couples.
Supporters argue the bill would protect the rights of Kansans to adhere to their religious beliefs even if federal courts strike down the state constitution's ban on same-sex unions. They contend the measure is akin to protections for churches, religious groups and others in states where lawmakers have legalized gay marriage.
The response from the lgbt activist was this.
quote:
Equality Kansas State Chairwoman Sandra Meade decried Davis' response to a "blatant attempt to maintain second-class citizen status" for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered Kansans.
"It's unfortunate that discrimination against LGBT Kansans is seen as a distraction for the Democratic leadership, rather than a call to action," Meade said in a statement.
So the first amendment rights be damned, according to Meade. You make her "feel like a second class citizen" if you do not follow her dictates. Meade is an anti-freedom, anti-liberty, intolerant, tyrannical bully that doesn't just want marriage, as I have told all, she wants your rights denied because of her "feelings."
People that argue that discrimination is wrong should never vote because voting is discriminatory. Of course, she's pro-discrimination and she wants it done with government force.
LINK
11
Posted on 2/14/14 at 11:33 am to los angeles tiger
i wonder if those businesses will serve couple who have sex outside marriage?
Posted on 2/14/14 at 11:37 am to SammyTiger
quote:
i wonder if those businesses will serve couple who have sex outside marriage?
Stupid question is stupid.
Posted on 2/14/14 at 11:38 am to SammyTiger
You do realize that a wedding is an event and suing someone for not wanting to participate in your event because of their religious reasons is a right. It is not, a right of yours to then ask them such questions as you posted, is it? If what people do in the bedroom is supposed to be private, then don't tell people you are getting married to someone of the same sex. It's no longer private and others have the right to not cater to your event because of the first amendment.
Posted on 2/14/14 at 11:45 am to los angeles tiger
I am not sure about all this but the way I read it that any kind of business cannot discriminate according to sexual preference or wedding.
I guess all this is doing is putting sexual orientation in a class with no discrimination by race or religion. or am I reading all this wrong?
or is the issue that some want to retain the right to discriminate? I guess if tou are a business serving the public who can't discriminant. Look at a bakery case in Iowas months ago.
or am I missing something?
I guess all this is doing is putting sexual orientation in a class with no discrimination by race or religion. or am I reading all this wrong?
or is the issue that some want to retain the right to discriminate? I guess if tou are a business serving the public who can't discriminant. Look at a bakery case in Iowas months ago.
or am I missing something?
This post was edited on 2/14/14 at 11:47 am
Posted on 2/14/14 at 11:48 am to JEAUXBLEAUX
This seems to directed to cases like the Iowa and Colorado cake/wedding hall cases.
Posted on 2/14/14 at 11:48 am to los angeles tiger
(no message)
This post was edited on 3/4/14 at 1:21 pm
Posted on 2/14/14 at 11:51 am to JEAUXBLEAUX
Where in the constitution does it say "if you run your private business, you forfeit your first amendment rights to the dictates of the state"?
Where in the constitution does it say you cannot discriminate? If it is "wrong to discriminate" then it means you shouldn't vote. Voting is in itself discrimination. If you think discrimination is wrong then you should stop voting, Jeaux.
Where in the constitution does it say you cannot discriminate? If it is "wrong to discriminate" then it means you shouldn't vote. Voting is in itself discrimination. If you think discrimination is wrong then you should stop voting, Jeaux.
Posted on 2/14/14 at 11:52 am to los angeles tiger
This is 100% ok by me. The SCOTUS hasn't made them a protected class and their state constitution doesn't forbid it. Private businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone.
Posted on 2/14/14 at 11:54 am to SammyTiger
quote:
i wonder if those businesses will serve couple who have sex outside marriage?
I'm ok with businesses refusing service to certain people as long as they don't start chopping off hands or heads.
I hope I live long enough to see an LGBT group sue a Muslim business for not making a wedding cake.
Posted on 2/14/14 at 11:55 am to los angeles tiger
Chill out. Are you saying discrimination is OK? Hope not. What does all this have to do with voting? and, if you read my posts, I am asking the question of what is the issue? Does a private business retain the right to discriminate? If so we are back at segregated lunch counters. Wasn't this settled years ago?
Posted on 2/14/14 at 12:05 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
Forcing people with government force to provide services in conflict of their conscience is enslavement. You are pro-slavery Jeaux.
Posted on 2/14/14 at 12:08 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
i wonder if those businesses will serve couple who have sex outside marriage?
Posted on 2/14/14 at 12:33 pm to los angeles tiger
Pro slavery nan that areal stretch even for you. So you are saying that the gov enslaved the US when it was ruled schools must be integrated? Thats crazy. If you have a business and serve the public that you can't say no blacks or whatever.
People sat at the lunch counters to fight segregation. You can't defend prejudice or racism. Neither can I
People sat at the lunch counters to fight segregation. You can't defend prejudice or racism. Neither can I
Posted on 2/14/14 at 12:37 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
i wonder if those businesses will serve couple who have sex outside marriage?
What does hypocrisy have to do with the violation of rights
Posted on 2/14/14 at 12:42 pm to los angeles tiger
This is another issue that could be avoided if the government could just get the frick out of marriage altogether.
This post was edited on 2/14/14 at 12:42 pm
Posted on 2/14/14 at 12:45 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
People sat at the lunch counters to fight segregation.
That's the spirit! Go preach it up in Dearborn, MI. Put some skin, limbs, craniums in the game dude.
Posted on 2/14/14 at 12:51 pm to son of arlo
Dearborn Michigan?
Posted on 2/14/14 at 12:59 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
Dearborn Michigan?
Ya, head over that way and tell them they've gotta bake a cake for your gay wedding.
Posted on 2/14/14 at 1:02 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
Do you not realize that those business were forced by government laws by the democratic party to segegrate. The very party that forced people to be with their own kind (race then) is now forcing the citizens to accept those that want to be only with their own kind (same-sex) relations to now call that form of segregation equal to the diverse, integrated male-female marriage to be the same. There's also the difference that you cannot choose to not act out on you skin color but you do not have to act out on your sexual desires which are behavioral.
If seperate but equal was wrong by race how are seperate by sex (same-sex) equal to integrated sex marriage which brings a great benefit to society - the continuation of the species?
If seperate but equal was wrong by race how are seperate by sex (same-sex) equal to integrated sex marriage which brings a great benefit to society - the continuation of the species?
Page 1 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News