LGBTQ

[Argentbear]

Well, for starters, ask Laken Riley, Kate Steinie, Jeremy Caceras, Shannon Jungwirth and her son Jorge, Melissa Powell and her son Riordan Powell, Catalina Andrade and Merced Ballon, and Aiden Clark about their rights and whether or not they can exercise them.

I recognize Aiden Clark. He was killed in a vehicle accident. Trump and Vance tried to claim he was murdered by a Hattian immigrant. Aiden's parents have requested Trump and Vance stop lying and to stop using the death of their child as a political tool to spread racism.

So exactly what rights have been denied to republicans? No one is stopping republicans from lying or promoting bigotry.

 

[Kathryn]

I recognize Aiden Clark. He was killed in a vehicle accident. Trump and Vance tried to claim he was murdered by a Hattian immigrant. Aiden's parents have requested Trump and Vance stop lying and to stop using the death of their child as a political tool to spread racism.

So exactly what rights have been denied to republicans? No one is stopping republicans from lying or promoting bigotry.

I've already answered this question. Not answering it again. Sorry.

The immgrant who caused the accident was found guilty of manslaughter and vehicular homicide by the way.

 

[Sumadji]

But you are required to acknowledge other people's rights. And if you exercise your free speech in a way that causes public disruption or violates someone's rights, there are consequences.

Squirrels have rights to exist and not to encounter discrimination. That does not mean society in general should be required to accede to squirrel language and pronouns or prioritize squirrel customs over the majority society mores and order.

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't say or imply that Republicans are granted fewer rights for the record.

It wasn't clear what you were saying.
That's the problem.

That being said, no friends or families of the deceased I listed have any rights with the dead.

That non sequitur doesn't even make sense
What does "rights with the dead" mean?

 

[Argentbear]

I wasn’t talking about the one he did for schools, I’m talking about the one he did for all government contractors

President Obama Signs a New Executive Order to Protect LGBT Workers

President Obama signs an Executive Order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

obamawhitehouse.archives.gov

This caused business to allow males that identify as women access to female spaces.

Here is the text of the executive order. As anyone can read it says nothing of the sort.

I know some conservative religious groups were terribly upset about this. They complained about how their right to discriminate against people they choose to hate is being infringed on

My point is, there were gay and lesbians who disagreed with this; making them (according to you) bigots against everyone under the LGBTQ banner; themselves included. Do you not see a problem here?

The first problem is you are misrepresenting the executive order.

The second problem is your strange obsession with accusing other people of the prejudices you hold. As if that somehow makes your prejudice OK

 

[Argentbear]

When you attempt to put multiple groups under the same banner; as if they were one (which they are not) you get groups under the same banner who disagree/bigoted against each other; whether it be blacks and browns against gays, or gays and lesbians against trans; these are different groups; trying to conflate them all into one doesn't make sense IMO due to this reason.

disagreeing isn't bigotry
We are disagreeing does that make you a bigot?

 

[Kathryn]

It wasn't clear what you were saying.
That's the problem.

That non sequitur doesn't even make sense
What does "rights with the dead" mean?

I am very clear, whether you like what I am saying or not.

"Rights with the dead" mean specifically rights like life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness (unless they are into necromancy which is doubtful) with the people who have died.

 

[Argentbear]

If it's bigotry, it's not against themselves.

are you saying that bigotry is OK when directed against some people but not others?

 

[Kathryn]

disagreeing isn't bigotry
We are disagreeing does that make you a bigot?

Maybe it makes someone else one.

 

[Argentbear]

The same reason we don't have white history month, but we have black history month.

We have 11 months of white history. Black History Month was started because that history was being completely ignored. SOme still do their very best to ignore it

 

[Argentbear]

I didn't say or imply that Republicans are granted fewer rights for the record.

That being said, no friends or families of the deceased I listed have any rights with the dead.

you said that that Republicans are "forced to look at everyone else's rights before their own."

I asked what rights and you gave a reply that did nothing to address your claim

 

[Kathryn]

you said that that Republicans are "forced to look at everyone else's rights before their own."

I asked what rights and you gave a reply that did nothing to address your claim

And I clarified it a few posts later. Please pay attention.

 

[Argentbear]

I've already answered this question. Not answering it again. Sorry.

The immgrant who caused the accident was found guilty of manslaughter and vehicular homicide by the way.

and how does that justify Republicans using the tragic death as a means to promote bigotry?

 

[Kathryn]

and how does that justify Republicans using the tragic death as a means to promote bigotry?

I don't know whether they did that or not.

 

[Kfox]

Here is the text of the executive order. As anyone can read it says nothing of the sort.

Just because the letter of the law didn’t specify biological males allowing access to female shower facilities doesn’t mean adding trans rights isn’t gonna result in business allowing them access. Think about it; what else could it have possibly meant? It’s not like there were a plethora of business not allowing trans people the rights everybody else enjoyed.

I know some conservative religious groups were terribly upset about this. They complained about how their right to discriminate against people they choose to hate is being infringed on

I’m sure that’s what you want to believe, but that isn’t true. There are plenty of non religious people, liberal people, gay people, feminists who have a problem with biological males competing in women's sports, access to female spaces, or being locked up in women’s prisons. And because these people have these views does not make them hateful or bigots.

The first problem is you are misrepresenting the executive order.

Again; nobody reacted to the letter of the law, people reacted to the result of the law; and the result was males allowed in female spaces. My point stands.

The second problem is your strange obsession with accusing other people of the prejudices you hold. As if that somehow makes your prejudice OK

Prejudices is to prejudge or have preconceived views of someone. Nowhere have I done this. You’re just trying to insult me because you don’t like the points I am making. You need to be better than this.

 

[Kfox]

disagreeing isn't bigotry
We are disagreeing does that make you a bigot?

I know this, and obviously YOU know this, but not everybody does. There are those who believe disagreement on certain subjects is based on bigotry.

 

[Kfox]

are you saying that bigotry is OK when directed against some people but not others?

No. I believe to say biological males should not have access to female spaces is not bigotry, even though there are many trans activists who say that it is

 

[Revoltingest]

I've already answered this question. Not answering it again. Sorry.

The immgrant who caused the accident was found guilty of manslaughter and vehicular homicide by the way.

So instead of supporting a claim that
Republicans lack rights, you're really
complaining about immigrants, eh.
Are you aware that Trump opposed
bi-partisan legislation to improve
border security...just because it would
give him political ammo against Dems?

 

[libre]

I remember when President Obama signed an executive order mandating transgender access to all public facilities designated to the gender of which they identify. At the gym I went to at the time this meant biological males were given access to the female locker rooms and shower facilities. There were even lesbians who had a problem with this. Now according to the LGBTQ advocates, this would make them LGBTQ bigots; which makes no sense at all because they only have issue with Trans, not all the other people under the Pride flag. This is the problem with trying to put multiple groups under the same banner, and paint anybody who disagree with the banner with the same broad brush; you end up with people under the banner disagreeing with each other; making them bigots against themselves.

I see, thanks for intimating the agenda driving this debate and line of questioning.

I'm just not very interested in the opinions of those lesbians. There are gay people who betray gay liberation and serve as pick-mes for homophobes, the same can be said of many trans people. I'm not really interested in discussing those people.

If you want to debate access to locker rooms access and shower facilities, I'd participate in that thread, but I don't feel like I should encourage the trojan-horsing of that issue.

 

[Kfox]

I'm just not very interested in the opinions of those lesbians.

Nobody is asking you to.

There are gay people who betray gay liberation and serve as pick-mes for homophobes, the same can be said of many trans people. I'm not really interested in discussing those people.

To not agree that males should be allowed in female spaces is not about homophobia

If you want to debate access to locker rooms access and shower facilities, I'd participate in that thread, but I don't feel like I should encourage the trojan-horsing of that issue.

Do you agree Trans women should have access to female locker rooms?