• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

LGBT Non-Discrimation Vote Passes Senate [W:215]

Amandi said:
It's like we arent even participating in the same conversation. Nothing I have said violates the Bill of Rights. You have the Freedom of Speech to say what you want and to protest. What exactly did I say that violates the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

nothing

some people when incapable of using a honest, intelligent and logical argument they just make stuff up
 
Mr.Nick said:
I'm pretty sure you have implied that people have the obligation and should be FORCED to serve and accept transexuals when people have the same right to refuse....

Yeah I know your next argument will be "Jim Crow."
Click to expand...

the bolded is a complete posted lie, nobody implied that and theres zero factual logic to support such nonsensical dishonest and drivel
 
Mr.Nick said:
I'm pretty sure you have implied that people have the obligation and should be FORCED to serve and accept transexuals when people have the same right to refuse....

Yeah I know your next argument will be "Jim Crow."
Click to expand...

I can see this logic to a point... IF the business is privately owned and operated, has no ties to any government (local and/or otherwise) subsidies, tax breaks, assistance, or contracts... But that is never the case. If you are getting Police and Fire protection from your county, it voids all of that IMHO.

The business SHOULD be able to set their own dress code and enforce it as such. IMHO
 
Re: Senate passes LGBT anti-discrimination bill

Chiefgator said:
I am keeping up. I am just trying to understand. I am also on record for ENDA being passed.

None of my gay friends have any of the issues of which you speak. A few are with very successful in high profile companies and most are quite open. Not one has ever told me that they are afraid for their job. Most were afraid to come out, not fearing the reactin at work, but for the reaction of their families. I know when my brother came out, my Mother freaked out... but she got over it.



I do have to ask you to explain the 97% number... 97% have waht sort of policy? To fire or equality? If it is to Fire.... yeah, I would be afraid to ask, but 3%... chances are so good in your favor that it should not matter... 3% is a great risk... 15 of 500...I will take those odds in a heartbeat.

To the guys that say "you deserve it", well they are just wrong.
Click to expand...

It's fine, that's why i bothered to reply. Those 97% have nondiscrimination policies in writing. To go work for the other 3% then to me is a risk. It's a sign the company or someone high up would possibly fire a gay worker. I know cause my uncle dealt with this for two decades, at a bank that got federal bailout money. He would have most likely been fired by a religious zealot and had to endure that until he could find a lateral career move far away. Until then, he was afraid to pursue any relationship. Now i never met his boss, but all that signals to me that he was justifiably concerned. That's not a path i want to go down.

The same reactions your friends feared with are possible in reverse. In some cases, one's family is ok with it but not the employer. Those past jobs i had were in rural areas, the places where ENDA is most needed.
 
Chiefgator said:
I can see this logic to a point... IF the business is privately owned and operated, has no ties to any government (local and/or otherwise) subsidies, tax breaks, assistance, or contracts... But that is never the case. If you are getting Police and Fire protection from your county, it voids all of that IMHO.

The business SHOULD be able to set their own dress code and enforce it as such. IMHO
Click to expand...

There is no damn law that says I have to accept anyone......

Show me where (specifically) where I have to...
 
Mr.Nick said:
There is no damn law that says I have to accept anyone......

Show me where (specifically) where I have to...
Click to expand...

What is your definition of accept? You dont have to accept anything about me. I cant force you to call me what I want you to.
 
Mr.Nick said:
There is no damn law that says I have to accept anyone......

Show me where (specifically) where I have to...
Click to expand...

There is no law that you have to accept anyone.
However, the law (Civil Rights act of 1964) states (Title II) that you cannot exclude anyone because of race, color, religion or national origin if you are engaged in interstate commerce. It also prohibits (Title VII) discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. So that brings the questions.... What is "covered employers"? Basically if you have 15 or more permanent employees. A few other exemtions are for Native Americans, religous groups, and non-profit.

So, when this law goes into effect and is added to the CRA1964, it will add homosexuality to those protected groups.

If you have a business with fewer that 15 employees, I would assume that you can do as you please, unless there are State laws that contradict that.
 
Mr.Nick said:
There is no damn law that says I have to accept anyone......

Show me where (specifically) where I have to...
Click to expand...

very good there isnt one and this doesnt create one now you can stop posting the lie that the law forces you to accept anything cause it doesnt, thank you for proving everybody else right and yourself wrong as usual.

Good job you are learning
 
Amandi said:
What is your definition of accept? You dont have to accept anything about me. I cant force you to call me what I want you to.
Click to expand...

dont use facts they just confuse some people
 
Amandi said:
What is your definition of accept? You dont have to accept anything about me. I cant force you to call me what I want you to.
Click to expand...

Yet I suppose you would support the government enforcing these ideas on individuals....
 
Chiefgator said:
There is no law that you have to accept anyone.
However, the law (Civil Rights act of 1964) states (Title II) that you cannot exclude anyone because of race, color, religion or national origin if you are engaged in interstate commerce. It also prohibits (Title VII) discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. So that brings the questions.... What is "covered employers"? Basically if you have 15 or more permanent employees. A few other exemtions are for Native Americans, religous groups, and non-profit.

So, when this law goes into effect and is added to the CRA1964, it will add homosexuality to those protected groups.

If you have a business with fewer that 15 employees, I would assume that you can do as you please, unless there are State laws that contradict that.
Click to expand...

Where does that law state I have to accept anyone again???

The progressives can call me a racist all they like for challenging an idea they don't understand.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Then what do you propose? considering your opposition to my ideas?
Click to expand...

your ideas factually empower discrimination and violating peoples rights, she proposes protecting them which you do not
 
Here is my luv to the progressives....

 
AGENT J said:
exactly and neither does this bill
Click to expand...

I don't think we should be coy about this. It does force ideas on people, as it should. De facto discrimination promoted and forced ideas on people. De jure anti-discrimination measures promote and enforce ideas on people to counter balance the de facto trend.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Then what do you propose? considering your opposition to my ideas?
Click to expand...

I initially just posted about your comment about Batman. We would probably disagree on allowing transgender people use the facilities of the gender they associate with and that they shouldnt be discriminated against. By discrimination, I mean not provide services and/or jobs for the reason of them being transgender and/or dressed as the gender they associate with. I would appreciate if people used she/her when referring to me but if a person uses he/him I wont cause a fuss about it.

I have a Libertarian streak myself on social issues.
 
Fiddytree said:
I don't think we should be coy about this. It does force ideas on people, as it should.
Click to expand...

no it simply protects peoples rights

now if you want to make the claim the "idea" is that peoples rights should be protected, fine, which is the goal and job of our government and if people are bothered by this they are in the wrong country

what "ideas" do you think it forces on people
 
AGENT J said:
no it simply protects peoples rights

now if you want to make the claim the "idea" is that peoples rights should be protected, fine, which is the goal and job of our government and if people are bothered by this they are in the wrong country

what "ideas" do you think it forces on people
Click to expand...

It's a structure that pushes onto society that it is not okay to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and promotes acceptance of that sexual practice. I don't think we can ignore it. It's a pretty explicit consequence of such legislation. I think that those talking about it on the public stage ought to hide it until it's a lot further in acceptability, but that's part of what we're for. There's no reason to be ashamed of wanting to change social structures to be more accepting of homosexuals or transgendered individual beyond de jure protections.

I'm only being rather upfront about it, because well, your interlocutor wears a tinfoil hat anyway.
 
Last edited:
Amandi said:
I initially just posted about your comment about Batman. We would probably disagree on allowing transgender people use the facilities of the gender they associate with and that they shouldnt be discriminated against. By discrimination, I mean not provide services and/or jobs for the reason of them being transgender and/or dressed as the gender they associate with. I would appreciate if people used she/her when referring to me but if a person uses he/him I wont cause a fuss about it.

I have a Libertarian streak myself on social issues.
Click to expand...

Call me a realist but:

Boys are born with a penis and girls are born with the vagina... I suppose that concept is too crazy and complicated for progressives...
 
Mr.Nick said:
Call me a realist but:

Boys are born with a penis and girls are born with the vagina... I suppose that concept is too crazy and complicated for progressives...
Click to expand...

Nah, on the contrary. When you show the multiplicity of possible genders, you end up confusing the hell out of people like yourselves that can't count or comprehend beyond the number "two."
 
Fiddytree said:
1.)It's a structure that pushes onto society that it is not okay to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation
2.) and promotes acceptance of that sexual practice.
3.) I don't think we can ignore it. I
4.) t's a pretty explicit consequence of such legislation.
5.) I think that those talking about it on the public stage ought to hide it until it's a lot further in acceptability, but that's part of what we're for.
6.) There's no reason to be ashamed of wanting to change social structures to be more accepting of homosexuals or transgendered individual beyond de jure protections.

7.) I'm only being rather upfront about it, because well, your interlocutor wears a tinfoil hat anyway.
Click to expand...

1.) true it prevents society from breaking the law and infringing on rights and it helps fight illegal discrimination
2.) 100% false, ZERO acceptance of any sexual practice is required to not infringe on peoples rights
3.) theres no force acceptance so its pretty easy

if this bill pases tomorrow personal acceptance is factually not required, just like people today factually dont personally accept religions, genders, races etc

4.) theres ZERO consequence for not accepting
5.) nothing to hide, just like the laws protecting genders, religions, races dont force personal acceptance
6.) i agree but this bill doesnt force that

7.) tin foil hat? lol well thats being nice to him

anyway theres no ideas or acceptance being forced because you can still totally personal NOT accept gay sex and you will not be in violation of this law/bill, so i have no clue how one can come to that conclusion, theres no logic that supports "FORCE" of the idea of acceptance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom