• 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!

Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

No, not really. Let's have a multiple choice question:

Which one is the bigot?

A. An employer who fired a worker after he brought his gay partner to the annual Christmas party.
B. The CFO who quit in protest over the firing of his colleague.

Until sometime this century, everyone on planet earth would answer A. Not a single person would label those in category B as "bigots."

Now in an Orwellian exercise, you've redefined the word to include both groups. It's astounding really.

Google must thinks it's astounding also. It's the very first thing when you seek bigotry.

Yes it does follow closely to my definition [which simplifies it]
 
Oh my gosh, 'a cartoon argument' - worse yet, its not even funny. Equally unfunny to Bowers is honesty:

"If I discriminate against or criticize you its called free speech, free association, and freedom of religion. If you return the sentiment and conduct, it is exactly the same thing". Persecution only occurs when someone repeatedly harasses or punishes another in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; to make someone suffer because of their belief. You know, like a founder of Mozilla "getting whacked (hounded into resigning) by the gay mafia" (Bill Mahr) .

LOL, he was hounded into resigning because he supported (contributed money in support of) a constitutional amendment to deny the benefits of marriage to homosexuals and effectively impose his view of "marriage" onto the entire state, permanently, while heading an organization full of those whose rights he was gleefully attempting to permanently limit.

And there is a world of difference between a personal view of marriage - don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married! - and contributing money to an effort that would impose his personal view on everyone else. It's the difference between being personally against keeping guns at home, and supporting a law that would ban guns. Would a gun maker in Texas support a CEO who contributed money to a constitutional amendment to ban guns? Of course not. Would that gun maker support a CEO who made a personal decision to not own guns or keep them in his home? Why not, especially if that person didn't publicly advertise his personal choice.
 
That's pretty ironic considering a good part of your ideology is based on victimhood.

anigif_enhanced-buzz-22590-1375233497-1.gif


Oh look, people breaking the law and violating someone else's rights. Good find.

Irony-Meter-Explode.jpg
 
BOOM!
wow I knew you would back pedal and dodge it LOL
like i said context and what is actually being discussed not your fantasies and lies
your post and claims lose and facts win . . . . again
thanks for playing


What? :) I mean.. what? How is what I wrote a dodge? If you mean by dodge I pointed out where you were going wrong, then I'm not sure if you have a grasp?

Tim-
 
You probably feel persecuted, don't you. You poor thing.

If there's anything that white conservative Christians excel at, it's having a persecution complex.

Wow. You get extra points for managing to get in 3 groups in one fell swoop.

What do black liberal Christians excel at? How about Spanish conservative atheists? White conservative Jews?
 
How are those evil rich people doing? Are they hording their money again? Damn them!



Oh? So perhaps you can tell me what rights anti-discrimination laws protect.

See, this is why I have very little respect for libertarians. Many, if not most libertarians, believe that full liberties only apply to straight white cisgender Christian adult males, and anybody not in that group is assumed to be a second-class citizen. And the moderate libertarians collectively do a very poor job of standing out the bigoted libertarians. And then! The moderate libertarians themselves get butthurt for being called out like that, instead of doing what they should be doing and calling out the bigots in their own group. So really, the difference between the enablers and the bigots quickly becomes indiscernible.

But whatever. Anti-LGBT attitudes are literally dying out, and we will dance with joy at their funerals. :)

Wow. You get extra points for managing to get in 3 groups in one fell swoop.

What do black liberal Christians excel at? How about Spanish conservative atheists? White conservative Jews?

Red herring. Stay on-topic.
 
Google must thinks it's astounding also. It's the very first thing when you seek bigotry.

Yes it does follow closely to my definition [which simplifies it]

So your answer is they're both "bigots?" OK, :roll:
 
He redefined the "Whites Only" label.

We were talking about definitions ..right?

He didn't redefine the "Whites Only" label, he engaged in a stupid publicity stunt.

What you're suggesting is the business owners who hung real Whites Only signs, actively and proudly discriminated against blacks, and used the cops to enforce their Whites Only policies were bigots and so were those who worked to overturn those laws. As I said, Orwell is smiling somewhere.
 
wow I knew you would back pedal and dodge it LOL
like i said context and what is actually being discussed not your fantasies and lies. I suggest you read what others actually claimed and i proved wrong or you stop posting blatant lies. your claims are 100% false.
you said " You start with the premise that laws make people do things" ???what, i didnt claim that at all. if you disagree quote me saying that, you wont be able to and any attempts will be ANOTHER fail.
your post and claims lose and facts win . . . . again
thanks for playing

Dude, you said this and I quote in your widget scenario:
i make widgets, you are a gay man, you walk in my store and want 500 widgets by 5:00, what law forces me to serve you cause you are gay. please state it in your next post or simply show honesty and integrity admit your clime is factually wrong


Now I know you have trouble with language and all, but let me try and explain this to you. You are asking me to show you a law that says you must do something, in this case, force you to sell widgets to a gay man. With me so far? Now, I showed you that laws don't do that, and as such, I could not possibly show you a law that says you must sell me widgets because laws don't do this. Still with me? So, what you're doing is setting the opposing viewpoint (mine in this case and all others that have followed along with you) up for a challenge they cannot win, but not because you have some superior insight into the law or even this issue, but because you're asking me and others to solve a problem that DOES NOT EXIST. See how that works? I pointed out to you and with this post you acknowledge that laws don't force people to do things, they inform you of what you're not allowed to do, so by setting up your scenario the way you did, you asked me to support your strawman, and of course when I could not, you claim victory. This is what you ALWAYS do.

So, now that we've established the error in your premise (Again that laws inform of what not to do, rather than what you can do) shall we (Really meaning you and you alone) debate the topic with a little more integrity and honesty?


Tim-
 
See, this is why I have very little respect for libertarians. Many, if not most libertarians, believe that full liberties only apply to straight white cisgender Christian adult males, and anybody not in that group is assumed to be a second-class citizen. And the moderate libertarians collectively do a very poor job of standing out the bigoted libertarians. And then! The moderate libertarians themselves get butthurt for being called out like that, instead of doing what they should be doing and calling out the bigots in their own group. So really, the difference between the enablers and the bigots quickly becomes indiscernible.

Lol at the use of the word cisgender. Have you noticed that only liberals ever use such a pointless word? Anyway, there is nothing bigoted about my position nor does my position somehow only apply to minorities. No one is owed the labor, service, property or the association of another human being. That is a universal view that applies to men, women, blacks, whites, asians, hispanics, straight, bi, gay, asexual, transgender, or anyone else. There is no exception to the rule that you are not owed the labor, service, property or association of another human being.
 
No, everyone is a bigot in some way or another. It might not be towards gays, but there is no doubt you're a bigot in some way or another.

Well, using your definition, of course I am, because I don't associate with racists and homophobes. And the charity I work with accepts everyone, but they don't allow those to stay who insult the black or gay residents or staff, so they're a "bigoted" organization because they demand that all staff and residents show respect to each other regardless of race, sexual orientation, etc.
 
Lol at the use of the word cigender.

Stopped reading right there. The typo aside, as a cisgender person, you never have to worry about people questioning who you are simply because of a clash between what's between your legs and what's between your ears.

Open your mind, stop being so bigoted, and maybe I'll consider listening to you. Until then, adios!
 

Religious people are discriminated against. Fat people are discriminated against. Smokers are discriminated against. Some discriminate against country western singers. Some discriminate against those who gamble and partake in alcohol. Others discriminate against Southern folks and others against Northern folks. There are laws that protect gays from discrimination against their inalienable rights just like any other citizen. Gays have not been denied the use of a water fountain. Gays have never been sold as merchandise to the highest bidder because of their gayness. Gays have never been denied a seat at a lunch counter or restaurant because of their gayness. But black folks were and it is outrageous there are those who will use the suffering of race inequality as even beginning to match what the lgbt community claims in discrimination acts. Denying someone a wedding cake because of religious convictions doesn't even belong on the same page of those who were beaten and treated like second class citizens because of their color. Shameful.

Now long before LGBT, there was something called freedom of religion guaranteeing every individual their right to religious expression and moral conscience. Some folks find gay marriage a sin yet they have just as much right in the public square as anyone else and have the right to conduct their life in commerce without persecution for their beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Well, using your definition, of course I am, because I don't associate with racists and homophobes. And the charity I work with accepts everyone, but they don't allow those to stay who insult the black or gay residents or staff, so they're a "bigoted" organization because they demand that all staff and residents show respect to each other regardless of race, sexual orientation, etc.

As I said, Orwell is smiling....

Orwell was a socialist dog that thought everything should be provided to people by the government except entertainment such as books.
 
Stopped reading right there. The typo aside, as a cisgender person, you never have to worry about people questioning who you are simply because of a clash between what's between your legs and what's between your ears.

Open your mind, stop being so bigoted, and maybe I'll consider listening to you. Until then, adios!

There is no reason to use such a term to describe people that are not delusional. It's a stupid term that serves no purpose. If that bothers you then I recommend you take it up with someone that cares.
 
1.) ok that sets good ground work so its a public access business.
2.) ok perfect so when the woman walks up will she be told there is no women allowed in the store?
Yes...
 
Religious people are discriminated against. Fat people are discriminated against. Smokers are discriminated against. Some discriminate against country western singers. Some discriminate against those who gamble and partake in alcohol. Others discriminate against Southern folks and others against Northern folks. There are laws that protect gays from discrimination against their inalienable rights just like any other citizen. Gays have not been denied the use of a water fountain or bathroom because of their gayness. Gays have never been sold as merchandise to the highest bidder because of their gayness. Gays have never been denied a seat at a lunch counter or restaurant because of their gayness. But black folks were and it is outrageous there are those who will use the suffering of race inequality as even beginning to match what the lgbt community claims in discrimination acts. Denying someone a wedding cake because of religious convictions doesn't even belong on the same page of those who were beaten and treated like second class citizens because of their color. Shameful.

Now long before LGBT, there was something called freedom of religion guaranteeing every individual their right to religious expression and moral conscience. Some folks find gay marriage a sin yet they have just as much right in the public square as anyone else and have the right to conduct their life in commerce without persecution for their beliefs.



(Apologies for the incredibly stupid title of this video. But everything in it applies here.)
 
There is no reason to use such a term to describe people that are not delusional. It's a stupid term that serves no purpose. If that bothers you then I recommend you take it up with someone that cares.

Try to push your straight, white, cisgendered, male privilege on someone more gullible.

Goodbye.
 
Try to push your straight, white, cisgendered, male privilege on someone more gullible.

Goodbye.

Awww..you can't deal with the fact that we don't need the word.
 
I don't use the word myself.

OK, so you're smart enough to know better than to equate those two, as it would be absurd. I guess that's a good thing.

In the meantime, the rest of the world who hasn't accepted the Orwellian redefinition of the word will continue to refer to the CEO who fired his worker because he's gay as a bigot or perhaps anti-gay bigot, and pretty much no one will have any doubt about the meaning we're trying to get across. Exactly no one not trying to miss the point will label the CFO who resigned in protest as a "bigot." We'd all recognize he's standing against bigotry and discrimination in the workplace.
 
Back
Top Bottom