• 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!

Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Moderator's Warning:
There are personal comments and baiting going on. Please stick to the topic and only the topic.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Separate but equal?

there is no such thing, its impossible to do so and history and facts prove equal but separate is still not equal

In the eyes of the law, where it counts the most, exact equivalency.

Where ever the law says 'married' amend to say 'married or civil union'. What's separate but equal? The scope of the people applicable would be an amended to larger scope, including LGBT in every shape, fashion, and regard before the law and before the courts, as what appears to be desired. Yes?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill


That's my point exactly.....they want the freedom to discriminate....but they don't want to be held accountable for their bigotry.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

That's my point exactly.....they want the freedom to discriminate....but they don't want to be held accountable for their bigotry.

Thats another matter. The government shouldnt control peoples property
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

1.)In the eyes of the law, where it counts the most, exact equivalency.

2.)Where ever the law says 'married' amend to say 'married or civil union'.
3.) What's separate but equal?
4.)The scope of the people applicable would be an amended to larger scope, including LGBT in every shape, fashion, and regard before the law and before the courts, as what appears to be desired. Yes?

1.) in the eyes of the law its factually impossible
2.) this would be stupid and how do you gain the many many court cases establishing precedence?
its been tried to make it equal it cant be done because its been found to not be as binding, and legally concrete since its missing the precedence

3.) pick up a history or law book. At one time blacks could drink out of water fountians just not WHITE water fountains, was that equal? no it was not.
4.) no it would not :shrug:

how about this, what if when obama won or win a woman finally wins they told them, listen. Since your black or a woman we cant call you president of the united states. Theres to much "history" there and "traditions" blah blah blah


we are going to call you CEO of america, you will have the same powers but we just cant call you POTUS. . . . .oh and by the way. . . the next person to win will be called POTUS if they arent a minority or a woman.

lol please

sorry the only solution is to grant equal rights and this is what is happening
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

So? The individual that denied them service just refused to assist them in their problem. They didn't create any sort of harm for the individual. If you need food and I fail to provide you food I didn't cause you to starve, I just didn't help to avoid you from doing so.

Sure, sure. Just go to the other oral surgeon. Except,
A. what if you live in a town without another oral surgeon?
B. what if these moronic laws have been going on forever and have gotten to the point where no oral surgeon (or, hypothetically, no business at all) serves homosexuals?

Then you haven't killed that person, you've just taken part in a society which favors one person over the other, and allows one person to die while saves the other person's life entirely because of their sexual orientation. That's why we have discrimination laws. It isn't because a gay person gets offended when he can't buy a wedding cake, it's because we endured an era where black people, and women, and homosexuals were systematically denied services freely available to white people, men, and straight people.

Don't make me tell the hospital story again. I have to tell it every time the topic of discrimination comes up because people like you cannot grasp why discrimination is wrong for some reason.

The answer is simple. Go to a different business.

See above. Pre-Brown V The Board of Education: "Go to a different school." Oh, you can't? Because you live in a world where black people aren't allowed to co-exist with white people? Seems fine to me, that's cool with you, right?

Come on (a tiny minority of) people, you really don't get it?

You mean how like one person exercising their right to burn the US Flag pisses off millions of people? So how do you weigh the benefit that this one person receives against the angst and anger felt by millions, or tens of millions, who might witness that event?

To fight for freedom and choice is never taking a step backwards. The fight for human rights is always a step towards the light.

You're not giving people a right, they're demanding that you stop oppressing their inalienable right to free association. Huge difference.

This is a false equation. You can't really construct a right to "not be offended" or a right which imposes an obligation on an unwilling stranger. For you to benefit from a right of non-discrimination you impose an obligation upon me to associate with you. I freaking don't want to associate with you, get it? So, you have to violate my very real right in order to benefit from your imaginary "right." That formulation of rights poses severe problems that we don't see in the other inalienable rights - you can speak freely, and I don't have to listen; you can worship freely, and I'm don't have to participate; you can travel about freely, and I don't have to approve or ride along. When you want to be my friend and I don't want to be your friend, then my right to free association trumps your fabricated right of non-discrimination.

I swear, you liberals and your fabricated definitions. Evil is now defined as defending human rights, defending freedom and defending choice. Terrific.

WHAT?! Absolutely the weakest logic of the bunch. The others completely miss the big picture, but you seem to miss everything. "Getting pissed off" is subjective and free speech is extremely well protected by the constitution, so I don't think we're even remotely close to seeing an America in which it is considered reasonable to make anything that pisses people off illegal. Nevertheless, the major difference is that, with discrimination, we're talking about discriminating. You know, choosing who to serve and who not to serve based on race, gender, or sexual orientation? If your analogy had been about burning a rainbow flag, at least it would make some sense as to what you're getting at. How does burning a flag have anything to do with a person's freedom?

I had an ancestor die after he needed an emergency operation and the hospital refused to treat him because he was Jewish. I won't tell the whole story, but that's what we're talking about here. We aren't talking about people getting angry, we're talking about people's lives. You're talking about people getting offended. I'm talking about people losing their lives due to "protecting freedom." I'm sorry, but you have absolutely no concept of what discrimination does to people. You seem to think it merely offends them when it actually promotes a whole world in which people are born inferior to others simply because of skin color, religion, etc.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

1.) in the eyes of the law its factually impossible

I don't see how this is so. If every obligation and every privileged of marriage is extended to civil unions by law, how is it factually impossible?

2.) this would be stupid and how do you gain the many many court cases establishing precedence?
its been tried to make it equal it cant be done because its been found to not be as binding, and legally concrete since its missing the precedence

If the law is to hold civil unions in the same status as marriages, why do court precedences need to come into it?

3.) pick up a history or law book. At one time blacks could drink out of water fountians just not WHITE water fountains, was that equal? no it was not.
4.) no it would not :shrug:

how about this, what if when obama won or win a woman finally wins they told them, listen. Since your black or a woman we cant call you president of the united states. Theres to much "history" there and "traditions" blah blah blah


we are going to call you CEO of america, you will have the same powers but we just cant call you POTUS. . . . .oh and by the way. . . the next person to win will be called POTUS if they arent a minority or a woman.

Isn't this exactly what the current LBGT marriage push are trying to do except in reverse?

'It doesn't matter what you believe or what you've held as a sacrament. All that is going to be thrown out. The definition of marriage is going to be changed and shoved down your throat, like it or not.'

lol please

sorry the only solution is to grant equal rights and this is what is happening

I see. Better to destroy the concept of traditional marriage. Taking it away from those who believe in it. As a society eject it along with any special meaning it had. Society don't need it anymore. Nor do we need the stabilizing influence traditional marriage gives to society. Nor do we need any sort of traditional religion either, as traditional religion will also surely fall victim to this destruction of the traditional concept of marriage. Society will be forced to forsake the foundations on which it was built.

And we'll be better off?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Sure, sure. Just go to the other oral surgeon. Except,
A. what if you live in a town without another oral surgeon?
B. what if these moronic laws have been going on forever and have gotten to the point where no oral surgeon (or, hypothetically, no business at all) serves homosexuals?

Then you haven't killed that person, you've just taken part in a society which favors one person over the other, and allows one person to die while saves the other person's life entirely because of their sexual orientation. That's why we have discrimination laws. It isn't because a gay person gets offended when he can't buy a wedding cake, it's because we endured an era where black people, and women, and homosexuals were systematically denied services freely available to white people, men, and straight people.

Don't make me tell the hospital story again. I have to tell it every time the topic of discrimination comes up because people like you cannot grasp why discrimination is wrong for some reason.



See above. Pre-Brown V The Board of Education: "Go to a different school." Oh, you can't? Because you live in a world where black people aren't allowed to co-exist with white people? Seems fine to me, that's cool with you, right?

Come on (a tiny minority of) people, you really don't get it?



WHAT?! Absolutely the weakest logic of the bunch. The others completely miss the big picture, but you seem to miss everything. "Getting pissed off" is subjective and free speech is extremely well protected by the constitution, so I don't think we're even remotely close to seeing an America in which it is considered reasonable to make anything that pisses people off illegal. Nevertheless, the major difference is that, with discrimination, we're talking about discriminating. You know, choosing who to serve and who not to serve based on race, gender, or sexual orientation? If your analogy had been about burning a rainbow flag, at least it would make some sense as to what you're getting at. How does burning a flag have anything to do with a person's freedom?

I had an ancestor die after he needed an emergency operation and the hospital refused to treat him because he was Jewish. I won't tell the whole story, but that's what we're talking about here. We aren't talking about people getting angry, we're talking about people's lives. You're talking about people getting offended. I'm talking about people losing their lives due to "protecting freedom." I'm sorry, but you have absolutely no concept of what discrimination does to people. You seem to think it merely offends them when it actually promotes a whole world in which people are born inferior to others simply because of skin color, religion, etc.

Public taxpayer funded schools are cometely different than private owned businesses.

And the first scenario would never happen. Homosexuals would open their own businesses.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Just because you need an oral surgeon, doesnt mean you are entitled to his labor and service. He can serve who he wants. He isnt your slabe just because you need his help.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

1.)I don't see how this is so. If every obligation and every privileged of marriage is extended to civil unions by law, how is it factually impossible?
2.)If the law is to hold civil unions in the same status as marriages, why do court precedences need to come into it?
3.)Isn't this exactly what the current LBGT marriage push are trying to do except in reverse?

'It doesn't matter what you believe or what you've held as a sacrament. All that is going to be thrown out. The definition of marriage is going to be changed and shoved down your throat, like it or not.'

4.)I see. Better to destroy the concept of traditional marriage.
5.) Taking it away from those who believe in it. As a society eject it along with any special meaning it had. Society don't need it anymore.
6.) Nor do we need the stabilizing influence traditional marriage gives to society.
7.) Nor do we need any sort of traditional religion either, as traditional religion will also surely fall victim to this destruction of the traditional concept of marriage.
8.) Society will be forced to forsake the foundations on which it was built.
9.)And we'll be better off?

1.) easy precedence doesnt exist and separate but equal is impossible. this isnt a hard concept at all
2.) wow because along with rights and other laws court precedence is what establishes things in law.

for example court precedence has said 14 times marriage is a right and those cases can be referred to during a court case and used.
if theres no court precedence on civil unions it cant be used

again another very simple concept

also when they tried to make them equal it has already failed in court in certain cases where marriages would have won, why because they are not the same and theres no precedence making them the same.

3.) what?????
good grief how on gods green earth do you possible come to that conclusion? there no logic to even support something so absurd lol

no its not the opposite, equal rights are being established, NOTHING is being forced down ones throat and NOTHING that is a sacrament is changing, these strawman fallacies always fail.

if you disagree by all means PLEASE show me how its FACTUALLY being forced down you throat and what you hold as a sacrament is FACTUALLY being changed?

4.) there is factually nothing being destroyed lol again if you disagree please show how the traditions are factually being destroyed id LOVE to read it

5.) nothing is factually being taken away another failed
6.) allowing equal rights strengthens society
7.) uhm religion has NOTHING to do with legal marriage, you seem severely confused on this topic
nor will religion be destroyed in anyway lol

8.) another thing that wont happen by granting equal rights, there is no force
9.) yes of course we are better of with equal rights in this country. I care about my fellow americans and its a basic principle they have the same rights as me, sorry that bothers you and you dont care about equal rights but they are winning and this is the reality.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Public taxpayer funded schools are cometely different than private owned businesses.

And the first scenario would never happen. Homosexuals would open their own businesses.

Agreed. The market abhors a vacuum, and there'd be businesses that would be more than glad to serve an under served segment of the market. Isn't the question more of degrading the rights of the business owner to chose who he is willing to serves? Forcing him to serve those he does not want to?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

while i agree and its factual that those that support bigotry and who do not support equal rights are losing BUT its no fair or accurate to blanket "the right" with this. Millions of those on the right support equal rights...

You're correct. This forum gives the impression that all conservatives are far right and/or libertarians, which is not true for all conservatives. I forgot that for a moment.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Sure, sure. Just go to the other oral surgeon. Except,
A. what if you live in a town without another oral surgeon?
B. what if these moronic laws have been going on forever and have gotten to the point where no oral surgeon (or, hypothetically, no business at all) serves homosexuals?

Then you haven't killed that person, you've just taken part in a society which favors one person over the other, and allows one person to die while saves the other person's life entirely because of their sexual orientation. That's why we have discrimination laws. It isn't because a gay person gets offended when he can't buy a wedding cake, it's because we endured an era where black people, and women, and homosexuals were systematically denied services freely available to white people, men, and straight people.

I said nothing about finding another oral surgeon. No matter what horror stories you present the fact will remain that not providing someone a service doesn't cause them a harm. It doesn't matter how many people refuse them service, it doesn't matter why they refuse them service, what matters is that they came in needing a service and when they were refused service all that happened is that someone else refused to fill their need. On the other hand, when the government forces people to provide others service they are causing a harm by forcing that person into servitude for another human being.

Don't make me tell the hospital story again. I have to tell it every time the topic of discrimination comes up because people like you cannot grasp why discrimination is wrong for some reason.

I remember the story well and it's a shame what happened to your great grandfather, but he never had a right to any services from other human beings.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

You're correct. This forum gives the impression that all conservatives are far right and/or libertarians, which is not true for all conservatives. I forgot that for a moment.

no biggie i was just pointing that out, sometimes its easy to accidentally make blanket statments, whats important is what one does after they realize it and correcting it shows integrity

also there are many good conservatives here
as for libertarians IMO they arent even close to representative of REAL WORLD libertarians. Now this is just MY experience but the ones i know in real life would laugh at many of the ones here. But again there are good ones here.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Public taxpayer funded schools are cometely different than private owned businesses.

And the first scenario would never happen. Homosexuals would open their own businesses.

I agree with the first point, but it doesn't matter because the purpose of my post wasn't to equate schools with privately owned businesses, but rather to illustrate the consequences of allowing widespread discrimination.

And actually, in the world I'm talking about, the homosexual business would be picketed constantly and anybody who went there would be intimidated into not going there, or would simply be beaten when they left, and the business would quickly close. I guess you'd chalk up such a chain of events as "freedom at work." Beautiful, isn't it?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

I agree with the first point, but it doesn't matter because the purpose of my post wasn't to equate schools with privately owned businesses, but rather to illustrate the consequences of allowing widespread discrimination.

And actually, in the world I'm talking about, the homosexual business would be picketed constantly and anybody who went there would be intimidated into not going there, or would simply be beaten when they left, and the business would quickly close. I guess you'd chalk up such a chain of events as "freedom at work." Beautiful, isn't it?

Now you're just being irrational. There would still be enforcement for violent crimes such as assault.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

How does the rest of your post lead to your last sentence? If I buy a piece of property I have control over the use and access of that property. By doing so I didn't steal the property in question, but bought it from a willing seller for an agreed upon price.

The last sentence is referring to the fact that those with the power to oppress or discriminate against unpopular minorities, did not earn that power, they took it or inherited it thanks to their priveleged status from being part of the majority. That is why, if we are honest, we are really debating the claimed "right" of straight, white Christians to discriminate against unpopular minorities. In the USA those were the people with the ability to oppress and discriminate and now that they have lost some of that power they are calling it a "right" and claiming to be oppressed.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

You mean how like one person exercising their right to burn the US Flag pisses off millions of people? So how do you weigh the benefit that this one person receives against the angst and anger felt by millions, or tens of millions, who might witness that event?.

You can't really construct a right to "not be offended."


I freaking don't want to associate with you, get it?

If you don't want to associate with the public, then don't open a business open to the public. If you open a business open to the public then you are going to have to comply with a wide assortment of laws and regulations such as where you can locate, when you can be open, the type of signs you display, disability access requirements, fire safety, type of products etc. In today's world, it is not your decisions alone that determine what you can do with a public establishment. You want to take away someone's right to be treated the same as the other customers at your lunch counter with the excuse that they can just go somewhere else. Yet that right has been passed into law, both federally and by every state, has passed Supreme Court scrutiny and is strongly supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans. If you don't like it, don't open a business serving the public or go to some other country that doesn't prohibit discrimination. You have the right to leave and go somewhere else, no one is taking away your free choice or rights.
 
Last edited:
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

If you don't to associate with the public, then don't open a business open to the public. If you open a business open to the public then you are going to have to comply with a wide assortment of laws and regulations such as where you can locate, when you can be open, the type of signs you display, disability access requirements, fire safety, type of products etc. In today's world, it is not your decisions alone that determine what you can do. If you don't like it, don't open a business to the public or go to some other country that doesn't prohibit discrimination. You have the right to leave, no one is taking away your free choice.

If you desire to argue the merits of the other laws you listed here than you should start another thread about them, and when you do, you can be rest assured I will join the discussion offering my opinion, but until that point, there is nothing to be said towards those issues.

Regardless, opening a business no matter how you go about doing it doesn't make you a servant of others against your will, and any law that decrees that is the case is a violation of human rights.
 
Last edited:
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

1.) easy precedence doesnt exist and separate but equal is impossible. this isnt a hard concept at all
2.) wow because along with rights and other laws court precedence is what establishes things in law.

for example court precedence has said 14 times marriage is a right and those cases can be referred to during a court case and used.
if theres no court precedence on civil unions it cant be used

again another very simple concept

also when they tried to make them equal it has already failed in court in certain cases where marriages would have won, why because they are not the same and theres no precedence making them the same.

When legislation is passed into law, it doesn't have to be followed or can't be enforced until the court establishes precedent for it first? Does sound right to me.

3.) what?????
good grief how on gods green earth do you possible come to that conclusion? there no logic to even support something so absurd lol

no its not the opposite, equal rights are being established, NOTHING is being forced down ones throat and NOTHING that is a sacrament is changing, these strawman fallacies always fail.

if you disagree by all means PLEASE show me how its FACTUALLY being forced down you throat and what you hold as a sacrament is FACTUALLY being changed?

4.) there is factually nothing being destroyed lol again if you disagree please show how the traditions are factually being destroyed id LOVE to read it

5.) nothing is factually being taken away another failed

6.) allowing equal rights strengthens society
7.) uhm religion has NOTHING to do with legal marriage, you seem severely confused on this topic
nor will religion be destroyed in anyway lol

8.) another thing that wont happen by granting equal rights, there is no force
9.) yes of course we are better of with equal rights in this country. I care about my fellow americans and its a basic principle they have the same rights as me, sorry that bothers you and you dont care about equal rights but they are winning and this is the reality.[/QUOTE]

By calling an LGBT union a marriage, the traditional definition of marriage is being changed. It is being change from the traditional man / woman procreation definition to same sex non-procreation capable definition. Is this not the loss of the traditional definition of marriage?

It's a false equivalency. The two things are not the same thing. Yes, they are similar in that two people commit to each other for a lifetime, well in theory and ideal anyway, but they are not the same thing, given the difference in the ability to procreate.

While I agree that before the law they should be treated exactly the same, the fact of the matter is that they are not the same thing. Civil unions would appear to be one way to allow both to coexist provided that both are treated the same before the law.

The 'separate but equal' argument doesn't apply, should both be treated exactly the same.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Nevertheless, the major difference is that, with discrimination, we're talking about discriminating.

Yeah, discriminating, otherwise known as making a choice. That's what is at the heart of the issue. People are choosing their associations. You object to people exercising choice. You approve of forcing people into associations that they don't want to be a part of.

How does burning a flag have anything to do with a person's freedom?

You haven't followed the free speech issues surrounding flag burning, have you?

I'm sorry, but you have absolutely no concept of what discrimination does to people.

What's your remedy for the Star-Trek nerd who can't get a date because women discriminate against him and drive him to misery and loneliness and despair? There's a harm. Should government now force women to date this man? How about forcing women to sleep with him? You don't seem to have a problem with forcing associations onto people and you don't seem to care much for other people's rights to free association, so here I present you with a harm. Fix that harm.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

If you don't like it, don't open a business serving the public or go to some other country that doesn't prohibit discrimination. You have the right to leave and go somewhere else, no one is taking away your free choice or rights.

You mean like homosexuals who don't like the fact that a state has a law prohibiting them from getting "married" should simply move to some other state?

You mean like homosexuals should have moved out of the US in the pre-Lawrence era when sodomy laws were still legal?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

1.)When legislation is passed into law, it doesn't have to be followed or can't be enforced until the court establishes precedent for it first? Does sound right to me.




2.)By calling an LGBT union a marriage, the traditional definition of marriage is being changed. It is being change from the traditional man / woman procreation definition to same sex non-procreation capable definition.
3.) Is this not the loss of the traditional definition of marriage?
4.)It's a false equivalency. The two things are not the same thing.
5.)Yes, they are similar in that two people commit to each other for a lifetime, well in theory and ideal anyway, but they are not the same thing, given the difference in the ability to procreate.
6.)While I agree that before the law they should be treated exactly the same, the fact of the matter is that they are not the same thing.
7.)Civil unions would appear to be one way to allow both to coexist provided that both are treated the same before the law.
8.)The 'separate but equal' argument doesn't apply
9.) should both be treated exactly the same.

1.) not what was said, but what WAS said if theres not the same precedence in existence its not legally equal but its not equal anyway so it doesn't matter
2.) 100% factually wrong, what ever YOUR subjective meaningless opinion of traditional marriage is, is meaningless and it wont be changed you are free to keep it.
just like mine is meaningless and im free to keep it.
3.) no it is factually not, will you be forced to have a marriage that is not with in your traditions? no you will not, so the strawman that traditional marriage will be destroyed is factually false
4.) you are free to have that subjective opinion but its meaningless
5.) procreation is factually meaningless to legal marriage
6.) no thats not a fact that just your subjective opinion
7.) as it it was already proven it factually wont. ONly granting equal rights will do this and thats whats happening
8.) yes it applies 100% based on the fallacy you suggest
9.) correct they should and this is why equal rights is being established and winning
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Yeah, discriminating, otherwise known as making a choice. That's what is at the heart of the issue. People are choosing their associations. You object to people exercising choice. You approve of forcing people into associations that they don't want to be a part of.

What's your remedy for the Star-Trek nerd who can't get a date because women discriminate against him and drive him to misery and loneliness and despair? There's a harm. Should government now force women to date this man? How about forcing women to sleep with him? You don't seem to have a problem with forcing associations onto people and you don't seem to care much for other people's rights to free association, so here I present you with a harm. Fix that harm.

Incredibly hyperbolic. You know that "Star-Trek nerd" is not a protected class. Furthermore, "nerd" is subjective. To continue, all people are free to discriminate against anyone they choose when it comes to who they engage in romantic relationships with. Business owners are subject to laws.

Restaurants have to pass health inspections, are you opposed to that and when discussing the subject question whether or not those of us in favor of health inspections would have "Star-Trek nerds" forced to pass health inspections (because everybody knows Trekkies never bathe).

Anybody who opens their own business is fully aware that they will have to face a whole host of laws that they may or may not like. Anti-discrimination laws are among these. If you open a business, be ready to serve the GLBT population, the black population, the Jewish population, the Muslim population, and every other subset of American culture. You're welcome to disagree with this, protest it, fight it, do whatever you please, but at least realize that anti-discrimination laws played a huge role in the civil rights movement and made/make life better for millions of Americans. And whose life is worse because of anti-discrimination laws? Please tell me who and why their life is worse and I'll let you know if I can manage to shed a tear.
 
Back
Top Bottom