• 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!

Powerful GOP lobbyist drafts bill to ban gay athletes from playing in the NFL

NIMBY said:
The same idiots that passed an anti-gay bill in Arizona, along with SIX other State's wrong.
Now, three GOP lstate legislators admit it was a mistake, and are begging Gov. Brewer to veto it.
I don't suppose the Super Bowl up for vote in arizona has anything to do with GOP rethinking .
Click to expand...

Well, too late for that stuff. You voted for it and now have to pay the consequences. Hopefully those are electoral consequences and the idiots are voted out and replaced by more normal representatives (even republicans who are not that insane, this is not a pro-democratic or anti-republican thing for me).
 
Henrin said:
No one is entitled to be part of the NFL or any other private organization. If the NFL does or does not want gays in their business that is their right, and if their customers tell them that is what they want, or that is not what they want, then again, the NFL has the right to act accordingly. People just have to stop thinking they are entitled to equal treatment in the private sector and entitled to the service, labor, and association of others.

If you ask me, both those that want to force the NFL to accept gays and this lobbyist group here are in the wrong and they should just let private individuals handle it. In the end, it really doesn't matter if gays are in the NFL or if they aren't, and frankly, it's no ones business but the business of those in the NFL.
Click to expand...

And that is the problem, the NFL is a private organization and people think that private organizations ought to be able to discriminate against gays. That is insane IMHO, private businesses should not be allowed to discriminate against gays. If an athlete is good enough to become an NFL player, he should never be refused on the fact that he is gay. That is discrimination and insane. That would make this the NFL and the US the new promoters of gay segregation. What is next, no gays allowed in restaurants? No gays allowed to work at schools, shops, sports, restaurants, etc. etc.

The US stopped segregation a few decades back and it would be immoral to create a new segregation/a new batch of Jim Crow laws but now for gays. Discrimination is immoral and should be fought tooth and nail, and not promoted by political parties.
 
Peter King said:
That is discrimination and insane.
Click to expand...

You're right, it is insane to discriminate.

When it comes to hiring staff, there are plenty of legal pitfalls employers need to watch out for these days. . .

When she ran the ad past a job centre, she was told she couldn't ask for 'reliable' and 'hard-working' applicants because it could be offensive to unreliable people.​
 
I say he simply be allowed to present this bill to the individuals effected in person, and deal with the...uh...responses.
 
RiverDad said:
You're right, it is insane to discriminate.

When it comes to hiring staff, there are plenty of legal pitfalls employers need to watch out for these days. . .

When she ran the ad past a job centre, she was told she couldn't ask for 'reliable' and 'hard-working' applicants because it could be offensive to unreliable people.​
Click to expand...

Well, that is just stupid. You should not even have to say in an ad that you want reliable or hard working applicants because all applicants should be that way, but you should at least have to say this in an ad. This has nothing to do with actual discrimination. This is a non-issue IMHO because it was not an actual discrimination issue.
 
Washington lobbyist Jack Burkman issued a statement saying that his firm, J M Burkman & Associates, is preparing legislation that would ban gay athletes from playing in the National Football League (NFL).

In a statement, Burkman wrote that “We are losing our decency as a nation. Imagine your son being forced to shower with a gay man. That’s a horrifying prospect for every mom in the country. What in the world has this nation come to?”

...
Click to expand...

I hate to break it to Burkman, but I suspect a large percentage of men have unknowingly showered with men who are gay at at some point in there lives. We seem to have survived the experience unscathed.
 
Top Cat said:
And you are basing your claim on what evidence? Let's try for facts shall we?
Click to expand...

Got a study that will disprove my opinion? AFAIK there is no such study.

Its just common sense
 
Crovax said:
You are the one who joined the discussion with the insults. All I'm asking is why you would insult people for something you don't have the guts to do yourself?
Click to expand...

Can we agree that even if it's true that some other players in the NFL might be "uncomfortable" showering with someone openly gay, that would still be a completely retarded reason to base actual legislation on.
 
Lursa said:
But it seems like a growing trend, albeit small thus far...not just an isolated incident. It goes hand in hand with KS and AZ proposing their own discriminatory laws.
Click to expand...

First off you shouldn't be able to sue someone because of a difference of opinion. Religious rights are in the constitution. they are afforded by the constitution including the practice of those religious rights and government cannot interfere. whether the laws stands on it's own ground or not i don't know.

From what i see the AZ bill reinforces those rights. from what i have seen is that people are turning it into anti-gay or something yet the language of the bill says nothing about it. It simply says you can't sue someone of religious views and shut their business down.

i will leave it up to the courts to decide.

the guy in the OP is a moron. no one is going to touch that proposal. again this isn't the GOP this is a lobbyist. so it is dishonest to say that this is the GOP.
 
NIMBY said:
The same idiots that passed an anti-gay bill in Arizona, along with SIX other State's wrong.
Now, three GOP lstate legislators admit it was a mistake, and are begging Gov. Brewer to veto it.
I don't suppose the Super Bowl up for vote in arizona has anything to do with GOP rethinking .
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could sometimes consider that not every Conservative person thinks alike.
 
Lursa said:
Yes but the Republicans managed to turn off a large number of women voters in the last election for Romney...by few truly substantial threats but lots of stupid **** like 'legitimate rape.'

This is more of the same useless but 'visible' crap.
Click to expand...

Except what exactly is the Republican party supposed to do about this particular one?

The guy names not a single republican congressman or senator whose supporting his bill.

No republican group to my knowledge has came out in support of this.

No right leaning news groups had focused on this story from my quick search last night.

What you have is one idiot coming out and being an idiot...which frankly, sans illegal action privately or facist action through the law, can't really be definitively stopped...and a bunch of primarily left leaning and/or sports sites picking up the story and pushing it.

It's "visible" crap because hyper partisans like Threegoofs and Top Cat grab their marching orders from liberal entities and start screaming to high heaven about the "GOP" due to a lone crazy whose credentials are over inflated by said liberal entity. And, not surprisingly, you of course blame the Republicans for that.
 
rocket88 said:
It's good to see that they don't want to regulate private enterprise. Oh wait,....
Click to expand...

It's good to see that you don't determine the views of a political party based on the statements of one inconsequential lobbyists. Oh wait.....
 
Zyphlin said:
It's "visible" crap because hyper partisans like Threegoofs and Top Cat grab their marching orders from liberal entities and start screaming to high heaven about the "GOP" due to a lone crazy whose credentials are over inflated by said liberal entity. And, not surprisingly, you of course blame the Republicans for that.
Click to expand...

Yet I just pointed to two or three other pieces of legislation in this thread that were similarly anti gay (Indiana gay marriage ban, AZ foofaw, KS hate the gay bill) that have been pushed by the GOP and supported by its base. Theres a boatload of this stuff out there... and its meant to whip up the voter base of evangelicals and poor, underprivileged heterosexual white men.

And somehow I am 'hyperpartisan"? Believe me.... I am considered 'slightly liberal' now, but fifteen years ago, I would have been considered 'slightly conservative'. And I havent changed.
 
Zyphlin said:
It's good to see that you don't determine the views of a political party based on the statements of one inconsequential lobbyists. Oh wait.....
Click to expand...

I didn't. Apparently regulating private enterprise is perfectly fine with this lobbyist.

It's good to see that you read. Oh wait....
 
Seems fitting for the thread:

 
Threegoofs said:
Yet I just pointed to two or three other pieces of legislation in this thread that were similarly anti gay
Click to expand...

Yes, I saw you act like a typical hyper partisan and post your little echo chamber propoganda site for your side that completely misrepresented and exaggerate the situation regarding one of those bills (which is sad considering it was perfectly condemnable without the hyperbole). I also saw Anagram completely dismantle the post, both pointing out what was horribly wrong with your link AND how it wasn't a comparable situation. Of course, you didn't bother to respond to him and just went on your way peddling your standard propoganda...so why exactly should I bother to do the same?

You go ahead and label yourself all you want. Your actions speak louder than any words, such as the ridiculous and laughable attempt to characterize an entire political ideology based on the actions of an inconsequential lobbyist that has no acknowledged support what so ever in congress but whose credentials were puffed up in a liberal leaning publication that you unthinkingly believed like it was gopsel.

This man is not the GOP nor does he represent them...he's one lone idiot without any backing or support. You got called on your bull**** attempt to smear and entire population of people based on your bigotry towards them thanks to this one person and so you're back peddling attempting to justify your BS by throwing anything and everything against the wall and hoping it could stick. Even if what you poster were legitimate arguments, and as pointed out already by others they're not, it still wouldn't change that the attempt to take this one worthless individual and present him as some example of the GOP as an entire entity was completely and utterly retarded and pathetic.
 
rocket88 said:
I didn't. Apparently regulating private enterprise is perfectly fine with this lobbyist.

It's good to see that you read. Oh wait....
Click to expand...

Except you said "they" (you know, all us on the right) not "he".
 
Zyphlin said:
Except what exactly is the Republican party supposed to do about this particular one?

The guy names not a single republican congressman or senator whose supporting his bill.

No republican group to my knowledge has came out in support of this.

No right leaning news groups had focused on this story from my quick search last night.

What you have is one idiot coming out and being an idiot...which frankly, sans illegal action privately or facist action through the law, can't really be definitively stopped...and a bunch of primarily left leaning and/or sports sites picking up the story and pushing it.

It's "visible" crap because hyper partisans like Threegoofs and Top Cat grab their marching orders from liberal entities and start screaming to high heaven about the "GOP" due to a lone crazy whose credentials are over inflated by said liberal entity. And, not surprisingly, you of course blame the Republicans for that.
Click to expand...

It must be very convenient that nobody represents the views of the right, but the views of everybody else can be easily tidied up with the Obamaphone lady.
 
rocket88 said:
I didn't. Apparently regulating private enterprise is perfectly fine with this lobbyist.

It's good to see that you read. Oh wait....
Click to expand...

Actually, it's probably not good for you to see that I read or that I understand grammer.

The post you responded to had two entities it talked about. One plural (The GOP) and one singular (the lobbyist).

Your response spoke about the plural, as you talked about what "They" want not what "He" wants, clearly indicating which subject within the quoted post you were referring to.

I'm sorry that your words gave away your pathetic attempt to hide your clear and purposeful attempt to attack an entire segment of people, but unfortunately yes....people do sometimes actually read what you write and actually respond to what you say.

However, if you're now wanting to claim that you're clarifying and you don't mean that it's the GOP that you were responding to, go right ahead.
 
X Factor said:
Except you said "they" (you know, all us on the right) not "he".
Click to expand...

Well, I assume that he works for some kind of lobbying firm. Usually a firm is more than one person. More than one person = they.

But once again, you and Zyph know what I really meant.:roll:
 
rocket88 said:
Well, I assume that he works for some kind of lobbying firm. Usually a firm is more than one person. More than one person = they.

But once again, you and Zyph know what I really meant.:roll:
Click to expand...

Ok, this is just lame. It's obvious what you meant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom