• 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!

House passes sweeping anti-discrimination bill to expand protections of LGBT people

Ill ask you AGAIN, so sex was never included

It was included in the state laws Ive mentioned 3 times now. Never in the Federal


It was tried by the the states who enacted laws that included sex in their public acomodation laws Ive mentioned 4 times now.

in anything like this

The state laws enacted by states that included sex in the public accomodation laws, that Ive mentioned 5 times are "like this"

or talk about before now?

I would presume thay talked about it before enacting the laws, which would be "before now".. Any other stupid questions that you wont be able to comprehend the answers to?
 
1.) It was included in the state laws Ive mentioned 3 times now. Never in the Federal
2.) It was tried by the the states who enacted laws that included sex in their public acomodation laws Ive mentioned 4 times now.
3.) The state laws enacted by states that included sex in the public accomodation laws, that Ive mentioned 5 times are "like this"
4.) I would presume thay talked about it before enacting the laws, which would be "before now"..
5.) Any other stupid questions that you wont be able to comprehend the answers to?

1.) saw it 100 times didnt ask about state laws so the stupid strawman will continue to fail and make me laugh
2.) see #1
3.) see #1
4.) oh so why would it be IRONY then?
5.) well the next would be the first since facts once again just bitch slapped your posts/claims and made up strawman about the state. Man owning your posts is so easy. Wow, any other mistakes of yours youd like me to correct let me know.


oh yeah sine you FINALLY answered dont forget to explain why your claim or irony makes sense, thanks1
 
Good!!! Like I said, the law cannot supercede the Constitution. The Catholic school is protected as it is a part of the Diocese of the Catholic Church. Whether you think it is right to fire him has no bearing on the case. You don't have the right to go over the heads of the Constitution. Period! But, the Democrat Party now has turned into a terrorist organization committing treason against the Constitution. I think Trump should designate the Democrat Party as a terrorist group that it is and lock all of them up!

It's not decided that the state would have supported the Church here.

However I am on the fence here and probably agree with the law, even if I dont like it.
 
Your outrage and opinions are not representative of reality or the issues. If its nice where you are at, have a drink, sit outside for while.

Where are your threads supporting the rights of the rest of us?
 
Yeah, with all our problems that for sure is at the top of our list(LOL)
 
1.) saw it 100 times didnt ask about state laws so the stupid strawman will continue to fail and make me laugh

You asked about laws "like this" that include sex. State laws are the ONLY other laws "like this". You are a joke. Get an argument if you can.
 
They already had laws for this.

Nobody whines or needs more constant attention and consoling than the LGBTQ "community."
 
They already had laws for this.

Nobody whines or needs more constant attention and consoling than the LGBTQ "community."

Really, what law prevents someone that is gay from being fired from a job simply because they are gay?
 
Where are your threads supporting the rights of the rest of us?

who are "the rest of us"?
this is a thread about ALL of our rights . . but if you cant see that fact that explains A LOT and is very telling of your issues.

let me guess do you also view equal rights for race just about blacks or minorities? equal rights for gender just about woman? etc etc if yes you are VERY confused and factually uneducated about these topics . . .if no please explain how this one is magically different . . whatever you come up with will be factually wrong
 
1.)You asked about laws "like this" that include sex.
2.) State laws are the ONLY other laws "like this".
3.) You are a joke.
4.) Get an argument if you can.
hey look ANOTHER dodge and more running away

1.) nope factually NOT what I asked. your false claims fail again
3.) personal attacks further expose your inability to support your failed claims and its hilarious
4.) sweet irony . . i dont need one when i have facts

here we are in the same spot still waiting for you to explain the irony . . i bet you dodge this again
 
who are "the rest of us"?
this is a thread about ALL of our rights . . but if you cant see that fact that explains A LOT and is very telling of your issues.

let me guess do you also view equal rights for race just about blacks or minorities? equal rights for gender just about woman? etc etc if yes you are VERY confused and factually uneducated about these topics . . .if no please explain how this one is magically different . . whatever you come up with will be factually wrong

No, it's about LGBTQS people. That's NOT all people. And what I've seen for the past decade is this constant bashing of civil rights, except if you're LGBTQS; because those rights clearly are the only ones that matter..........but especially to you. Where are you in the 2nd Amend forum? How about the 1st Amendment. I just don't see you there. I get that these are you pet people. Sure on your other questions, same thing. I'm not uneducated, and I and many of my educated friends are just calling it the way we see it. Try showing some balance. The rest of us don't even need to mention your pet peoples because you're there to cover it every minute. You seem strangely Left for an Independent.
 
1.)No, it's about LGBTQS people. That's NOT all people.
2.) And what I've seen for the past decade is this constant bashing of civil rights, except if you're LGBTQS; because those rights clearly are the only ones that matter..........but especially to you.
3.) Where are you in the 2nd Amend forum?
4.) How about the 1st Amendment. I just don't see you there.
5.) I get that these are you pet people. Sure on your other questions, same thing.
6.) I'm not uneducated, and I and many of my educated friends are just calling it the way we see it.
7.) Try showing some balance.
8.) The rest of us don't even need to mention your pet peoples because you're there to cover it every minute.
9.) You seem strangely Left for an Independent.

1.) see thank you for proving how factually uneducated you are on this topic. Nope its about all of us and you and me and the fact will never change based on your lack of understanding or inaccurate feelings. We all have a sexual orientation and gender identity. Just like we all have a race, religion (or lack of one) etc
2.) You have already proven what you "THINK" you see and what you "FEEL" you see isnt accurate nor does it matter to reality and facts. Theres been no actual bashing of civil rights in regard to this matter and if you have a REAL example i would condemn it along with everybody else that supports rights
3.) law and order and guns are in my top 10 posting areas thanks for again proving yourself wrong and i dont discuss guns that much cause im not that worried. my rights are already established. I open carry in my state and i have a concealed carry licenses also. When a issue comes up that is trying to infringe on that i speak up.
4.) wrong again, wow this is awesome how bad you are completely owning yourself . .
5.) and another factually wrong assumptiop...wow "pet people" look at that bigotry on display
6.) correct on this topic and the topic of rights you are not educated and you have already proved that fact. I agree you are calling it as YOU see it and its factually wrong. Reality and facts see it differently.
7.) im more balanced that a poster like you will EVER because i use facts and real rights and laws and not emotion and bigotry and topical ignorance
8.) more bigotry and again who is "us"
9.) again im sure i do coming from a poster with views like yours . . its actually refreshing that you see it that way because it confirms everything i already said

wow, now that ass whopping of your post is over and you proved you have no understanding of this topic ill ask my questions you wussed out from and ran from AGAIN

A.) who are "the rest of us"?
this is a thread about ALL of our rights . . but if you cant see that fact that explains A LOT and is very telling of your issues.

B.) let me guess do you also view equal rights for race just about blacks or minorities? equal rights for gender just about woman? etc etc if yes you are VERY confused and factually uneducated about these topics . . .if no please explain how this one is magically different . . whatever you come up with will be factually wrong

try not to melt down and dodge this time and answer, thanks!
 
So long as the QMXO get left out acts like this will be little more than political theater.

It's time to move toward a civil rights bill that protects all the letters. There are 26 of them after all...
 
They already had laws for this.

Nobody whines or needs more constant attention and consoling than the LGBTQ "community."

I sometimes find, in this age of the glorious social justice warriors in desperate need of recognition of their virtuous, virtue signaling, that those outside of the particuliar community in need of justice, can be the ones who whine the loudest. In the case of the transgendered, it is the cisgendered, heterosexuals leading the charge.
 
Ill ask you AGAIN, so sex was never included or tried in anything like this or talk about before now? its JUST because of transgender . .

You asked about laws "like this" that include sex. State laws are the ONLY other laws "like this". You are a joke. Get an argument if you can.


hey look ANOTHER dodge and more running away

1.) nope factually NOT what I asked. your false claims fail again

The forum records what you asked.
 
The forum records what you asked.
another dodge!!!

i know and thats why facts prove you wrong . . now where did i mention the state, thanks for proving it. If you disagree simply quote me saying state .. you cant
Wow another failed post by you

here we are in the same spot still waiting for you to explain the irony . . i bet you dodge this again
 
How often do homosexuals and transgenders get attacked here in this country? I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't heard much on that front, very little to none. I can't even remember when the last attack on either group has happened, let alone reported in the media. Otherwise, if there was mass attacks against homosexuals ('gay' is the incorrect word) and transgenders in the US today, there would be wall to wall coverage of it. If you go to the Middle East and other places like it, attacks on those groups happens, at least, on a monthly basis. Either they get raped, assaulted, limbs chopped off, thrown off buildings, set on fire, shot, stoned, decapitated, or something of the sort. It's just never reported by the media. If there should be a law to protect homosexuals, transgenders, and other minority groups, it should be in those areas where there's actual discrimination. Here in the US, it's unnecessary because our constitution protects ALL citizens regardless of gender, skin color, and sexual orientation. I certainly don't want to see nor wish harm come to them, nor anyone. Especially unborn and born babies.

Which reminds me, why didn't the Democrats get on board with a bill that would save babies who survived abortions? Why doesn't Left get behind that. The mother would be taken care of but what about the baby? Sounds like discrimination against infants, to me, so if you care about everyone's lives, why kill babies? I'd rather see a law passed to protect the babies who survived botched abortions first than a group of people who already has several laws that already protect them from discrimination, mainly because it's unnecessary. The fact that unborn and born babies seem to have no rights. You would think they would, but according to the Left, babies are not human. Funny, because Hitler thought that Jews weren't humans and saw them as parasites, too (that included Jews that were babies), but it's universally accepted that he was an evil man (rightfully so). Why can't we say the people who brag about their abortions and those who advocate for others to have abortions (but not do it themselves) are evil?

61 million babies, in the US alone, were aborted since Roe v Wade. Worldwide, since 1980, 1.5 billion babies have been aborted. This would have been a wet dream of Hitler's because 6 million Jews were killed during the Holocaust (which is still bad but dwarfs in comparison to abortion numbers). This is a psychotic mass murderer's wet dream. Infanticide is real, while a homosexual and transgender genocide, although many have been killed worldwide, is non-existent. Who needs is much more deserving of a law that specifically protects them: babies or the homosexual/transgender crowd (who already have laws that protect them)? Again, I want no harm to come to homosexuals and transgenders, but it should be pretty apparent who needs the protection more.
 
How often do homosexuals and transgenders get attacked here in this country? I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't heard much on that front, very little to none. I can't even remember when the last attack on either group has happened, let alone reported in the media. Otherwise, if there was mass attacks against homosexuals ('gay' is the incorrect word) and transgenders in the US today, there would be wall to wall coverage of it.If there should be a law to protect homosexuals, transgenders, and other minority groups, it should be in those areas where there's actual discrimination. Here in the US, it's unnecessary because our constitution protects ALL citizens regardless of gender, skin color, and sexual orientation. I certainly don't want to see nor wish harm come to them, nor anyone.

Well you just proved you are not from the US so your cover is blown because everythign you said is factually wrong or simply isnt true and accurate.

As for the rest of your posts
we have a middle east forum here:
https://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/

and we have an abortion forum here:
https://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/

you're welcome
 
another dodge!!!

i know and thats why facts prove you wrong . . now where did i mention the state, thanks for proving it. If you disagree simply quote me saying state .. you cant
Wow another failed post by you

here we are in the same spot still waiting for you to explain the irony . . i bet you dodge this again

Wow, aren't you just a walking stereotype.
 
How often do homosexuals and transgenders get attacked here in this country? I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't heard much on that front, very little to none..

Jesse Smollett
 
Wow, aren't you just a walking stereotype.

wow so much butthurt, another poster upset over facts, I LOVE IT!

Feel free to prove anything i said in that post wrong, thanks!
 
You should have answered his simple question you chose to quote and responded to, and then spew the above

No need because it was rhetorical and he answered it himself. :shrug:
let me know if theres any other mistakes you need help with, you're welcome.
 
How often do homosexuals and transgenders get attacked here in this country? I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't heard much on that front, very little to none. I can't even remember when the last attack on either group has happened, let alone reported in the media.

So google it rather than asking uninformed rhetorical questions. Local papers are filled with them.

attacks on LGBT in the US - Google Search

Now back on topic, anyone know is it likely to pass in the senate?
 
Back
Top Bottom