Donald Trump pledges to sign anti-LGBTQ ‘First Amendment Defence Act’

[Mythos 3,199]

Maybe it would be nice, if some people had to do an IQ-Test before voting, cause some clearly shouldn't, for their own safety!

[DemeLarell 931]

10 hours ago, Seeka said:

WHAT VIEWS? ALL I WANNA DO IS WORK AND GO SHOPPING! DO YOU NOT COMPREHEND?

I am not wanting other men to suck dicks, I don't care about woman scissor, I do not give a sh!t if someone is my ally or not.

I WANT CARROT CAKE. I WANT TO WORK IN ANTIQUE SHOP.

THERE ARE NO VIEWS I AM PUSHING.

I AM NOT PUSHING MY LIFESTYLE, WHICH WOULD CONSIST MORE OF THE J-FASHION LOLITA THAN IT WOULD SUCKING ****.

 

8 hours ago, PaperIz said:

Trying to shop or eat somewhere or even walk in a building isn't shoving anything down anybody's throat though  

Listen to me and listen to me closely because clearly you guys are not comprehending where my stance is. I never said I fully agree with this legislation go back and read and you can see that. I don't believe in being refused service of any kind but I do believe a privately owned company should be able to refuse employment. So the "Trying to shop or eat somewhere or even walk in a building isn't shoving anything down anybody's throat though " and "ALL I WANNA DO IS GO SHOPPING!" isn't an argument because I agree with you on that part. Comprehend that first. 

My OPINION is that I (meaning me, myself, and I) do not want to be a part of an establishment that is intolerant of who I am. Comprehend that now. 

Now on to the "view" part. I do believe in tolerance, I think we can all agree (with the exception of the intolerance towards opinions in this thread) that tolerance is our main goal, BUT the reality is that there are still intolerant homophobic and racist people out there with their own business. We can't force someone to tolerate us, and that's the "view" I am referring to. We all have free will, so if they don't like me I can't change that. Comprehend that. 

Now as for the people who refer to my color and my race history. Yes we fought for tolerance and equality which is why I agreed with you guys on certain aspects. 

Spoiler

So the "Trying to shop or eat somewhere or even walk in a building isn't shoving anything down anybody's throat though " and "ALL I WANNA DO IS GO SHOPPING!" isn't an argument because I agree with you on that part.

In case you don't comprehend. 

But there are some things we did to prove our worth. When they were not casting a lot of black actors we wrote, produced, and directed our own critically acclaimed shows. We made BET and TVOne. I don't agree that we should have these particular TV channels but it was/is vital for us. We also created black owned businesses. We made a way for our selves and started to blend in with the community. And we are not fully there yet but it is a great way to passively push us to equality instead of forcing ourselves into the lives of people who don't care for us. My stance is not as controversial as you guys are making it out to be. Like I said before "Why be a barber when you can own the whole damn barbershop?" Why work for the intolerant when we can build something better?

Hopefully this clears things up and hopefully I don't have to repeat myself again.....

And again I DO NOT SUPPORT TRUMP!

@faysalaaa1 I'm curious to hear your opinion on this.

[KleinGa 18,177]

13 hours ago, DemeLarell said:

I'm gay and I kind of support this. I mean I would modify a few things but yea.....

How can one be so stu.....

 

I've given up. 

[DemeLarell 931]

15 minutes ago, KleinGa said:

How can one be so stu.....

 

I've given up. 

Have you even thought to read my other post? Especially my last one? No need to be rude.

[Seeka 12,372]

57 minutes ago, DemeLarell said:

 

Deme, I am telling you this, so that you comprehend me.

I have talked about, multiple damn times, working for people who are intolerant of homosexual. Some of don't have that option as we live in small towns with dying small business and a major metropolitan area that has a walmart or something that can't turn us away, is more than an hour away.

Also, my being gay, or taking any part in the LGBT community should never effect my chances for employment. I like to keep what happens in my personal life out of the workplace. I'm not going to be having sex in the storeroom or anything. And I'm not effectively sure of how many people have "are you homosexual" on an application, and if they do, people can lie.

Your stance makes little sense. You're denying people employment opportunists based upon their personal lives and some other person's religious values, which they may or may not fully express. Not to mention, some of us do not scream we are homosexual everywhere we go. Some of keep our pride quiet or may not really have pride at all.

Not to mention, it may not be the entire establishment that may be against you, just the owner.

There are millions of ways to attack your stance. It's faulty. I've seen more stable ground after an earthquake.

 

[KleinGa 18,177]

2 minutes ago, DemeLarell said:

Have you even thought to read my other post? Especially my last one? No need to be rude.

yup, I read the other post... still hold my stance. 

(BTW: I don't agree with the others calling you homophobic... etc...). I see your overall point but dont think you quite comprehend what this law means. 

Excuse my rudeness, I don't know you personally so I had no right to attack you like that. My fault. 

[DemeLarell 931]

2 minutes ago, KleinGa said:

yup, I read the other post... still hold my stance. 

(BTW: I don't agree with the others calling you homophobic... etc...). I see your overall point but dont think you quite comprehend what this law means. 

Excuse my rudeness, I don't know you personally so I had no right to attack you like that. My fault. 

1. Your stance is that I'm stupid because I don't agree with you? 

2. If you did read you would see that I don't agree with the actual law. Actually what I am talking about only involves like 1% of that law which people do not comprehend. 

3. It's ok. They can call me whatever. When there is a lack of premise people tend to jump straight to name calling. 

2 minutes ago, Seeka said:

Deme, I am telling you this, so that you comprehend me.

I have talked about, multiple damn times, working for people who are intolerant of homosexual. Some of don't have that option as we live in small towns with dying small business and a major metropolitan area that has a walmart or something that can't turn us away, is more than an hour away.

Also, my being gay, or taking any part in the LGBT community should never effect my chances for employment. I like to keep what happens in my personal life out of the workplace. I'm not going to be having sex in the storeroom or anything. And I'm not effectively sure of how many people have "are you homosexual" on an application, and if they do, people can lie.

Your stance makes little sense. You're denying people employment opportunists based upon their personal lives and some other person's religious values, which they may or may not fully express. Not to mention, some of us do not scream we are homosexual everywhere we go. Some of keep our pride quiet or may not really have pride at all.

Not to mention, it may not be the entire establishment that may be against you, just the owner.

There are millions of ways to attack your stance. It's faulty. I've seen more stable ground after an earthquake.

 

1. And I think your stance makes little sense as well, and there are a million ways to attack yours as well, that's the flaw in having any opinion. And using hypothetical situations as premises is ineffective. 

2. I don't understand your end game here. You act as if I am a politician and I am going to pass this into law. I don't understand why I have to agree with everything people say on here and the one time I disagree with the majority I make "little sense" "I'm homophobic" or whatever else you want to say about me. My stance remains the same. I am talking about me personally. There is a difference between what I feel about me personally and how I feel about society. I literally understand and agree with MOST of what you're saying. And instead of trying to belittle your stance I try to respect it and see it your way. And if you took the time to do the same you can see where I am coming from even if you don't agree. 

3.  Nobody knows I'm gay unless I speak up and say something. I believe in racial, gender, and LGBT equality heavily, but I also believe in the balance of  free will of each individual. 

[Seeka 12,372]

12 minutes ago, DemeLarell said:

1. Your stance is that I'm stupid because I don't agree with you? 

2. If you did read you would see that I don't agree with the actual law. Actually what I am talking about only involves like 1% of that law which people do not comprehend. 

3. It's ok. They can call me whatever. When there is a lack of premise people tend to jump straight to name calling. 

1. And I think your stance makes little sense as well, and there are a million ways to attack yours as well, that's the flaw in having any opinion. And using hypothetical situations as premises is ineffective. 

2. I don't understand your end game here. You act as if I am a politician and I am going to pass this into law. I don't understand why I have to agree with everything people say on here and the one time I disagree with the majority I make "little sense" "I'm homophobic" or whatever else you want to say about me. My stance remains the same. I am talking about me personally. There is a difference between what I feel about me personally and how I feel about society. I literally understand and agree with MOST of what you're saying. And instead of trying to belittle your stance I try to respect it and see it your way. And if you took the time to do the same you can see where I am coming from even if you don't agree. 

3.  Nobody knows I'm gay unless I speak up and say something. I believe in racial, gender, and LGBT equality heavily, but I also believe in the balance of  free will of each individual. 

1. There are few ways to attack my stance, I believe, since it does not impede and stomp on the rights of others, also not to mention, people are becoming less religious and more spiritual these days, and even if people are religious, they don't have a view of the LGBT community that is negative. Also many people who don't like the LGBT community would actually refuse to hire them or service them based upon that, being semi-intelligent creatures.

2. You do make little sense. Plus you're arguing for the passing of this bill, so everyone is against you.

I cannot see anything from your perspective. because you don't seem to really have one. You're not arguing because or religious reasons, your arguing it because you think it's a matter of free will, and personal bias.

But here is the thing, people will hate what they don't understand. I see no point in encouraging it, which you are doing, no matter what you say. Being indifferent is just as bad as doing your worst. So, yes, you are being homophobic since you support the idea of this, and people learning nothing about you.

I can never see from your perspective. I cannot respect your stance, as it is truly aful from where you're standing.

3. Being gay is not free will. I was born like this, and I have went through my trials and tribulations and I have many more ahead of me. And I can tolerate the hatred of a few for monetary purposes. We all need jobs in this world. I see no point in being denied a job. jobs require experience, skill. I see absolutely nothing related to my sexual orientation with a job.

I'm done here. Your stance is one of the worst of I've seen, and is behind the times in this day and age. And it ebbs away at my faith in humanity.

[DemeLarell 931]

4 minutes ago, Seeka said:

1. There are few ways to attack my stance, I believe, since it does not impede and stomp on the rights of others, also not to mention, people are becoming less religious and more spiritual these days, and even if people are religious, they don't have a view of the LGBT community that is negative. Also many people who don't like the LGBT community would actually refuse to hire them or service them based upon that, being semi-intelligent creatures.

2. You do make little sense. Plus you're arguing for the passing of this bill, so everyone is against you.

I cannot see anything from your perspective. because you don't seem to really have one. You're not arguing because or religious reasons, your arguing it because you think it's a matter of free will, and personal bias.

But here is the thing, people will hate what they don't understand. I see no point in encouraging it, which you are doing, no matter what you say. Being indifferent is just as bad as doing your worst. So, yes, you are being homophobic since you support the idea of this, and people learning nothing about you.

I can never see from your perspective. I cannot respect your stance, as it is truly aful from where you're standing.

3. Being gay is not free will. I was born like this, and I have went through my trials and tribulations and I have many more ahead of me. And I can tolerate the hatred of a few for monetary purposes. We all need jobs in this world. I see no point in being denied a job. jobs require experience, skill. I see absolutely nothing related to my sexual orientation with a job.

I'm done here. Your stance is one of the worst of I've seen, and is behind the times in this day and age. And it ebbs away at my faith in humanity.

1. There are many ways I can attack your stance. 

2. This is where comprehension skills come into play because I keep repeating over and over again that I do not agree with the law. I only identified with like 1% of it. I am not arguing for the passing of the bill. I'm referring to me personally. Not you or any one else. I feel like I don't want to be where I'm not wanted... you guys can feel differently. I don't care. This is me personally. Im not trying to impose my views on you guys so I don't need you guys trying to attack me. And if I didn't have a perspective we wouldn't be arguing... you guys are acting like the bigots (a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions) you speak of. And no I am not being homophobic. For christ sakes I'm ****ing gay and I believe in protecting my own and I believe there are better solutions to protect my own. 

And my stance isn't awful. If you just read what I'm saying you can see that but you keep putting words into my mouth that I never said. 

3. Comprehension again. When I said free will I was not referring to being gay. Instead of talking this out you choose to put words in my mouth that I never said. There is nothing awful about my stance. I just identified with literally .000000000000000001% of anything Trump has ever said. I'm really not a bad person. If you want to work there I'm not stopping you, I was referring to myself personally and I don't see how that is a problem what so ever. I'm not trying to get the law passed. I'm not trying to impose my views on you. I am talking about my life personally so what is the problem?

[heavymlover 340]

So he is racist, xenophobe, homophobe and sexist. What's next?

[Yuko 1,010]

1 hour ago, DemeLarell said:

 

Listen to me and listen to me closely because clearly you guys are not comprehending where my stance is. I never said I fully agree with this legislation go back and read and you can see that. I don't believe in being refused service of any kind but I do believe a privately owned company should be able to refuse employment. So the "Trying to shop or eat somewhere or even walk in a building isn't shoving anything down anybody's throat though " and "ALL I WANNA DO IS GO SHOPPING!" isn't an argument because I agree with you on that part. Comprehend that first. 

My OPINION is that I (meaning me, myself, and I) do not want to be a part of an establishment that is intolerant of who I am. Comprehend that now. 

Now on to the "view" part. I do believe in tolerance, I think we can all agree (with the exception of the intolerance towards opinions in this thread) that tolerance is our main goal, BUT the reality is that there are still intolerant homophobic and racist people out there with their own business. We can't force someone to tolerate us, and that's the "view" I am referring to. We all have free will, so if they don't like me I can't change that. Comprehend that. 

Now as for the people who refer to my color and my race history. Yes we fought for tolerance and equality which is why I agreed with you guys on certain aspects. 

  Hide contents

So the "Trying to shop or eat somewhere or even walk in a building isn't shoving anything down anybody's throat though " and "ALL I WANNA DO IS GO SHOPPING!" isn't an argument because I agree with you on that part.

In case you don't comprehend. 

But there are some things we did to prove our worth. When they were not casting a lot of black actors we wrote, produced, and directed our own critically acclaimed shows. We made BET and TVOne. I don't agree that we should have these particular TV channels but it was/is vital for us. We also created black owned businesses. We made a way for our selves and started to blend in with the community. And we are not fully there yet but it is a great way to passively push us to equality instead of forcing ourselves into the lives of people who don't care for us. My stance is not as controversial as you guys are making it out to be. Like I said before "Why be a barber when you can own the whole damn barbershop?" Why work for the intolerant when we can build something better?

Hopefully this clears things up and hopefully I don't have to repeat myself again.....

And again I DO NOT SUPPORT TRUMP!

@faysalaaa1 

Just three of many things I don't understand. It's not that I don't comprehend what you're saying, it's just that I don't understand WHY you believe these particular things, and I'd appreciate some clarification.

1. "I don't believe in being refused service of any kind..."

I agree.

"...but I do believe a privately owned company should be able to refuse employment."

Does this not contradict the first statement? If you don't believe in being refused service of any kind, wouldn't you also not believe in the refusal of service to gay people specifically, for religious reasons? I personally also do not believe anyone should be refused any service, and I make no exceptions on such grounds. Private or public; it doesn't matter because either way it affects the gay community as a whole, negatively. I also don't understand why you don't seem to believe it won't affect the community as a whole.

2. "We can't force someone to tolerate us, and that's the "view" I am referring to. We all have free will, so if they don't like me I can't change that."

You mention that we have the alternative to not have anything to do with these discriminating people (if I "comprehend" it correctly). That we have the free will to do so. And I personally think if it were that easy, it might just be practical. But you also said "this is reality" and reality, as many other members here have mentioned, is that it's not practical for many people to look constantly for alternatives, and it will be harder if discrimination is normalised. Not encouraged or promoted, but normalised (which is actually kind of the same thing).

Of course, that's not the same thing as forcing our views on others. If people want service and the only ones available easily and conveniently are private-owned homophobic ones (which is likely the case for many, many people especially in rural areas), then it's extremely unfair that they should go through extra troubles in their lives to get what straight people get easily and conveniently. All because they're gay.

I will acknowledge that It's easy to misinterpret gay people's desire for equality as an attempt "to shove their opinions down people's throat" and "get people to like them" (quoting you here). This is not the case, as mentioned several times before, because no one here is enforcing gay acceptance. People are saying they would like to be provided service without any mention or notice of their sexual orientation. This law is the one pointing out the sexual orientation of a person (a trait that hurts no one else) and saying they can be discriminated against openly and freely because of it to the point of refusing service (private service, as you mention. But if that were the case, I can imagine public service and society at large following up as well. Just a thought.)

And also, you said we can't force people to tolerate us. And I find it ironic that you mention this because if as you say, private service providers could openly discriminate against gay people, then doesn't that mean gay people are the ones being forced to tolerate intolerance? And in this case, would it not be more logical and meaningful to target that intolerance (the root of all this mess) rather than to beat around the bush with these alternatives?

3. "Why work for the intolerant when we can build something better?"

This mindset and the examples you've provided, I actually understand. (I comprehend it.) The BET and TVOne (among many other wonderful examples) have provided a great platform for the black community. But it's important to acknowledge that all of this has happened after many brave black men and women in the relatively recent past fought hard for equality by the law, which is what we're doing here. It did not completely clean the country of racism, that was always unlikely. But with the establishment of laws against racial discrimination of all kinds, the black community was finally able have a voice, to fight for equality not just by the law but at the social, cultural and political level.

I understand when you say that the gay community must also systematically gain acceptance as the black community did. However I disagree with your solution because I (as well as most others here) do not believe it to be possible or likely that the allowance of discrimination at the grass-roots level (private establishments, as you said) will do any good for the progress of society as a whole. The allowance of one setback will set the dominoes falling. Homophobia will gain leverage and everything in human life that these people deserve to have and have only begun to receive impartially - marriage, service regardless of sexuality, employment regardless of sexuality, etc. etc. will be taken from them.

Yes, it's actually not a fact yet because the future has not arrived. But predictions in these things are not that difficult to make because we have seen similar scenarios play out time and again over the course of history (like the example of the black community you have provided).

Why would we ever take a chance on these risks when we can choose to build on what we already have? We have been and can continue to fight the intolerance directly instead of tolerating it, with more likely positive outcomes. It's the more plausible, safer, more logical and comprehensible option. People here disagree with you strongly because they are afraid of this kind of potentially harmful mindset; these "solutions" you've provided low-key promote intolerance against certain humans and they don't want that, regardless of the intentions behind it. They understand and fear the many problems (an understatement to call these possibilities as problems imo) that will come about as a result.

Finally I would like to say that I appreciate how respectful you have kept much of your posts in this thread regardless of what back-lash you receive. Please understand that these people only lash out at you because your particular sentence, "It's okay to discriminate in privacy" has really triggered them. It's not intolerance of differing opinions. It's anger from your implication that they ought not to feel upset if people discriminate against them openly, in privacy and otherwise. If that is not what you meant to say, please clarify as well.

And I sincerely hope you reconsider your stance in this.

[SpadesToStart 3,808]

16 hours ago, DemeLarell said:

Thank you for your respectful comment. But I was just talking about this subject earlier this week to another black gay person in my life. I personally don't like the idea of forcing myself where I'm not wanted, and I don't understand why anyone would. I don't want to impose on anyone's views or religious beliefs. If they do not like me for my color or sexuality why the hell do I want to force myself to be in that environment. But I only feel that way about private owned businesses and employers. The rest I feel like any human being should be entitled to. 

....... ok

I think that this sets a dangerous precedent.  I don't consider people wanting to deny services to LGBT people as a first amendment right.  It only validates their beliefs, which frankly, are wrong.  I don't care who you are, what culture you are, or what religion you are: believing that another person is sick, sinful, less than human, etc. because of who they love is hate, and not an opinion or stance that deserves legal protection.  Foreign policy, the economy, immigration, that's all up for debate.  Hate and beliefs that discriminate against human beings are not.

[DemeLarell 931]

11 minutes ago, SarahYuko said:

Just three of many things I don't understand. It's not that I don't comprehend what you're saying, it's just that I don't understand WHY you believe these particular things, and I'd appreciate some clarification.

1. "I don't believe in being refused service of any kind..."

I agree.

"...but I do believe a privately owned company should be able to refuse employment."

Does this not contradict the first statement? If you don't believe in being refused service of any kind, wouldn't you also not believe in the refusal of service to gay people specifically, for religious reasons? I personally also do not believe anyone should be refused any service, and I make no exceptions on such grounds. Private or public; it doesn't matter because either way it affects the gay community as a whole, negatively. I also don't understand why you don't seem to believe it won't affect the community as a whole.

2. "We can't force someone to tolerate us, and that's the "view" I am referring to. We all have free will, so if they don't like me I can't change that."

You mention that we have the alternative to not have anything to do with these discriminating people (if I "comprehend" it correctly). That we have the free will to do so. And I personally think if it were that easy, it might just be practical. But you also said "this is reality" and reality, as many other members here have mentioned, is that it's not practical for many people to look constantly for alternatives, and it will be harder if discrimination is normalised. Not encouraged or promoted, but normalised (which is actually kind of the same thing).

Of course, that's not the same thing as forcing our views on others. If people want service and the only ones available easily and conveniently are private-owned homophobic ones (which is likely the case for many, many people especially in rural areas), then it's extremely unfair that they should go through extra troubles in their lives to get what straight people get easily and conveniently. All because they're gay.

I will acknowledge that It's easy to misinterpret gay people's desire for equality as an attempt "to shove their opinions down people's throat" and "get people to like them" (quoting you here). This is not the case, as mentioned several times before, because no one here is enforcing gay acceptance. People are saying they would like to be provided service without any mention or notice of their sexual orientation. This law is the one pointing out the sexual orientation of a person (a trait that hurts no one else) and saying they can be discriminated against openly and freely because of it to the point of refusing service (private service, as you mention. But if that were the case, I can imagine public service and society at large following up as well. Just a thought.)

And also, you said we can't force people to tolerate us. And I find it ironic that you mention this because if as you say, private service providers could openly discriminate against gay people, then doesn't that mean gay people are the ones being forced to tolerate intolerance? And in this case, would it not be more logical and meaningful to target that intolerance (the root of all this mess) rather than to beat around the bush with these alternatives?

3. "Why work for the intolerant when we can build something better?"

This mindset and the examples you've provided, I actually understand. (I comprehend it.) The BET and TVOne (among many other wonderful examples) have provided a great platform for the black community. But it's important to acknowledge that all of this has happened after many brave black men and women in the relatively recent past fought hard for equality by the law, which is what we're doing here. It did not completely clean the country of racism, that was always unlikely. But with the establishment of laws against racial discrimination of all kinds, the black community was finally able have a voice, to fight for equality not just by the law but at the social, cultural and political level.

I understand when you say that the gay community must also systematically gain acceptance as the black community did. However I disagree with your solution because I (as well as most others here) do not believe it to be possible or likely that the allowance of discrimination at the grass-roots level (private establishments, as you said) will do any good for the progress of society as a whole. The allowance of one setback will set the dominoes falling. Homophobia will gain leverage and everything in human life that these people deserve to have and have only begun to receive impartially - marriage, service regardless of sexuality, employment regardless of sexuality, etc. etc. will be taken from them.

Yes, it's actually not a fact yet because the future has not arrived. But predictions in these things are not that difficult to make because we have seen similar scenarios play out time and again over the course of history (like the example of the black community you have provided).

Why would we ever take a chance on these risks when we can choose to build on what we already have? We have been and can continue to fight the intolerance directly instead of tolerating it, with more likely positive outcomes. It's the more plausible, safer, more logical and comprehensible option. People here disagree with you strongly because they are afraid of this kind of potentially harmful mindset; these "solutions" you've provided low-key promote intolerance against certain humans and they don't want that, regardless of the intentions behind it. They understand and fear the many problems (an understatement to call these possibilities as problems imo) that will come about as a result.

Finally I would like to say that I appreciate how respectful you have kept much of your posts in this thread regardless of what back-lash you receive. Please understand that these people only lash out at you because your particular sentence, "It's okay to discriminate in privacy" has really triggered them. It's not intolerance of differing opinions. It's anger from your implication that they ought not to feel upset if people discriminate against them openly, in privacy and otherwise. If that is not what you meant to say, please clarify as well.

And I sincerely hope you reconsider your stance in this.

Thank you. But just read my last post. My stance will not change and I will get my own system to equality. I will say that this is me personally. I don't agree with the actual  law and I'm not trying to impose my view on you guys. I was just sharing my own. 

1. It doesn't contradict it's  and if you want an explanation  just let me know. People  don't  read so I'm not elaborating unless asked to. 

2. If black people thought alternatives weren't practical we would still be the nation we were 50 years ago. 

3. No offense to you or the rest of the people  on here but I'm not going to repeat my self again. If you need clarification on anything just ask me.

[DemeLarell 931]

7 minutes ago, SpadesToStart said:

I think that this sets a dangerous precedent.  I don't consider people wanting to deny services to LGBT people as a first amendment right.  It only validates their beliefs, which frankly, are wrong.  I don't care who you are, what culture you are, or what religion you are: believing that another person is sick, sinful, less than human, etc. because of who they love is hate, and not an opinion or stance that deserves legal protection.  Foreign policy, the economy, immigration, that's all up for debate.  Hate and beliefs that discriminate against human beings are not.

Once again that's not what I'm  saying. Read my other  posts 

[gagu 1,928]

4 hours ago, DemeLarell said:

So the "Trying to shop or eat somewhere or even walk in a building isn't shoving anything down anybody's throat though " and "ALL I WANNA DO IS GO SHOPPING!" isn't an argument because I agree with you on that part. 

ok

1 hour ago, DemeLarell said:

I don't agree with the actual  law

So which part do you agree with? the part in which it's ok to give those companies the right to discriminate us? 

2 hours ago, DemeLarell said:

I'm referring to me personally. Not you or any one else. I feel like I don't want to be where I'm not wanted.

Ok, I don't want to be in those places too, but there's people who aren't lucky as you are, they just can't avoid the problem. You should think about the community not just yourself (or is this the point? I hope not) 

 

4 hours ago, DemeLarell said:

the reality is that there are still intolerant homophobic and racist people out there with their own business. We can't force someone to tolerate us, and that's the "view" I am referring to. We all have free will, so if they don't like me I can't change that.

Probably we can't force anyone to "tolerate us" (i don't know about you, but talking about tolerance offends me, there's nothing to tolerate, we're human beings for faq safe, I'd rather talk about acknowledging the differences) but I strongly believe things are going to get better and better, we shouldn't stop fighting just now, after all the progress black, lgbt people and all the minorities have done. Don't you think legalizing discrimination is going to get things worse? 

And I've read all you've said, but you didn't respond to this:  

 

1 hour ago, SarahYuko said:

I personally also do not believe anyone should be refused any service, and I make no exceptions on such grounds. Private or public; it doesn't matter because either way it affects the gay community as a whole, negatively. I also don't understand why you don't seem to believe it won't affect the community as a whole.

Now you can't just say "yes you're right, in fact i don't agree with the actual law" and keep supporting even 1% of this law, because THIS IS what the law is about..