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

[mmm 879]

6 hours 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. 

  Reveal hidden 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 I'm curious to hear your opinion on this.

Well I agree with everything you said I dont know what to add.. I think you made your point clear but they are incapable of understanding for some reason. Many people on this thread commented and sent me a privet message calling me a racist!

I believe that life and nature is moral and if we live our lives based on morality and natural laws, our lives will adapt to that but they believe that humans and this world is evil and immoral so they want government to protect us yet they dont realize that government is not a godly entity, government is made by human being! we need to stop what is wrong and immoral regardless of its consequences just like how we ended slavery. Many people back in the day said slavery is human nature and it has always existed and if we ended slavery, who will pick up our cottons and farms? but they ended slavery regardless of its consequences and life adapted to our new moral way of life and machines came in only 5% of Americans work in farming. If you would say that to people back in the day they would think you are crazy and not believe you.

I also believe in individual rights while they believe in collectivism. They like to demand from the government and create laws as they see government is responsible for our lives but that will lead to corruption and failed systems. I believe more in social pressure and people to suffer from their consequences naturally without using force aslong as they are not hurting anyone. If you use force, they will blame the government and turn more radical but if it comes naturally from social pressure, they will be forced to adapt by their choice because its in their own interest to do so.

Sorry not sure in im rambling or its what you asked me..

[mmm 879]

3 hours 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.

"People should have the right to discriminate in their own privet property or business.. this does not mean I do not see it as a horrible and bad thing but they should have that right. You might say that this will create a country that discriminates against black or women but in reality it wont. If you want to discriminate against blacks as a hospital, you will have to put a sign on the door that says "No Blacks Allowed" and by doing this, they will lose all blacks, 90% of people if not more wont go to that hospital, the media will attack it and the owner will lose everything. This is also good as you will know who is racist and who is not unlike now where alot of people are racist but instead of showing it to you, they will ruin your life and career without you knowing."

And please dont reply with a long comment, you can easily make these points without writing all that.

[Goosey 3,017]

9 hours ago, gagu said:

Ok so what do you think? Is it right or what?

No, it's not 

[gagu 1,928]

10 minutes ago, Goosey said:

No, it's not 

Ok so you don't support this law?

Edit, I want to clarify that I'm just trying to understand your point of view, no shade/attacking 

Spoiler

now i'm going to bed cause it's 1.30am here 

 

[Goosey 3,017]

37 minutes ago, gagu said:

Ok so you don't support this law?

No 

[DemeLarell 931]

5 hours ago, gagu said:

ok

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

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) 

 

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:  

 

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..

1. Doesn't matter at this point what I agree with because you guys really are not trying to understand. You just want to argue. My comment was a side note that stemmed from the topic that was at hand. Screw the law. I was talking about me. 

2. Think about the community? Are you reading what I'm saying.... look at my last few comments.... I'm not repeating myself. If you have specific questions that I did not cover I am glad to answer them and it is possible to look at a policy and only agree with a small portion of it. 

3. Tolerate- allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

[DemeLarell 931]

4 hours ago, faysalaaa1 said:

Well I agree with everything you said I dont know what to add.. I think you made your point clear but they are incapable of understanding for some reason. Many people on this thread commented and sent me a privet message calling me a racist!

I believe that life and nature is moral and if we live our lives based on morality and natural laws, our lives will adapt to that but they believe that humans and this world is evil and immoral so they want government to protect us yet they dont realize that government is not a godly entity, government is made by human being! we need to stop what is wrong and immoral regardless of its consequences just like how we ended slavery. Many people back in the day said slavery is human nature and it has always existed and if we ended slavery, who will pick up our cottons and farms? but they ended slavery regardless of its consequences and life adapted to our new moral way of life and machines came in only 5% of Americans work in farming. If you would say that to people back in the day they would think you are crazy and not believe you.

I also believe in individual rights while they believe in collectivism. They like to demand from the government and create laws as they see government is responsible for our lives but that will lead to corruption and failed systems. I believe more in social pressure and people to suffer from their consequences naturally without using force aslong as they are not hurting anyone. If you use force, they will blame the government and turn more radical but if it comes naturally from social pressure, they will be forced to adapt by their choice because its in their own interest to do so.

Sorry not sure in im rambling or its what you asked me..

I actually love this philosophy. In my life nothing was ever given to me. I worked for it. I never forced myself upon people. The people who loves me just gravitate towards me. So I guess that's the basis of my philosophy. And people clearly do not understand the fact that I actually don't agree with the law, I was just explaining my thought process.... I can't deal. 

[Yuko 1,010]

5 hours ago, gagu said:

ok

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

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) 

 

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:  

 

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..

I know. I never said I only support part of the law. I am against the law as a whole, and I am against the mindset that formulated that law. "

Edit: never mind. You're right, he didn't respond to that.

[Yuko 1,010]

5 hours ago, faysalaaa1 said:

"People should have the right to discriminate in their own privet property or business.. this does not mean I do not see it as a horrible and bad thing but they should have that right. You might say that this will create a country that discriminates against black or women but in reality it wont. If you want to discriminate against blacks as a hospital, you will have to put a sign on the door that says "No Blacks Allowed" and by doing this, they will lose all blacks, 90% of people if not more wont go to that hospital, the media will attack it and the owner will lose everything. This is also good as you will know who is racist and who is not unlike now where alot of people are racist but instead of showing it to you, they will ruin your life and career without you knowing."

And please dont reply with a long comment, you can easily make these points without writing all that.

I typed a lot because I didn't want short replies to be taken out of context. I made it as detailed and comprehensible as I could to clarify my point. Didn't this whole argument come from a few short misunderstood comments in the first place?

I still disagree (and ofc still have a lot to say) but if you don't want to read much, that's all I will say. You and @DemeLarell claim you agree with only 1% of the proposed law referred to by this thread. I hope it doesn't become a reality, at least for the 99% that you disagree with. And if what you said is only 1% of this law, I don't want to know what the remaining 99% intends to do, especially other than what it claims. I think this only goes to prove how intolerant Trump is, and I hope for the sake of America and its influence on other countries, he doesn't get elected.

[mmm 879]

4 minutes ago, SarahYuko said:

I typed a lot because I didn't want short replies to be taken out of context. I made it as detailed and comprehensible as I could to clarify my point. Didn't this whole argument come from a few short misunderstood comments in the first place?

I still disagree (and ofc still have a lot to say) but if you don't want to read much, that's all I will say. You and @DemeLarell claim you agree with only 1% of the proposed law referred to by this thread. I hope it doesn't become a reality, at least for the 99% that you disagree with. And if what you said is only 1% of this law, I don't want to know what the remaining 99% intends to do, especially other than what it claims. I think this only goes to prove how intolerant Trump is, and I hope for the sake of America and its influence on other countries, he doesn't get elected.

I do not even know what the law is about and never talked about the law itself.. I was having an argument about Trump and then sow a comment about discrimination and replied to it. I know you disagree as the majority of human beings do not respect personal rights yet.

[DemeLarell 931]

47 minutes ago, SarahYuko said:

I typed a lot because I didn't want short replies to be taken out of context. I made it as detailed and comprehensible as I could to clarify my point. Didn't this whole argument come from a few short misunderstood comments in the first place?

I still disagree (and ofc still have a lot to say) but if you don't want to read much, that's all I will say. You and @DemeLarell claim you agree with only 1% of the proposed law referred to by this thread. I hope it doesn't become a reality, at least for the 99% that you disagree with. And if what you said is only 1% of this law, I don't want to know what the remaining 99% intends to do, especially other than what it claims. I think this only goes to prove how intolerant Trump is, and I hope for the sake of America and its influence on other countries, he doesn't get elected.

Let's stop mentioning me please. Yes it did start with misunderstandings and ended with ignorant premises (except for you because you seem to know what you are talking about). I don't care anymore because I was sharing a personal thought that  does not and will not ever effect anyone but myself. 

And I tried to refrain from name calling but the ignorance is annoying the **** out of me. 

[ctherainbow 3,162]

On 9/27/2016 at 10:30 PM, Robotic Energy said:

And yet some gay republicans still exist...

Donald Trump is not even a Republican.  He hijacked the primary to get on the general election ballot.   

[gagu 1,928]

So, to sum up, It all started with this statement 

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

which can mean a lot, it's really different from expressing a personal thought related to this law, so there you explained why this made people trigger (I don't think it's ignorance tbh). So I take this sentence as misconceived, it was actually just a way to express a personal thought, that is "I don't want to be in places where I'm not tolerated". 

Case solved 

 

[GrigioGirl 141]

Donald Trump can croak now tbh

[Brian Ryan 1,468]

He's a republican? Is anyone suppose to be surprised?