Tennessee Governor Signs Bill Overturning LGBT Nondiscrimination Ordinance

[QUOTE="Chutebox"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] If a fetus is a human being, where can apply for food programs for my unborn child? I mean, it is a human being right? Where do you get your view that a fetus is a human being?DroidPhysX

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="alexside1"] So you used brutal force to get what you wanted?alexside1

"We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires."

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="Chutebox"] If it is not a human being than what is it, an Ewok?

whipassmt

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="imetamonster"]

To put it simply i dont think this is fighting fire with fire.

Its almost like protection for the LGTB community. If we were to FORCE people to love gays that would be fighting fire with fire.

arbitor365

exactly. the most successful tactic of the civil rights movement was using the supreme court to bend the will of the states and it allows progress to come much faster than if it were simply up to the states (with deeply rooted, bigoted majorities). would people in this thread honestly say that things would have been better if the civil rights movement in the south took decades (more likely, centuries) longer to accomplish what it could with the "brown Vs board of education" case? if so, thats a pretty repugnant and nonsensical stance.

despite what people here say, people can be forced to tolerate other people and over time, that tolerance becomes the norm.

at first, the general consensus in the south was that they didnt want blacks in schools. for the first year, there were protests, riots and all kinds of hell. only a decade or so later, it was widely accepted that blacks could be in public schools. yes, there were still problems within the schools with bullying and there were still senile dissenters who whined about it. still, its not like we needed the national guard to fend off rabid integration protesters anymore. By the time the 80s rolled around, no one questioned if blacks should be integrated and the racism that was deeply rooted before, was now its own minority.

So what does this show? government intervention can work in protecting civil rights in the short term and long term. and it also shows that decades later, not many people cry for the bigoted states that were overridden by higher governmental authorities.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] So can i apply for social security for it?

DroidPhysX

[QUOTE="arbitor365"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] The Supreme Court FORCED the south to integrate... whipassmt

exactly. the most successful tactic of the civil rights movement was using the supreme court to bend the will of the states and it allows progress to come much faster than if it were simply up to the states (with deeply rooted, bigoted majorities). would people in this thread honestly say that things would have been better if the civil rights movement in the south took decades (more likely, centuries) longer to accomplish what it could with the "brown Vs board of education" case? if so, thats a pretty repugnant and nonsensical stance.

despite what people here say, people can be forced to tolerate other people and over time, that tolerance becomes the norm.

at first, the general consensus in the south was that they didnt want blacks in schools. for the first year, there were protests, riots and all kinds of hell. only a decade or so later, it was widely accepted that blacks could be in public schools. yes, there were still problems within the schools with bullying and there were still senile dissenters who whined about it. still, its not like we needed the national guard to fend off rabid integration protesters anymore. By the time the 80s rolled around, no one questioned if blacks should be integrated and the racism that was deeply rooted before, was now its own minority.

So what does this show? government intervention can work in protecting civil rights in the short term and long term. and it also shows that decades later, not many people cry for the bigoted states that were overridden by higher governmental authorities.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] I don't know. Being eligible for social security isn't a requirement for being a human. I'm pretty sure the terrorists in Gitmo aren't collecting social security (but then again knowing Obama they very well might be), but they're still humans aren't they

whipassmt

[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="toast_burner"]Not brutal force. The way things are now is that publishing deliberately offensive material or openly saying racist/homophobic things in public can land you with a prison sentence or a hefty fine. Not exactly brutal or anything.

whipassmt

"We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires."

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="arbitor365"]

exactly. the most successful tactic of the civil rights movement was using the supreme court to bend the will of the states and it allows progress to come much faster than if it were simply up to the states (with deeply rooted, bigoted majorities). would people in this thread honestly say that things would have been better if the civil rights movement in the south took decades (more likely, centuries) longer to accomplish what it could with the "brown Vs board of education" case? if so, thats a pretty repugnant and nonsensical stance.

despite what people here say, people can be forced to tolerate other people and over time, that tolerance becomes the norm.

at first, the general consensus in the south was that they didnt want blacks in schools. for the first year, there were protests, riots and all kinds of hell. only a decade or so later, it was widely accepted that blacks could be in public schools. yes, there were still problems within the schools with bullying and there were still senile dissenters who whined about it. still, its not like we needed the national guard to fend off rabid integration protesters anymore. By the time the 80s rolled around, no one questioned if blacks should be integrated and the racism that was deeply rooted before, was now its own minority.

So what does this show? government intervention can work in protecting civil rights in the short term and long term. and it also shows that decades later, not many people cry for the bigoted states that were overridden by higher governmental authorities.

DroidPhysX

Just because the Church believes homosexual acts are immoral doesn't mean that they just let them die or that they hate them as people. You do realize that you can disagree with someone's actions without hating them as a person, don't you?

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] However many people who believe homosexuality is immoral do so for religious reasons. People have a right to religious freedom. Therefore any government effort to force people to change their religious beliefs is unconstitutional.

whipassmt

Just because the Church believes homosexual acts are immoral doesn't mean that they just let them die or that they hate them as people. You do realize that you can disagree with someone's actions without hating them as a person, don't you?

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] I already explained the misunderstanding. I used human and person interchangeably and you were obviously talking about the literal human being.DroidPhysX

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="alexside1"] You can deem anything thing that these "homophopics" say as hatred. And use the law to silence the minority that you don't approve of. Freedom of speech shouldn't needs people approval.HoolaHoopMan

"We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires."

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] How awkward is that ER going to be when the catholic hospital doesn't treat the gay patient?DroidPhysX

Just because the Church believes homosexual acts are immoral doesn't mean that they just let them die or that they hate them as people. You do realize that you can disagree with someone's actions without hating them as a person, don't you?

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] A person and a human are the same thing. Determining that some humans are persons and some aren't is a very slippery slope.

whipassmt

And who's opinion do we take? Obama's? Yours? Mine?

whipassmt

If you want to look impartial, taking quotes from the Pope on homosexuality is an auto fail. He's the head of an organization that explicity and universally condemns gays.

Opinions aren't created equal, especially when they're built on a foundation of falsehoods like homosexuality being a choice.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] A human being is a species. :? But enough of that argument. A fetus is not a person let alone a baby. Even, once again, the Supreme court acknowledged that.DroidPhysX

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] And a baby is not an adult nor is it a teenager. However both a fetus and a baby are human and all humans are people. The Supreme Court does make mistakes.

whipassmt

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

And who's opinion do we take? Obama's? Yours? Mine?

HoolaHoopMan

If you want to look impartial, taking quotes from the Pope on homosexuality is an auto fail. He's the head of an organization that explicity and universally condemns gays.

Opinions aren't created equal, especially when they're built on a foundation of falsehoods like homosexuality being a choice.

"It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law."

and "The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual" or a "homosexual" and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life."

I'm sorry If I didn't quote from more "unbiased" sources like some gay-rights group or the TC.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] You think this was a mistake? Why? a 7-2 majority confirmed this. It wasnt 5-4 or 6-3. It was clear. And to add insult to injury, the majority were Republican nominated. Saying it was a mistake is more laughable than the Catholic Church submitting an am ecus curio brief to the court on why abortion is wrong during the case. DroidPhysX

And I didn't say Kennedy thinks Roe was a mistake, I said he thinks it went too far (i.e. it should be trimmed down but not totally overturned).

If I own a business I should be able to hire whoever I want for whatever reasons I want. I know people who have hired less qualified minorities in order to avoid potential lawsuits or bad press. That's gone too far, I'm glad my governor signed this so that I have the FREEDOM to hire whomever I want and discriminate against whomever I wish. There's a reason it's called a private business. As long as I pay my taxes and don't engage in illicit activities, the gov't can gtfo of my business practices.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

And who's opinion do we take? Obama's? Yours? Mine?

whipassmt

If you want to look impartial, taking quotes from the Pope on homosexuality is an auto fail. He's the head of an organization that explicity and universally condemns gays.

Opinions aren't created equal, especially when they're built on a foundation of falsehoods like homosexuality being a choice.

"It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law."

and "The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual" or a "homosexual" and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life."

I'm sorry If I didn't quote from more "unbiased" sources like some gay-rights group or the TC.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] 7 folks can make a mistake just as easily as 6 or 5. And much of the current Supreme Court believes it was a mistake including Chief Justice Roberts and justices Alito, Scalia and Thomas, and Kennedy seems to think it went too far.

whipassmt

And I didn't say Kennedy thinks Roe was a mistake, I said he thinks it went too far (i.e. it should be trimmed down but not totally overturned).

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

If you want to look impartial, taking quotes from the Pope on homosexuality is an auto fail. He's the head of an organization that explicity and universally condemns gays.

Opinions aren't created equal, especially when they're built on a foundation of falsehoods like homosexuality being a choice.

HoolaHoopMan

"It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law."

and "The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual" or a "homosexual" and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life."

I'm sorry If I didn't quote from more "unbiased" sources like some gay-rights group or the TC.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]Nope. Justice Kennedy participated in the plurality of 3 justices to uphold Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. He joined Reagan nominated O'Connor and Bush nominated Souter to uphold Roe and go against Rehenquist, Thomas and Scalia. So nope, Roe is going to be upheld. DroidPhysX

And I didn't say Kennedy thinks Roe was a mistake, I said he thinks it went too far (i.e. it should be trimmed down but not totally overturned).

If you had read the letter I linked to you would know that they make the distinction between homosexual inclination (i.e. the attraction) and homosexual acts (i.e. people of the same gender having sexual relations with each other).

whipassmt

Great, so they don't approve of people expressing their feelings for those they love. It's still disgusting. They're telling people they can't be themselves.

Condemnation of the acts are still a condemnation of homosexuality.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] While Planned Parenthood v. Casey did not overturn Wade v. Roe it did trim it down quite a bit and allow states much more room to restrict abortion.

And I didn't say Kennedy thinks Roe was a mistake, I said he thinks it went too far (i.e. it should be trimmed down but not totally overturned).

whipassmt

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

If you had read the letter I linked to you would know that they make the distinction between homosexual inclination (i.e. the attraction) and homosexual acts (i.e. people of the same gender having sexual relations with each other).

HoolaHoopMan

Great, so they don't approve of people expressing their feelings for those they love. It's still disgusting. They're telling people they can't be themselves.

Condemnation of the acts are still a condemnation of homosexuality.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] He doesn't have the luxury of joining he plurality of 3 similarly minded justices. And based in his track record of upholding gay rights, Roe, death penalty and more likely to side with the liberals on social issues, he's not joining the conservatives if a case like this goes up to the courts.DroidPhysX

If I own a business I should be able to hire whoever I want for whatever reasons I want. I know people who have hired less qualified minorities in order to avoid potential lawsuits or bad press. That's gone too far, I'm glad my governor signed this so that I have the FREEDOM to hire whomever I want and discriminate against whomever I wish. There's a reason it's called a private business. As long as I pay my taxes and don't engage in illicit activities, the gov't can gtfo of my business practices.

bachilders

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] But he has voted to allow certain restrictions on abortion (I think even including the federal partial-birth abortion ban).

whipassmt

---DO NOT CLICK----LA NOIRE SPOILER-----DO NOT CLICK[spoiler] The main character dies in LA Noire [/spoiler] james1351

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

If you had read the letter I linked to you would know that they make the distinction between homosexual inclination (i.e. the attraction) and homosexual acts (i.e. people of the same gender having sexual relations with each other).

whipassmt

Great, so they don't approve of people expressing their feelings for those they love. It's still disgusting. They're telling people they can't be themselves.

Condemnation of the acts are still a condemnation of homosexuality.

Wait, so is revealing your sexual orientation part of job interviews these days?

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

Great, so they don't approve of people expressing their feelings for those they love. It's still disgusting. They're telling people they can't be themselves.

Condemnation of the acts are still a condemnation of homosexuality.

HoolaHoopMan

Wait, so is revealing your sexual orientation part of job interviews these days?

J-man45

[QUOTE="J-man45"]

Wait, so is revealing your sexual orientation part of job interviews these days?

whipassmt

That's exactly my point. If they don't want to be discriminated against in the workplace, don't talk about your love life. I'm confused as to how this can become an issue. I wouldn't hire a straight person who wants to talk about such personal matters.

However legalizing gay marriage would negatively affect the Church. For instance in Washington D.C. when gay marriage was legalized the City government tried to force the Church adoption agencies to place kids with gay couples (instead the Church handed over the agency to the city and told them they can pay to support it) and to pay spousal benefits to anyof their gay employees who happened toenter a gay marriage.Massachusetts did the same thing. At least Connecticut exempted the Church from having to acknowledge gay marriage in any way.

whipassmt

If the worst the church has to look forward to is the government helping kids get a loving family.....then I think we'll be ok. I don't think the Church should have the right to dictate where a kid goes based on the parents orientation in the first place, it's just another in a long laundry list of prejudices the church needs to get rid of.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"][QUOTE="J-man45"]Wait, so is revealing your sexual orientation part of job interviews these days?J-man45

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="J-man45"]

Wait, so is revealing your sexual orientation part of job interviews these days?

J-man45

That's exactly my point. If they don't want to be discriminated against in the workplace, don't talk about your love life. I'm confused as to how this can become an issue. I wouldn't hire a straight person who wants to talk about such personal matters.