Donald Trump Pledges To Sign Anti-LGBT Law To Permit Religious Discrimination - Polidicks

It even applies to discrimination against Christians as well, because a Pentacostal believes a Universalist is an agent of the devil, and is thus unworthy of God's love or Consideration. A sizable percentage of the sects of Christianity believe the other ones are going to Hell. If Donald Trump get elected, I propose a new Statue of Liberty: Her, stripped naked, with a chain running from her ankle to the mainland. The Plaque beneath should read "Give us your Useful and your Beautiful. Your Christian and your White. Keep your Poor and Sick Away; they are not wanted here. The Weary can find homes on other, lesser shores."

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51096810]If the churches already have this right I am confused as to what the implications of the bill are.[/QUOTE] You can be denied employment, denied service at an establishment, and more, just because you are gay. Hell, in States like Missouri companies are allowed to fire you for whatever reason they want, and many companies will fire you if they find out you are gay

[QUOTE=beanhead;51097288]Your wedding cake is not a human right.[/QUOTE] equal employment and service should be a human right. Everyone should be equal because we are all human, no matter whether someone sticks their dick in a gash or ass.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51095728]"But Trump isn't Anti-LGBT guys!!" [editline]23rd September 2016[/editline] Why the fuck do people think that religious freedoms should be more important then human rights?[/QUOTE] Why the fuck do people think this is a violation of religious freedoms to begin with? Gay people getting married doesn't prevent you from having whatever religious beliefs you choose. Remember that religious freedom is not just freedom FOR religion, but freedom FROM religion -- nobody can force other people to live by any religious mandate, nor discriminate against them for not sharing the same religious beliefs. Thus, an employer firing somebody because they are gay, and the employer's church tells him gay people are evil sinners, is in direct violation of their constitutional guarantees of religious freedom. These so-called "religious freedom" bills the GOP keeps hacking out are all so fucking hypocritical it hurts.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51097646]Hey, I'm sorry to go off on a tangent, but is screencapping and reposting the contents of PMs allowed as per the rules? It's something I'm not sure about. Let's just say that Cructo was very salty that I'd backed him into a corner yet again, it'd really be a shame to have to keep this gem to myself. [editline]abc[/editline] It's not as good as the PM he sent me, but Cructo basically reposted a part of his PM to me as a profile message. So just have a look at my profile if you're curious.[/QUOTE] Do it, share it with all of us.

I don't know how to feel about this. On one hand I think businesses should really be able to refuse service to pretty much anyone they feel like, but on the other hand I'm a pretty pro-LGBT fella and this doesn't feel like an issue the campaign should even bother tackling. Even with a Republican majority in Congress I have serious doubts over whether this bill would even pass if Trump actually intends to introduce it.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51097840]I don't know how to feel about this. On one hand I think businesses should really be able to refuse service to pretty much anyone they feel like, but on the other hand I'm a pretty pro-LGBT fella and this doesn't feel like an issue the campaign should even bother tackling. Even with a Republican majority in Congress I have serious doubts over whether this bill would even pass if Trump actually intends to introduce it.[/QUOTE] It really doesn't make sense to keep pushing this so hard. The GOP has acknowledged how badly this shit is hurting them many times. They cannot keep pushing a platform of discrimination and expect to retain support.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51097840]I don't know how to feel about this. On one hand I think businesses should really be able to refuse service to pretty much anyone they feel like, but on the other hand I'm a pretty pro-LGBT fella and this doesn't feel like an issue the campaign should even bother tackling. Even with a Republican majority in Congress I have serious doubts over whether this bill would even pass if Trump actually intends to introduce it.[/QUOTE] Well, think of it in these terms: When you think of business, stop thinking of restaurants or dry cleaners: Start thinking of hospitals, real estate companies, private schools, insurance providers, etc. Those are all businesses, too.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51097846]Well, think of it in these terms: When you think of business, stop thinking of restaurants or dry cleaners: Start thinking of hospitals, real estate companies, private schools, insurance providers, etc. Those are all businesses, too.[/QUOTE] I'm not really concerned about discrimination from any of those sources. Doctors can't really refuse to treat someone for personal reasons without losing their license, but those other businesses will just end up failing if they reject customers. This isn't a very effective thought experiment IMO. [editline]24th September 2016[/editline] There are also publicly-funded alternatives to most of these that constitutionally would not be allowed to discriminate against their customers.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51097891]I'm not really concerned about discrimination from any of those sources. Doctors lose their licenses for refusing to treat someone on personal grounds, education and real estate are too competitive and profitable to refuse customers, and I doubt insurance providers will care who you bang so long as you can pay your premiums.[/QUOTE] Except with their religious rights enshrined, they won't. How do you not understand this? You could have made these same arguments about how segregation wasn't real back in the 40's and you would have been just as wrong then. Doctors were refusing colored patients. Schools were turning down colored students. My entire city was segregated to the extent that no homes within the center of the city were sold to non-whites or non-Christians, with colored people and non-believers relegated to far-out and under-served suburbs. Nobody suffered for it, and none of the families that made themselves wealthy doing it ever paid reparations or were held accountable. They still occupy the wealthiest part of the city, which has moved northward as poverty moved inward. And of course you aren't concerned. If you don't see the marginalization of an entire group of US citizens from being able to receive basic goods and services except from limited networks of friendly establishments, then why would you be?

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51097845]It really doesn't make sense to keep pushing this so hard. The GOP has acknowledged how badly this shit is hurting them many times. They cannot keep pushing a platform of discrimination and expect to retain support.[/QUOTE] I remember reading somewhere that a majority of consistent Republican voters don't even really care about LGBT+. [editline]24th September 2016[/editline] Maybe it was "most people." I can't remember, it might have just been my wistful imagination. [editline]24th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=FreakyMe;51097911]Except with their religious rights enshrined, they won't. How do you not understand this? You could have made these same arguments about how segregation wasn't real back in the 40's and you would have been just as wrong then. Doctors were refusing colored patients. Schools were turning down colored students. My entire city was segregated to the extent that no homes within the center of the city were sold to non-whites or non-Christians, with colored people and non-believers relegated to far-out and under-served suburbs. Nobody suffered for it, and none of the families that made themselves wealthy doing it ever paid reparations or were held accountable. They still occupy the wealthiest part of the city, which has moved northward as poverty moved inward. And of course you aren't concerned. If you don't see the marginalization of an entire group of US citizens from being able to receive basic goods and services except from limited networks of friendly establishments, then why would you?[/QUOTE] When it comes to real-estate, education, and insurance, I trust private companies to self-regulate to maintain their profitability and/or competitive edge. I really don't know enough about the medical business to make any definitive claims, but I'd like to think a private hospital is more concerned with proft and sustainability than enforcing a social agenda. I don't quite get what you mean by that last part.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51097916] When it comes to real-estate, education, and insurance, I trust private companies to self-regulate to maintain their profitability and/or competitive edge. I really don't know enough about the medical business to make any definitive claims, but I'd like to think a private hospital is more concerned with proft and sustainability than enforcing a social agenda. I don't quite get what you mean by that last part.[/QUOTE] What happens when advertising yourself as "Religiously and Morally sound with a firm belief in the bible" becomes profitable due to an uprising of religious conservatism/extremism legitimized by laws like this, and refusing services (discriminating) is seen as standing up for their rights? And how can you believe in that, when they clearly did not self-regulate in a socially public-benefiting or altruistic manner back then? [QUOTE]Doctors were refusing colored patients. Schools were turning down colored students. My entire city was segregated to the extent that no homes within the center of the city were sold to non-whites or non-Christians, with colored people and non-believers relegated to far-out and under-served suburbs. [/QUOTE] ↑ No companies failed because of this massive and systemic level of discrimination because it was socially embraced - nobody rejected businesses who participated in these practices, so there was no incentive not to, and much incentive to. Neighborhoods were advertised as all-white and christian and people bought into them for that reason. Did businesses self-regulate to maintain a competitive edge in a way that kept child-labor and the industrial revolution from being devastating to the lineages of the working poor? I don't see how anyone that isn't in the favored majority can stand by libertarianism with the implicit knowledge that the system they are embracing will throw them under the bus the instant it becomes profitable and competitive to do so. It should not be that hard to understand that what is good for the CEO is not implicitly good for the public. How do you feel about environmental regulation? Do you think we should stop until the pollution levels get so toxic that the companies have an incentive to stop due to public outcry? By then too much would be poisoned and too much lost. That should be all the argument you need to realize that such a massive free-market will never respond (or if at all, fast enough) to the needs of the people.

[QUOTE=Sombrero;51096268]As much as you may hate a candidate for their beliefs, it doesn't justify murder.[/QUOTE] Well it's not just about beliefs but also about acting upon them and having the power to make them a reality. I don't think Trump needs to be killed, but if this was someone way worse like Adolf Hitler I think it would be justifiable imo.

[QUOTE=beanhead;51097288]Your wedding cake is not a human right.[/QUOTE] Nice zinger i guess? I never even mentioned the wedding cake incident. I was referencing things like county clerks refusing to service gay couples and the numerous incidents of rescue workers outright refusing to administer aid to LGBT people. But clearly I was talking about cake, right?

[QUOTE=Cructo;51097437]And from a purely libertarian point of view, allowing companies to refuse service based on their beliefs would be a separation of church/state, as the state would not meddle into their business.[/QUOTE] well the purely libertarian view is shit, and it's why no libertarians ever turn up at the forefront of movements for advancing civil rights in america i say let the state intervene here, because the right of somebody to be given service is really important - especially considering that 50 years ago people like you were making carbon copy arguments when they applied not to LGBT people but to black people and it was patently obvious that allowing businesses to deny service like that back then was bad, and i don't see why we should accept it today either

[QUOTE=Cructo;51097437] And from a [B]purely libertarian point of view[/B], allowing companies to refuse service based on their beliefs would be a separation of church/state, as the state would not meddle into their business. [/QUOTE] Purely Libertarian views are adorable and incredibly idealistic. Except there's one problem: human nature. Human nature invalidates [I]ALL[/I] of their views. Those views would let the states discriminate to horrific levels. Sure, northern states would probably be well off, but it would be jim crow all over again in the south. I'd like to think my state, Texas, would be better than that, but I keep coming across enough back-asswards people that I'm afraid to even hint that I'm gay. Oh, and that's not to mention what would happen if we got rid of all the federal oversight departments like Dept. of Education, EPA, and the FDA (which by the way was made to combat rampant foodborne illnesses, they are the #1 reason we don't fear eating our food.) Most of the time, you can't trust states to do the right thing.

And to think most european countries already got over most LGTB issues around 2004. For shame freedomland, for shame. LGBT People = People = Everyone has the same rights = Every couple has the same rights Get over it, move on, it's done.

[QUOTE=Tsanummy;51098875]And to think most european countries already got over most LGTB issues around 2004. For shame freedomland, for shame. LGBT People = People = Everyone has the same rights = Every couple has the same rights Get over it, move on, it's done.[/QUOTE] that sgman guy here on FP once argued that gay couples in the US have always had the same rights because they could still marry women this pitiful lack of critical thinking is widespread in the US

[QUOTE=Tsanummy;51098875]And to think most european countries already got over most LGTB issues around 2004. For shame freedomland, for shame. LGBT People = People = Everyone has the same rights = Every couple has the same rights Get over it, move on, it's done.[/QUOTE] LGBT laws and rights in Europe are more complicated. You guys were great trailblazers but only in the last year could gay couples marry here. Still, opinions did change quickly - only 20 years ago was homosexuality outlawed.

[QUOTE=Tsanummy;51098875]And to think most european countries already got over most LGTB issues around 2004. For shame freedomland, for shame. LGBT People = People = Everyone has the same rights = Every couple has the same rights Get over it, move on, it's done.[/QUOTE] Not really true, UK and France legalized it only in 2013 and places like Germany still haven't done it. And these are the poster boys of Western Europe, don't even look at Eastern Europe when it comes to gay marriage. The religious right are rapidly losing their grip in the US and this is pretty much their last chance to do anything serious, since if GOP want to stand ANY chance in 2020 they'll have to ditch the loons completely.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;51096844]If you read through the law as it's written all it does is prevent the federal government from changing taxes, grants, and government benefits based on the fact that people hold those beliefs. It by no means makes discrimination legal, more rather it's putting religious beliefs on par with other discrimination laws involving race and gender. It basically means Uncle Sam can't fuck with your taxes or benefits cause you believe that stuff. It's not even vague about it, it clearly states what "discriminatory actions" are in regards to the government. It doesn't mean that you can't be charged with discrimination, nor fined for discriminatory actions you yourself commit. What it does is close backdoor loopholes the government has used in the past to punish individuals and corporations in regards to the subject through taxes, benefits denials, and grant revocations. While that may sound like a good thing it only is because you agree with it, but you'd be singing the same tune if they did the same thing with something you don't agree with. With that being said I'm no supporter of Trump or his policies, I just prefer to actually read the law as it's written then some article that blows it out of proportion.[/QUOTE] You take your level headed logic out of here, this here is a Trump hate circle jerk!

[QUOTE=davethestoner;51099722]You take your level headed logic out of here, this here is a Trump hate circle jerk![/QUOTE] Changing taxes, grants, and government benefits is how the government enforces anti-discrimination law. Being unable to penalize an institution in any way prevents the government from doing anything about it. It's not a loop-hole, it is how it works. If you want federal money, you follow federal rules. It's pretty fucking simple.

[QUOTE=Dwarfy77;51096206]God, I hope someone assassinates this man. If he doesn't give a shit about the lives of any LGBT people, why should we give a shit about him?[/QUOTE] What a childish solution. The fact that people support Mr Trump shows that the issue lays deeper than one man. Mr Trump is merely the face of these issues revealing themselves. Not to mention that calling for the cold blooded murder of someone you disagree with is a facist act which would likely turn him in to a martyr and further reinforce this movement. Trump is a modern day protest vote. A sign people are tired of false promises of change and the corruption of the political elite. Many see trump for what he is, a strong bully who says what be wants and does what he wants. Compared to a slimey frail woman with more faces than the Faceless men and more corruption than a plague burial pit. I'm no fan of Mr Trump, however when you have the choice between such a grotesque display of candidates. One cannot blame someone for choosing the one they think is the lesser evil. I merely hope if Mr Grump gets in power, he'll reveal himself as an undercover democrat and clean up the stagnant rancid pool of modern day politics. Unlikely but a man can dream.

[QUOTE=Dwarfy77;51096206]God, I hope someone assassinates this man. If he doesn't give a shit about the lives of any LGBT people, why should we give a shit about him?[/QUOTE] People like you scare me more than trump.