'Gays For Trump' Banned From Charlotte Pride Parade - Polidicks

Teminder that Obama for eight years declared June LGBT Pride Month. Trump did not do that this year. If he wont do the easy things to show he supports LGBT people - do you think hes actually gonna support them?

[QUOTE=Tudd;52333524]I'm sure when Obama went to a [url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/30/obama-visit-baltimore-mosque-show-support-muslims/]mosque[/url] and gave a speech of support there, it was possible to seperate himself from their other views on homosexuality. It is more important to see what they speak at this event instead of guilt by association.[/QUOTE] pictured: a trump supporter getting their views questioned, so they automatically go "but hillary/but obama!" You were shown an example of what trump did. What do you believe this action of TRUMP tells us about the values and future actions of trump?

[QUOTE=Tudd;52333524]It is more important to see what they speak at this event instead of guilt by association.[/QUOTE] Remember how it was important to wait and see how Trump would do as a president. Which turned out to be a disaster even before he became president, as predicted.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52333689]Are you seriously equating a single mosque picked most likely by the virtue of being a mosque, to the Faith and Freedom Coalition?[/QUOTE] One that has Muslim brotherhood connections, connected to CAIR and funneling of money to hamas from the Holy Land Foundation case, and hosted various hate preachers? It's objectively worse mate. It's not even a competition.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52333524]I'm sure when Obama went to a [url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/30/obama-visit-baltimore-mosque-show-support-muslims/]mosque[/url] and gave a speech of support there, it was possible to seperate himself from their other views on homosexuality. It is more important to see what they speak at this event instead of guilt by association.[/QUOTE] Did Obama put homophobes in key cabinet positions? Did he pick a homophobic VP? Were homophobes given leadership positions in organizations that have the ability to influence policies that affect LGBT people? Don't know why you continue to ignore this. Let's give Trump the benefit of the doubt, despite his own actions. Do you just want to feel like you made a progressive choice in supporting Trump? [editline]9th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Tudd;52333979]One that has Muslim brotherhood connections, connected to CAIR and funneling of money to hamas from the Holy Land Foundation case, and hosted various hate preachers? It's objectively worse mate. It's not even a competition.[/QUOTE] He also appointed a Chief Justice who upheld gay marriage as a fundamental right of all citizens. Wow, Obama sure was a huge homophobe! Let's bring up his connection to a mosque, because that makes sense!

Tudd, weren't you arguing in favor of Trump removing anyone he wanted from his rallies because they're a private event and therefore he can exclude anyone he wants?

[QUOTE=geel9;52334065]Tudd, weren't you arguing in favor of Trump removing anyone he wanted from his rallies because they're a private event and therefore he can exclude anyone he wants?[/QUOTE] I can only imagine what kind of pretzel logic is required to keep their heads from crumpling under the weight of all their double standards

[QUOTE=geel9;52334065]Tudd, weren't you arguing in favor of Trump removing anyone he wanted from his rallies because they're a private event and therefore he can exclude anyone he wants?[/QUOTE] Oh no, I am actually fine with a private event excluding them. That I don't argue. Just thought it was an interesting story for the most part and wanted to see what Facepunch thought. I would prefer if a gay pride parade didn't use such a ruling in a way, but if they dont allow other explicitly political floats for other parties then that would be pretty fair and actually what I think is more appropriate in general.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52334246]Oh no, I am actually fine with a private event excluding them. That I don't argue. Just thought it was an interesting story for the most part and wanted to see what Facepunch thought. I would prefer if a gay pride parade didn't use such a ruling in a way, but if they dont allow other explicitly political floats for other parties then that would be pretty fair and actually what I think is more appropriate in general.[/QUOTE] I guess this is the part of the thread where someone is going to point out how you're obviously not just posting stories you find interesting and you clearly have an agenda behind it that you deny, after which a mod steps in to point out that this isn't a thread about what an awful poster you are.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52334246]Oh no, I am actually fine with a private event excluding them. That I don't argue. Just thought it was an interesting story for the most part and wanted to see what Facepunch thought. I would prefer if a gay pride parade didn't use such a ruling in a way, [B]but if they dont allow other explicitly political floats for other parties then that would be pretty fair and actually what I think is more appropriate in general.[/B][/QUOTE] Would you apply the same logic to a Donald Trump rally, though? No explicit Trump supporters at the Trump rally? I'd argue that a gay pride parade is inherently political (in the US) the same way a Donald Trump rally is, simply because the political climate in the US makes homosexuality a very political subject.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;52332545]So can bakeries deny gay weddings? Youd support that?[/QUOTE] Trump voters aren't a protected class.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;52334447]Would you apply the same logic to a Donald Trump rally, though? No explicit Trump supporters at the Trump rally?[/quote] I'm not really sure if you are seriously asking if explicit Trump supporters shouldn't be allowed at a Trump Rally, and actually thought that was remotely comparable, or even anything like this situation that contains a duality of political perspectives, but a unifying quality anyone of that community wants to be prideful of. [quote]I'd argue that a gay pride parade is inherently political (in the US) the same way a Donald Trump rally is, simply because the political climate in the US makes homosexuality a very political subject.[/QUOTE] I think Gay pride parades are inherently political in nature too with the issues that concern Gay Rights, and the community does have differing opinions are issues because they aren't a monolith. I just think it would be better to not have the event invest itself into any party and instead be an open forum/event to let the participants influence the direction people want to go in.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52334913]I'm not really sure if you are seriously asking if explicit Trump supporters shouldn't be allowed at a Trump Rally, and actually thought that was remotely comparable, or even anything like this situation that contains a duality of political perspectives, but a unifying quality anyone of that community wants to be prideful of. I think Gay pride parades are inherently political in nature too with the issues that concern Gay Rights, and the community does have differing opinions are issues because they aren't a monolith. I just think it would be better to not have the event invest itself into any party and instead be an open forum/event to let the participants influence the direction people want to go in.[/QUOTE] I'm simply arguing that you're applying a double standard - if the Gay Pride parade wants to exclude any one political movement, they'd have to be apolitical about it, banning every one in your opinion. Problem is, the gay pride parade is not just political, it's very much an issue that has been worked against by one side, and at least in the later years, supported by the other. As it says in the OP: [QUOTE]The organization reserves the right to refuse applications from groups that “do not reflect the mission, vision and values of our organization,” WJZY reported on Wednesday.[/QUOTE] Gays for Donny Boy simply runs counter to LGBT interests. No one would bat an eye if "Gays against Gay Marriage" was denied a float, but this is simply a less explicit endorsement of the same ideals. Gays for Trump can still attend the pride parade in private, they just didn't get their endorsement float. The same way I'd expect Hillary supporters wouldn't be allowed their own little demonstration within a Trump rally, but still allowed to participate as private individuals.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;52335991]I'm simply arguing that you're applying a double standard - if the Gay Pride parade wants to exclude any one political movement, they'd have to be apolitical about it, banning every one in your opinion. Problem is, the gay pride parade is not just political, it's very much an issue that has been worked against by one side, and at least in the later years, supported by the other. As it says in the OP:[/quote] I think how you layered your accusation of double standard is just flawed. Like I said, I am fine with them banning any explicit political party float, because I just don't think that is appropriate for a pride event focused on the sexual orientation/Identity of being gay. Making a unchangeable identity tied to a political ideology is proven to be very dangerous and can often lead to conflict from the innate exclusivity it brings, plus group think it starts causing. I think that being gay today makes you intrinsically into politics, but I don't think it has to be at all. Infact, once you have equal rights and become mainstream in society, that intrinsic political factor dissipates. So really I think the Pride event should be about pride and going for acceptance. If it happens that most of the population votes one way, more power to them, but I would hope that they don't become a monolith for one party. That is just unhealthy in any society. Meanwhile I don't think Trump supporters should be prevented from showing their support for Trump at a rally. That is just a fucking dumb example you gave and the political support/attention to one person of it is the whole point. [quote] Gays for Donny Boy simply runs counter to LGBT interests. No one would bat an eye if "Gays against Gay Marriage" was denied a float, but this is simply a less explicit endorsement of the same ideals. Gays for Trump can still attend the pride parade in private, they just didn't get their endorsement float. The same way I'd expect Hillary supporters wouldn't be allowed their own little demonstration within a Trump rally, but still allowed to participate as private individuals.[/QUOTE] You came to the same conclusion as I did and what I had before. Fantastic.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52336016]I think how you layered your accusation of double standard is just flawed. Like I said, I am fine with them banning any explicit political party float, because I just don't think that is appropriate for a pride event focused on the sexual orientation/Identity of being gay. Making a unchangeable identity tied to a political ideology is proven to be very dangerous and can often lead to conflict from the innate exclusivity it brings, plus group think it starts causing. I think that being gay today makes you intrinsically into politics, but I don't think it has to be at all. Infact, once you have equal rights and become mainstream in society, that intrinsic political factor dissipates.[/quote] Okay? This is the gay pride parade - a private [I]event[/I], not a sexual orientation that you don't choose - which is tied to specific goals that can be generalized as "furthering LGBT rights". The gay pride parade doesn't force you to vote any one way, but don't expect to be allowed a float that goes against their stated goals. [quote]So really I think the Pride event should be about pride and going for acceptance. If it happens that most of the population votes one way, more power to them, but I would hope that they don't become a monolith for one party. That is just unhealthy in any society.[/quote] Okay, let's also hope that no one party in the future will be the monolith of halting social progress because Jesus said penises aren't meant for male assholes. That is just unhealthy in any society. Maybe then the Gay Pride Parade wouldn't be so explicitly against that one hypothetical party? [quote]Meanwhile I don't think Trump supporters should be prevented from showing their support for Trump at a rally. That is just a fucking dumb example you gave and the political support/attention to one person of it is the whole point.[/quote] Calm down, laddie - explicit Trump supporters shouldn't be excluded from showing their support at Trump events, the same way the Gay Pride Parade shouldn't be forced to be apolitical in which political parties/people/courses it implicitly endorses through floats. You may call it "fucking dumb", but it was simply a logical consequence of your first post: [QUOTE=Tudd;52334246]Oh no, I am actually fine with a private event excluding them. That I don't argue. Just thought it was an interesting story for the most part and wanted to see what Facepunch thought. I would prefer if a gay pride parade didn't use such a ruling in a way, [B]but if they dont allow other explicitly political floats for other parties then that would be pretty fair and actually what I think is more appropriate in general.[/B][/QUOTE] [quote]You came to the same conclusion as I did and what I had before. Fantastic.[/QUOTE] Great, so you don't have an issue with Gays for Trump being denied a float at the parade while other political floats that don't run counter to LGBT interests are allowed? Kinda runs counter to what you're arguing, but I guess if we agree that's simply awesome. Fantastic.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52329825]I still find it weird that people talk about this like it is a factual statement. [url]http://www.snopes.com/mike-pence-supported-gay-conversion-therapy/[/url] [url]http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/dec/02/gavin-newsom/pences-support-conversion-therapy-not-settled-matt/[/url][/QUOTE] While it's true that it's fact that Pence never publicly advocated for gay conversion therapy, these sources you presented aruge that it's half true, or is a mixed truth; in other words, there's an ambiguity. It would be trivial for Pence to say that gay conversion therapy is immoral, or that he does not support it, but he does not do so. This is not an admission of guilt but it still brings reasonable suspicion upon the Vice President's agenda, and it is reasonable to assume that he is not an advocate for LGBT rights. To support him and his president over other politicians who have, without ambiguity, supported LGBT rights is thus suspect.

My experience with people who are specifically targeted and victimized by the Trump admin/republicans and who still vote for them is that they generally don't know anything about politics or are able to overlook the homophobia/transphobia thing because they're more concerned with Trump's anti-black rhetoric and anti-muslim policies

[QUOTE=Tudd;52336016]I think how you layered your accusation of double standard is just flawed. Like I said, I am fine with them banning any explicit political party float, because I just don't think that is appropriate for a pride event focused on the sexual orientation/Identity of being gay. Making a unchangeable identity tied to a political ideology is proven to be very dangerous and can often lead to conflict from the innate exclusivity it brings, plus group think it starts causing. I think that being gay today makes you intrinsically into politics, but I don't think it has to be at all. Infact, once you have equal rights and become mainstream in society, that intrinsic political factor dissipates. So really I think the Pride event should be about pride and going for acceptance. If it happens that most of the population votes one way, more power to them, but I would hope that they don't become a monolith for one party. That is just unhealthy in any society. Meanwhile I don't think Trump supporters should be prevented from showing their support for Trump at a rally. That is just a fucking dumb example you gave and the political support/attention to one person of it is the whole point. You came to the same conclusion as I did and what I had before. Fantastic.[/QUOTE] Gay pride parades [I]are[/I] political- perhaps why they are banning a group that supports someone nick named "mike pence the electric fence" from being represented in their event. Perhaps they also want to keep the event about pride and not have to deal with concern-trolling instigators who will stir shit up then call foul and potentially damage the entire event for years. [editline]10th June 2017[/editline] but no he loves the gays rite guys

[QUOTE=Tudd;52336016] So really I think the Pride event should be about pride and going for acceptance. If it happens that most of the population votes one way, more power to them, but I would hope that they don't become a monolith for one party. That is just unhealthy in any society.[/QUOTE] Blame Republicans. Your president has a shitty record on LGBT rights and individuals, ergo people running a pride parade don't want him represented in it. Shit ain't difficult man.

People really buy this whole "censorship is OK for private organizations horseshit" don't they?

[QUOTE=Whoaly;52341469]People really buy this whole "censorship is OK for private organizations horseshit" don't they?[/QUOTE] [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1539598"]They do indeed,[/url] [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1531496"]your President included.[/URL] Free speech is not universal. A private organization doesn't have to put up with fuck all. Have your own pride paraade with Trump stickers if you want, the existing pride organization can't be forced to take you. You just can't discard the notion of private entities being able to make decisions that abrogate freedom of speech within their own jurisdictions. Otherwise churches can't do anything if I show up and begin reading the Satanic Bible at the top of my lungs except get me cited for creating a disturbance. Is it something that needs to be handled responsibly? Yes. I don't feel this decision was reached lightly, since Pride is about inclusion, but there are limits of sensibility on how far you'll overlook things.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;52341469]People really buy this whole "censorship is OK for private organizations horseshit" don't they?[/QUOTE] Try complaining in the refugee camp next time you're banned. If you have a private even you should have discretion to choose what is brought up - if I held a demonstration about the discrimination brought against consumers of couchettes, surely I'd be allowed to decline someone else from speaking at that event? Ignoring the fact that it isn't censorship - they're entirely free to hold their own gay pride parade and see how many shows up - if there weren't any "censorship" at private events, there'd be no point to them. You wouldn't want to go support a demonstration with one purpose for the speakers to start talking about something else entirely.

Remember: If Trump points out people in the crowd and eggs on his supporters to toss them out of his rallies like that fucking pink floyd music video, well, it's his [I]right[/I] to do that, it's his rally after all! But god forbid a formal application to have a float in a gay pride parade be denied for espousing support for an administration fundamentally against their message! Oh no, can't have that! So much for [I]tolerant liberals[/I] lmao! You people are fucking ridiculous.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;52341469]People really buy this whole "censorship is OK for priva te organizations horseshit" don't they?[/QUOTE] Considering you likely argued it was fine when it was in your favour I find this post to be highly ironic based on your post history

[QUOTE=Whoaly;52341469]People really buy this whole "censorship is OK for private organizations horseshit" don't they?[/QUOTE] You're one to talk. In terms of buying into horseshit, you're the majority shareholder.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52343534]Considering you likely argued it was fine when it was in your favour I find this post to be highly ironic based on your post history[/QUOTE] I actually tried to find Whoaly's opinions in the threads on FP about Trump's conduct at his rallies and his disregard for dissenting voices. Curiously, Whoaly didn't see fit to post in them, so we can't know what he thought. I'm sure it was just an oversight on his part.