Kemp pledges to sign religious freedom bill to discriminate lgbt+ people.
226 replies, posted
He didn't call you a dumb-ass, he said you are greatly mis/under-informed. You've turned a perfectly calm and logically valid statement into some sort of personal attack on you as a person. Why?
Won't someone think of the poor under-represented neo-fascists whose stories of support for state-sanctioned discrimination and erasure of people's identities are stifled?
As though this is a "disagreement". As though the world hasn't watched these aggressions turn into genocide before its very eyes over and over again while miserable little quisling fucks shrug their shoulders and deny any culpability because they were ~just being objective and unbiased~.
I live in a rural area myself, if I was denied service at my local general store, I'd order online. I already do that anyway without my local general store denying me service
Not everyone can do that dude.
Failing to recognize not everyone has what you have is what we call lacking empathy. This is why I stated you lack it earlier. Because you utterly fail to put yourself in anyone elses shoes.
What I don't get is why would anybody want to deny service to LGBT people. People love to say they should have the right, but why is that right being exercised? How is the world made a better place by allowing people to deny service to LGBT people?
I live in a country with a reasonably good attitude towards trans people (we don't tend to get beaten up in broad daylight any more), but I'm still extremely grateful that there are legal protections in place surrounding, for instance, my access to gendered facilities. Hell, the current legislation actually provides examples of where trans people might not be permitted despite their gender, and whilst I disagree with those, that's another conversation entirely.
But my argument remains: if you're a baker, or a butcher, or an estate agent, why exactly should you have the right to be able to deny service to LGBT people, beyond 'you should have the right to potentially cause financial harm to and endanger the safety of another person just because you disagree with who they love, or the relation between their gender and their genitals'?
I was mostly referring to the Medium article from yesterday, that claimed the gov't was erasing transgenderism from history. And when you click on the sources they give, the sources say completely different things.
Also, because you refuse to answer this.
What was omitted from this story about the GOP's treatment of LGBT peoples in this state?
What was omitted? What detail or fact are we unaware of that you have in your holster?
We always talk about having empathy for others in this thread, so I want to try having some myself. Let's try and be empathetic towards people who want to discriminate against gay or trans or bisexual people.
What's a situation I can put myself in where I can think "ah yes, I understand why they should be able to do this now"?
Oh so in this case, the story about Kemp pledging to grant discriminatory powers, you don't have anything that was omitted? You just refuse to accept that the GOP is attacking the LGBT community?
Why?
And you live in Canada. I live in a metropolitan area right now but I've spent a lot of time in very rural areas. My sister lives in northern Idaho so I'm there fairly often and I lived there for the better part of a year myself. Having to change stores could easily mean 30-40+ miles more added to her trip. And for someone working full time and busy being a single mother that's simply out of the question. Outside the somewhat larger regional cities in that area it's very common to only have dial-up or satellite as internet options with satellite costing like $120+ per month so ordering things online simply isn't an option.
You say that like the intention is to be an invonenience to LGBT folk, when in reality the intention is giving individuals more control over their private businesses. You should be allowed to refuse business to whomever you want. Really, in the end if they refuse business, it's their loss.
An average small town retailer isn't going to refuse business when they thrive off regulars.
Completely ignoring history.
Completely ignoring reality.
First, not everyone is going to have the ability to cost-effectively order things online. I feel that's the obvious take.
But what about services you can't order online? Amazon isn't coming to your rescue when these "religious freedom" bills let your landlord, police, firefighters, doctors, schools, employment, assistance programs, etc. deny you service.
Except those businesses can afford it a lot more easily than most people can.
So they should still be allowed to despite the fact they could just screw over anyone they dislike over totally arbitrary bullshit? Cause I don't know what sort of people you've been around but I've known a shit load of people who are extremely narrow-minded and hateful and would do anything they could get away with to inconvenience those they hate, even if it has some cost attached for them.
It's often your gain to discriminate
Even if you, the business owner, aren't a bigot, you often were de facto forced to discriminate anyways. If you didn't you'd piss off the rest of your regulars who constitute a much larger portion of your business. That's part of why anti-discrimination laws are good, it stops this from being a strategic decision business look at through a monetary lens.
Rescue services, hospitals, and social assistance programs aren't privately owned businesses
The intention is that they don't view LGBT individuals as human as they are, and want to inconvience them.
An average small town retailer 30 years ago regularly denied service to black people or gay people, and things today haven't changed as much as complacent people like yourself feel they have.
You don't have any experience with this, and you're speaking from authority.
You should realize the flaws of this inherently.
Yeah they often are?
20% of hospitals in the US are privately owned. IIRC, that proportion is much higher in Canada. (The insurance model being public doesn't necessarily affect providers)
I get it. You disagree with them, so they must be coming from an evil or disdainful standpoint.
I get it. You disagree with the KKK, so they must be coming from an evil or disdainful standpoint.
Except things have changed. Drastically.
No, asshole. Stop jamming words in my mouth so you can feel victimized. You did this before acting like I called you a bigot, when anyone with a grade 1 reading would know I didn't.
They view LGBT people through a lens of fundamental christianity. That is a lense which dictates that these people are less human than they are, and deserving of mistreatment.
How can you be THIS HISTORICALLY IGNORANT?!
I dated a boy from California, he lived in LA. His dad was a conservative fundamental christian, and caught me kissing him one day. He hit me, he hit his son, he yelled at his wife, punch a hole in the wall, and was on the road in 5 minutes of seeing that swearing "You're no son of mine".
This shit happens to this fucking day, and you're acting like 'No it's just a difference in opinion, they have every right to discriminate".
Staggr acting aggressively clueless as per usual
Yeah guys Kemp, the same dude working to make sure thousands of black people can't vote, has only the best intentions when he wants to make it so businesses can discriminate against LGBT people.
There are not enough brainlet memes in the world for this post.
If you deny services to gays because they're gay you're a bad person. Hiding behind "it's a private business" is the most paper fucking thin disguise imaginable lmao. The government has a responsibility to ensure its citizens are given equal opportunity in the market. Just admit you're not in favor of an egalitarian society because that's what you're arguing for.
No. They haven't. They really fucking haven't, and you failing to understand this is part of why I state you lack empathy, and you argue from ignorance.
You don't know that things like this STILL happen, so you claim they DON'T happen. This is arguing from ignorance and it's all I've ever seen you do in any fucking thread.
which is why there definitely absolutely wasn't just a case where someone tried to fire someone simply because they were trans, and the government ruled in favor of the company
wait a fuckin second
I'd say he's at least somewhat comparable with his recent actions in regards to minorities.
yeah, don't you know, he's a founding member of the kemp kool kampers
man, I wish you could still give other people titles
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/297971/f9c942f4-d663-4ecb-bf2d-03b40b8789fe/image.png
"Just move out lmao"
"Stop saying bigots are bigots, youre the problem, im not concerned trolling I swear"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.