Current Events > Support for LGBT people have declined in the US.

(+) Yeah! (+)

darkjedilink posted...

Businesses have a right to refuse service for any reason.

They literally don't. Have you heard of the civil rights act?
---

Zikten posted...

tremain07 posted...

those weird people who say their toddlers and 8 year olds are LGBT

this is the only part I hate. I don't care if you are gay or trans or whatever. but little kids that haven't even hit puberty are just kids, nothing more. parents that try to claim their kids are gay or trans should be put in prison

Considering that gender identity forms around the ages 3-5 or so, puberty isn't needed as marker for "oh well I guess they're allowed to decide if they're trans or not." The actual transitioning isn't happening until they're much older anyways.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Businesses have a right to refuse service for any reason.

They literally don't. Have you heard of the civil rights act?

So, property rights don't exist?
---

darkjedilink posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Businesses have a right to refuse service for any reason.

They literally don't. Have you heard of the civil rights act?

So, property rights don't exist?

They shouldn't.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

darkjedilink posted...

hyperpsycho posted...

DevsBro posted...

"Who are the LGBT again? Oh, that group that sues all the bakeries."

The bakery doxxed that couple.

Literally not why the couple sued.

Discrimination is a valid reason to sue. I hate sjws as much as anyone else but the bakery had it coming.

No, they didn't. Businesses have a right to refuse service for any reason.

No they dont.
---

AmericaTheBrave posted...

Honestly, it's likely because of the multiple genders thing and forcing children to be transgender that has annoyed a lot of people.

What happened to LGBT advocacy groups is what happens to most civil rights groups. After the major war is won (in this case, marriage) instead of laying down their arms and retiring to the countryside, they look for newer, much lesser battles to fight in order to stay relevant. And these "battles" are inconsequential and incredibly irrelevant to the majority public so this causes them to lose a lot of the goodwill they earned.

Pretty uninformed comment. Just because marriage was legalized doesn't mean it's "time to lay down their arms and retire to the countryside." LGBT people are still not protected the way other groups are when it comes to workplace and housing discrimination, and that's just two examples.
---

CrimsonRage posted...

Nomadic View posted...

UncleBourbon33 posted...

SJWs have hurt the gay cause more than they've helped.

I think this is true.

"I hate SJWs so Imma start hating gay people now"

sounds logical /s

Sums up a lot of the posts itt lol
---

QueenCarly posted...

Zikten posted...

tremain07 posted...

those weird people who say their toddlers and 8 year olds are LGBT

this is the only part I hate. I don't care if you are gay or trans or whatever. but little kids that haven't even hit puberty are just kids, nothing more. parents that try to claim their kids are gay or trans should be put in prison

Considering that gender identity forms around the ages 3-5 or so, puberty isn't needed as marker for "oh well I guess they're allowed to decide if they're trans or not." The actual transitioning isn't happening until they're much older anyways.

Honestly I've been having gay thoughts since I was 3. If somebody had explained to me what straight and gay were, I would have been able to know I was gay as a kid. And most people I've spoken with about this say they also had sexual feelings as a kid.
---

QueenCarly posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Businesses have a right to refuse service for any reason.

They literally don't. Have you heard of the civil rights act?

So, property rights don't exist?

They shouldn't.

So, you legitimately believe this, right? And therefore own nothing?
---

CrimsonRage posted...

stop being obtuse, darkjedilink.

Property rights is obtuse?
---

CrimsonRage posted...

i say stop but he keeps doing it :o

So you can't actually argue the point...
---

Pretty fucking pathetic that there's people here who are happy about this
---

Trolling this lazy belongs on 261, you need to be Imadepoo4u, Underscore and Admiral level to be worth a debate here.
---

Wetterdew posted...

LGBT people are still not protected the way other groups are when it comes to workplace and housing discrimination, and that's just two examples.

Actually, they are.
It's just that no one, straight or gay, is protected, sexuality isn't a protected class. The obvious problem being that straight are less likely to face discrimination.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

t's just that no one, straight or gay, is protected, sexuality isn't a protected class

...Yes it is
---

QueenCarly posted...

Zikten posted...

tremain07 posted...

those weird people who say their toddlers and 8 year olds are LGBT

this is the only part I hate. I don't care if you are gay or trans or whatever. but little kids that haven't even hit puberty are just kids, nothing more. parents that try to claim their kids are gay or trans should be put in prison

Considering that gender identity forms around the ages 3-5 or so, puberty isn't needed as marker for "oh well I guess they're allowed to decide if they're trans or not." The actual transitioning isn't happening until they're much older anyways.

Not when most kids who have some gender uncertainty grow out of it with the onset of puberty.
---

darkjedilink posted...

CrimsonRage posted...

stop being obtuse, darkjedilink.

Property rights is obtuse?

how does this make you feel (aside from annoyed at the misinterpretation of the wage gap)


---

Darkman124 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

CrimsonRage posted...

stop being obtuse, darkjedilink.

Property rights is obtuse?

how does this make you feel (aside from annoyed at the misinterpretation of the wage gap)

They have every right to do that. I will show my personal displeasure with being treated as a second-class citizen by eating elsewhere.
---

Darkman124 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

CrimsonRage posted...

stop being obtuse, darkjedilink.

Property rights is obtuse?

how does this make you feel (aside from annoyed at the misinterpretation of the wage gap)

Annoyance that Rule #3 says Respect Goes Both Ways, but Rules #1 and #2 seem disrespectful toward their male customers.
---

darkjedilink posted...

They have every right to do that. I will show my personal displeasure with being treated as a second-class citizen by eating elsewhere.

how would you feel if most other places enacted similar rules because their average customer thought men were 'gross'

would you want some sort of legal protection from this if you felt surrounded by places that were forcing you to pay extra to use their services, or denying you entry entirely?

or would you still feel that their property rights are more important even when they become stifling of your ability to participate in the economic system
---

Darkman124 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

CrimsonRage posted...

stop being obtuse, darkjedilink.

Property rights is obtuse?

how does this make you feel (aside from annoyed at the misinterpretation of the wage gap)

At least they're up front about it. No one goes in not knowing what they are getting into.

However as someone else already said rule 1 & 2 are redundant when considering rule 3. Someone not smart made that sign.
---

thanosibe posted...

Someone not smart made that sign.

oh i agree
---

Darkman124 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

They have every right to do that. I will show my personal displeasure with being treated as a second-class citizen by eating elsewhere.

how would you feel if most other places enacted similar rules because their average customer thought men were 'gross'

would you want some sort of legal protection from this if you felt surrounded by places that were forcing you to pay extra to use their services, or denying you entry entirely?

or would you still feel that their property rights are more important even when they become stifling of your ability to participate in the economic system

Are you suggesting that most bakeries turned them down?

Because that's not what happened. What happened was a bunch of bakeries in the area tripped over themselves to be the one to make their wedding cake, cuz optics and capitalism.
---

Theres no way to comment about this and not get modded.

Wonder how many people are blaming Trump

Welp
---

darkjedilink posted...

Are you suggesting that most bakeries turned them down?

not really focused on the bakery case in specific but rather the underlying laws surrounding it and why they came to be

if your point is our society has evolved to the point that the laws are no longer necessary, i think there is some debate still to be had there, but it's a decent argument and i don't have a strong counter-argument to it, except that it doesn't seem like it is harmful culturally to maintain laws that protect people in the event our culture turns against them
---

90s "Oh you're gay? That's cool."
00s "You identify as a woman? That's cool."
10s "So I'm suddenly a bigot for not calling you xie, and I'm transphobic for not sleeping with you because you have a dick? Yeaaaahhhhh I'm going to keep my distance from you because you're seriously creeping me out. Did you just call me a cis scum? That sounds like a slur, tranny." aaaand it snowballed from there.

Doesn't help that these attention-seekers are what people think most transpeople are like when they are a minority of a minority of a minority.

EternalDivide posted...

Here's the problem. Stop equating gay and lesbian with the transgender madness.

This too. On a related note' anyone who goes to the news to say their bathrooms can be used by anyone who considers themselves an X is virtue signalling. You know the overall cost of such a policy? Zero, zilch, nada. Even if you take work hours into it the total cost is literal pennies. Guy I know that's intersexed goes absolutely ballistic if you tack an I on the end of LGBT*, because he has a physical deformity, not different brain chemistry.

What I want to know is, where are the talks about autism, dyslexia, and other difficulties or disabilities in schools? Kids who suffer from those suffer in silence, and people remain ignorant about them. I demand equal time in the classroom for all of these, as it is very important that students understand the difficulties and limitations of their peers. Why don't they do this? Because any blue-haired freak can run her mouth on what she thinks it means to the LGBT (despite being a kissless virgin whose life revolves around yaoi) and score the school/workplace/college brownie points.

A quick google shows that 13% of kids are considered "special needs", why is there no education devoted to their struggles?
---

Darkman124 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Are you suggesting that most bakeries turned them down?

not really focused on the bakery case in specific but rather the underlying laws surrounding it and why they came to be

if your point is our society has evolved to the point that the laws are no longer necessary, i think there is some debate still to be had there, but it's a decent argument and i don't have a strong counter-argument to it, except that it doesn't seem like it is harmful culturally to maintain laws that protect people in the event our culture turns against them

Except that those laws violate people's property rights and First Amendment rights, for reasons that no longer exist.
---

Definitely isnt just linked to conservative voting blocs, its a well known secret that plenty of entrenched Democratic voting blocs circa now are not too friendly to LGBT causes. Can guarantee you a lot of the usual suspects around here on these liberal threads would not come to the defense of LGBT issues in real life.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Except that those laws violate people's property rights and First Amendment rights, for reasons that no longer exist.

they do. it becomes a question of 'least harm'. how much harm do these laws do to business owners? how much harm would happen to protected groups if, after stripping their protections, culture shifts against them and discrimination returns--would we even be able to re-pass those laws?
---

masticatingman posted...

Can guarantee you a lot of the usual suspects around here on these liberal threads would not come to the defense of LGBT issues in real life.

That seems to be quite a lofty thing to gurantee
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

masticatingman posted...

Can guarantee you a lot of the usual suspects around here on these liberal threads would not come to the defense of LGBT issues in real life.

That seems to be quite a lofty thing to gurantee

Go ahead and let me know which demographic commits the majority of hate crimes against gays and transgenders in America. Ill wait.
---

Darkman124 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Except that those laws violate people's property rights and First Amendment rights, for reasons that no longer exist.

they do. it becomes a question of 'least harm'. how much harm do these laws do to business owners? how much harm would happen to protected groups if, after stripping their protections, culture shifts against them and discrimination returns--would we even be able to re-pass those laws?

The very concept of 'protected groups' violates the equal protection clause, which kills your whole argument.
---

masticatingman posted...

Go ahead and let me know which demographic commits the majority of hate crimes against gays and transgenders in America. Ill wait.

If you know the answer why don't you tell me?
---

darkjedilink posted...

The very concept of 'protected groups' violates the equal protection clause, which kills your whole argument.

not at all!

the way the laws are written has the intent to specifically protect certain groups. but it has the effect of protecting all people. the law does not say "you cannot deny homosexuals", it says "you cannot deny any person on basis of sexual preference." this is consistent with the equal protection clause of the constitution. by design.

so basically that argument is complete bullshit. don't use it again, k?
---

Darkman124 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

The very concept of 'protected groups' violates the equal protection clause, which kills your whole argument.

not at all!

the way the laws are written has the intent to specifically protect certain groups. but it has the effect of protecting all people. the law does not say "you cannot deny homosexuals", it says "you cannot deny any person on basis of sexual preference."

so basically that argument is complete bullshit. don't use it again, k?

So there is no such thing as a 'protected group,' and the baker didn't discriminate. Gotcha.
---

darkjedilink posted...

So there is no such thing as a 'protected group,' and the baker didn't discriminate. Gotcha.

You can just say you don't agree with the law and protected classes being a thing, you know?
---

darkjedilink posted...

So there is no such thing as a 'protected group,' and the baker didn't discriminate. Gotcha.

what is a colloquialism for 400, alex?
---

Solar_Crimson posted...

In every single situation, comfort level declined from last year. Three areas where discomfort showed a significant increase were learning a family member is LGBTQ, learning my childs teacher is LGBTQ, and learning my doctor is LGBTQ.

I don't think this is something we can blame the SJWs on.

This is a direct response to bathroom bill rhetoric because many people are under the impression that either a) LGBTQ people are harmful and predatory or b) harmful and predatory people will mask themselves as LGBTQ in an effort to be harmful and predatory. In either scenario, LBGTQ people lose. Increasing discomfort to a family member or a do-good professional being LGBTQ is a sad state of affairs.
---

Darkman124 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

So there is no such thing as a 'protected group,' and the baker didn't discriminate. Gotcha.

what is a colloquialism for 400, alex?

Legal definitions can't be colloquial.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

What rights have been threatened, again?

Well, we still don't have equal rights everywhere. For example, in Texas there are almost no protections for gay people in terms of renting.

Are you saying that gay people have more of a right to an apartment than the owner of the apartment building?
---

darkjedilink posted...

Legal definitions can't be colloquial.

it is when used to refer only to the people who actually use the protections

the letter of the law protects all people but there's virtually zero discrimination of white male heterosexuals

but they are still legally protected groups per the equal protection clause
---