The gay attack on religion is dangerous

Gays restrict religious freedom through their use of the law, political process, and demonization of religious people.

Gays were instrumental in passing sexual orientation based hate crime laws and having states grant preferential legal status based on sexual orientation. In turn, gays use their elevated status to seek out religious people vulnerable to attack in court in order to roll back religious freedoms granted in the First Amendment. As the article in post #1 states, the objective is the removal of religion from the public and social square.

 

What legal status do gays have that other American Citizens do not have?

There have been over 10,000 SSM and two or three have lead to lawsuits. Shall we look at the hundreds of law suits brought
by hetrosexual couples over refusal of service? Me thinks this is more of a Christian Persecution Complex than an actual threat.

And if you look at the social pressure on social media - it is mainly coming from 20 - 30 year olds tired of this crap - not gay people.

 

No, the opposition to religion is coming from 2 areas: generally secular people who are prodded by a well run PR campaign based falsely on the idea of "equality"; and people intimidated by threats from gays into speaking. When the issue was equal taxation, civil unions, insurance standings, the demand for "equality" had justification - and I supported it, including with posts in this forum. Last year, we saw that it was not really about "equality" any longer, but had moved to an attack on religion (revenge on religion? fear that religion was correct?).

Things are starting to reverse for the gays, they still have the advantage but now even mainline media are starting to question the unseemliness of the vitriolic and hysterical attacks by gays. And people who have been concerned about the trampling of rights are speaking out as well.

 

Do you read the posts?

As I previously wrote, sexual orientation is protected class under federal law and in state law of many states. Federal hate crime laws also protect "sexual orientation", the same for many states laws.

 

The issue is very simple, equality for special group can only mean special rights for that group.
It is scientific impossibility to make something equal by attaching special to the equation.

 

You simply have no idea what you are talking about.

 

agree, time for the 98% to stop letting the religious fanatics tell everyone else what to do.....

most people, including Christians think this anti-gay stuff is just ridiculous.....


.

 

Isn't being a hetrosexual a "sexual orientation"? The discrimination laws that apply to gay American Citizens also apply to Hetrosexual American Citizens. So what's your complaint, again?

 

So if hetrosexual American Citizens have the right to marry and then receive the special right of not having to testify against their spouse - - they are what?

 

There is no such thing - heterosexual American Citizens. That definition was invented by gays i.e. special interest group to get special privileges. Once you find a law about heterosexual American Citizens let me know.

 

Any law pertaining to "sexual orientation" includes hetrosexual American Citizens. Hetrosexual IS a sexual orientation.
So again, what are these "special rights" that gay people want?

 

My position on gays has been, I could careless. But, after this jihadist movement to force society to treat them as equal to the natural order. My distaste is growing. Not because of their perversion, but there lack of respect for another's liberty.

 

"force society to treat them as equal ..." "lack of respect for another's liberty ..."

You honestly just wrote that in the same paragraph. You did. You really did. Unbelievable. Un - ****ing - believable.

 

Gay Rights ignore the childrens'rights to a father and mother.

The open Gay sexual revolution coupled with what the Feminists started in 1965 has turned the Culture into a sexually charged promiscuous environment which we raise our children in.
They have stopped marrying already to a large extent, but have half the babies illegitimately.

These bastard kids suffer enormous Chid Abuse, and grow u to become the criminal element, too.

 

Adam and Eve raised a murder.

 

You are mistaken. It isn't gays, it is Americans who believe in the constitution, you know little things like freedom of and from religion and equal rights and freedoms.
The protections afforded the minority from the tyranny of the majority - one of the foundations of American exceptionalism.

The idea that freedom from religious persecution or discrimination is motivated by homosexual behavior is exactly why it is so important to combat this perversion of religious freedom being touted by religious hypocrites.

I thought Jesus preached not to judge, but to accept, tolerate, love and forgive. Yep damn fine example of Christian hypocrisy in the name of religious freedom.

 

The problem is the use of the law. Gays use the law to bring the weight of the government upon people who oppose the gay agenda.

And don't be intentionally obtuse, the purpose and implementation of the laws protecting "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" is to promote the gay agenda, and the gays have used them effectively. Theoretically those laws could be used by a heterosexual who was discriminated against by a gay, but in reality we all know that that would never be entertained by the legal system. Its nearly impossible for white people who have been severely injured by blacks playing the "knockout game" to get hate crime laws applied to the black assailant even though the very essence of the knockout game (also called polar bear hunting - guess why?) is racially motivated. The chance of a court system applying hate crime law to a gay is zero.

In fact, at the state level terms like LGBT are used by the state governments to describe the purpose and implementation of these laws.

The California non-discrimination law even defines "gender" to mean "sex including a persons gender identity (how they see themselves) and gender expression (how other people see them)" - that means a person (unless he can read minds and know how someone else "sees" their gender) can violate the nondiscrimination law not only unintentionally but without even knowing they did. These laws are obviously intended to pander to and benefit gays.

 

Its very simple:

In the USA, a business operator should not have the right to refuse service to someone simply due to their race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, sexuality, gender.

why? because they are considered part of the public sector and the public sector needs to be free from discrimination.

 

You are mistaking a faction of the left for the left; some on the left believe it is more about the religious right feeling a sense of entitlement to the red when some on the left believe they are more worthy of the black, brown, or gray.

 

I'll start with the most ignorant point you make - that Jesus taught not to judge. People typically use the first part of Matthew 7:1 (Do not judge) but conveniently leave off the second half: For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.

It means do not be a hypocrite, and to live by the same standard you use to judge others.

It most certainly does not mean not to judge. The New Testament is all about judgment, to claim Jesus taught not to judge is complete foolishness.

*****

The Constitution is a pluralistic document outlining a means for people with varying philosophies to coexist. At best this gay "equality" issue is a clash of the right to live unnecessarily burdened by government (gay equality) and the right to the free exercise of religion. In fact, the First Amendment is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"​

*****

As already discussed, being a numerical minority does not equate to being powerless or to being just. Gays clearly have a large degree of political, legal, and social power. To imply gays are a downtrodden, persecuted class is now ridiculous. Gays have become the persecutor, not the victim.

 

Tell me. Did gay generals fire hetrosexual soldiers for their sexual orientation?
Did gay people try to pass a law in California to make hetrosexual marriages illegal?
Did gay people try to pass laws in California making it illegal for hetrosexuals to teach in public schools

And you have the audacity to accuse gays of abusing the law? WTF. Just plain old WTF.

 

Delete. Sorry. Wrong thread

 

I'm a pragmatist. I'm willing to be an intolerant hypocrite of that's what it takes to stamp out homophobia. Homophobia is a threat to the well-being of all queer people and a benefit to none, so I don't think people should have to pander to self-pitying homophobes and their victim complexes just to be allowed to exist publicly and asset their humanity.

You don't consider for a second how many things you take for granted that would incite fury from whatever drunken redneck or self-important middle aged "family values" crusader that walks by. You've never been made to feel paranoid and ashamed for something that isn't wrong or even your fault. You've never been accused of public indecency just for innocuous hand holding with a significant other. You've never had unfulfilled unrequited love haunt you because you had to be in hiding. You've never been accused of willingly choosing the thing that causes all of these.

You don't get use out of anti discrimination laws for the same reason that fish don't get use out of floaties.

 

Sure I get what you're saying. Excuse me on not understanding what you meant. That being said, Gays aren't as powerful as you make them out to be. They're winning, but it's not necessarily because their interest group is the most powerful. If we go with the idea of plurality, then it's simply because their coalition is strong. But it's still a coalition. Individually they're not that strong, together they are. At that point there, we can really say that they're a majority if that's the argument you want to make. Even under your scenario there's much more then just that one party at play ruling the government. There's going to be more groups under their wings that take orders from them.
*****

More like coerced. Intimidation doesn't usually work because it can backlash really easily, coercion is more likely the word you want to use.

Sure, but at that point that's where protection of minority rights come into play. The fact that is not considered acceptable behavior matters.