Apple throws clout behind Equality Act blocking discrimination against LGBT Americans

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 64
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

    I really don't understand why you care so much what people do in their bedrooms.   




    Because the mentally ill require treatment. if this is confusing to you, perhaps you’re also mentally ill.

  • Reply 42 of 64
    londorlondor Posts: 258member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     



    Because the mentally ill require treatment.




    What are you waiting for to check yourself in at a mental institution then?

  • Reply 43 of 64
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,654member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     



    Because the mentally ill require treatment. if this is confusing to you, perhaps you’re also mentally ill.




    Not one professional psychiatric or psychological association in the United States or in Western Europe believes that homosexuals are mentally ill.    You need to stop living in the 1940s.   

     

    But they generally do define people who hate as a mental disorder, although one in which people are still responsible for their own actions.  

  • Reply 44 of 64
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member

    Because the mentally ill require treatment. if this is confusing to you, perhaps you’re also mentally ill.
    zoetmb wrote: »

    Not one professional psychiatric or psychological association in the United States or in Western Europe believes that homosexuals are mentally ill.    You need to stop living in the 1940s.   

    But they generally do define people who hate as a mental disorder, although one in which people are still responsible for their own actions.  

    Well, I have to leap to TS's defense. He doesn't live in the 1940s, he lives in Indiana, where I used to live. I can attest that the Hoosier state should be declared a world heritage site. Example: they just held the 50th anniversary Bill Monroe Bluegrass Festival at Beanblossom, which I attended just about 50 years ago. Why Indiana? It's a long way from the Blue Ridge Mountains. Answer: the glacial moraine hills, the limestone underneath. It's a time capsule. People are born there and they enter an Einstein-Bose condensate of slowed light.

    Check it out next June, you won't believe it till you see it.
  • Reply 45 of 64
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

     



    Not one professional psychiatric or psychological association in the United States or in Western Europe believes that homosexuals are mentally ill.    You need to stop living in the 1940s.   

     

    But they generally do define people who hate as a mental disorder, although one in which people are still responsible for their own actions.  




    I think he was talking about transgender people, not homosexuals.

     

    Not that that makes what he said any better, but let's be accurate.

  • Reply 46 of 64
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ExceptionHandler View Post





    Oh so it's only ok for you and the LGBT to impose their beliefs on us?



    Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear declines to hold special session to create accommodations for clerks not wanting to perform same-sex marriages, says they need to comply with the court’s ruling.



    “Christian Colleges’ Right to Deny Married Housing for Gay Couples Is ‘on the Edge of the Indefensible,’ Barry Lynn Asserts”



    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/01/07/atlanta-fire-chief-was-fired-because-my-christian-faith.html



    The LGBT community is not imposing their beliefs on you or anyone. We are asking for the same freedom you have to pursue our own happiness, just like you can. What people don't seem to understand is that everyone's freedom, specifically, religious freedom, is for each individual to govern his/her own life by his/her own personal beliefs. No one, including the government, is allowed to stop you from practicing your own personal beliefs or impose a belief system on you that dictates what choices you must make FOR YOURSELF and YOUR OWN BEHAVIOR. However, it doesn't protect your attempts to restrict someone else's behavior based on what you believe is right or wrong. (Please don't anyone be so dense as to say, "so if my personal beliefs are that murder is okay..." Of course not. If your personal beliefs are that it is okay to bring any kind of malicious harm to someone else, you have bigger issues.) This freedom is not for anyone to use to govern anyone else's behavior, and the government is responsible to write laws to protect us from trampling on each other's freedoms to pursue our OWN happiness. The government should not be giving any one group freedoms that another doesn't have or singling out a group for restrictions even if the majority disagrees with that group. We have the Supreme Court to rule on the appropriateness of laws, particularly the constitutionality, specifically to protect the minority from the majority. It's really easy to look back through history and see examples of where the majority was wrong.

     

    If you own a business, work at a business, or have a government position that serves the public, you don't get to choose which members of the public you will serve. Making this kind of judgement about others, using any method, whether questioning or just observation, to discern if someone is a homosexual or pedophile or member of a religion that is at odds with your own, is pure discrimination, particularly if this is not information you need to know to do your job. Your freedom ensures that, if you do not believe that consenting adults of the same gender should get married, then you don't have to enter into a marriage with someone of the same gender. That is the only fair interpretation of religious freedom - you can only enforce your religious freedom as it relates to you and your own behavior. Your freedom DOES NOT allow you to try to keep other consenting adults of the same gender from getting married. This should NOT be determined by the voters within a state, and frankly, SCOTUS shouldn't even have had to rule on it. This should have just been obvious to everyone. If everyone is equal, any personal decision that I want to make in my pursuit of happiness is none of your business as long as it doesn't take away from your freedom to pursue your happiness. A decision to marry affects no one but me and the person I choose to marry. Your freedoms and my freedoms don't overlap here. If your business offers a service to the public, you are free to express your religious or other beliefs and tell everyone that you don't agree with gays getting married or anything else that we do, as soon as you step off the business's property. You might even get away with expressing it during the execution of your duties, but you still have to provide the service to EVERYONE unless doing so breaks a state or federal law (not God's law, which is for your personal governance and should not be a consideration for state or federal law that limits anyone's freedom to pursue happiness).

     

    I will say that if your job is specifically a religious-based job, such as a chaplain, minister, pastor, priest, or rabbi, I don't think that any non-discrimination law should be used to force them to perform or participate in any ceremony or activity that violates their doctrinal beliefs. While the output of their jobs is available to the public, so is their doctrine, and frankly, I'm ashamed of any homosexual that would bring suit against a member of the clergy that declines participation, but I do expect that clergy should decline in a respectful and considerate manner. There are plenty of clergy that will perform ceremonies without trying to force one that is against it. The clergy's income comes from their congregations, not the general public, and they should be allowed to maintain adherence to the doctrine their congregation expects of them. I don't have to believe what they believe, practice it, or even agree with it, to respect that they do and that they have that right. Likewise, homosexuals should not request to use their houses of worship if the clergy and congregation that own or pay for the building have declined to participate. This would not apply to a public servant, business, or venue.

     

    What you find offensive to your personal beliefs, don't do, but don't think that you can stand in the way of others doing it. None of us are entitled to live our lives without being offended by what someone else thinks is right or wrong, and as long as we have consciousness, we are all going to find ourselves offended by something that someone else says or does because there is nothing that can or should be done to make us all think alike. If you see us kissing or holding hands out in public, you're free to tell us you think it is gross or to get a room, but if you are really ugly about it, don't be surprised if you get an earful from it. All things being equal, we have the right to speak our minds too, but let's all try to be considerate to each other. You know, we have to see the heterosexuals doing it all the time. <sarcasm> I can't turn on the TV without being assaulted constantly by the sight of heterosexuals' loving on each other. It's disgusting! </sarcasm> But though you might not like PDsA from heterosexuals either, you're ultimately okay with that because it's the "right kind" of attraction. This is discrimination. You may never get used to seeing PDsA from homosexuals, and you may even successfully pass that along to your children but eventually, just like heterosexual PDsA, it will eventually be a non-issue. All of our children would be much better off (and safer) if we weren't a society of prudes. What would make them safer is more information - teach them more about what they're going to see out there. The fewer times they are surprised or confused by what they see, the more likely they'll be to make good decisions.

     

    Sure, you can say it in such a way that it sounds like I have the same freedom that you do to marry because we can all marry someone of the opposite gender, but that's just semantics. The simplest form of this argument is that everyone should have the right to marry the person they love. When I first started considering this issue, I originally thought that "marriage" should be a church thing, and that the licenses offered by government offices should be civil union contracts, because that is basically what it is: 2 people entering into a contract to share their "stuff." Get the government out of "holy matrimony" altogether and let the religious folks have it, but that really is not what conservative religious folks were/are fighting. They were/are literally fighting to keep homosexuals from having a union of any kind that is recognized in the same way as heterosexual marriage because they think its an "abomination." I can’t recall anything in the Bible where God or Jesus commanded Jews/Christians to get involved in government and try to change all written laws to enforce everything that God/Jesus told their followers to do or not do. I do know that the Bible says to follow the laws of the land and trust that God allowed the leaders to be leaders (I think the words are that the rulers were “divinely appointed by God”). So clearly these ultra-conservative Christians don't even trust the Word of God that they claim is inerrant.

     

    You cannot, CANNOT, CANNOT use holy text/religious arguments to determine civil law. Not everyone believes in your holy text/god, not everyone that believes in your holy text or another holy text believes that it is inerrant, and nearly everyone has a different interpretation of it - some offering vastly different interpretations of the same texts, while still others add lots of things that aren't really even in there. You cannot base an argument for or against a civil law on something that you can't prove, but simply choose to believe. Yes, I know you can't see the wind, and no, that doesn't make it any less real. Yeah, and we all know that wind is a disruption of our atmosphere caused by unequal heating of the earth's surface by the sun leading to areas of differing air pressure that, unobstructed, will naturally try to equalize. That's what causes wind. It's just how the natural world works. You cannot rationally compare the natural to the supernatural. Regardless of how many people believe it, claiming that you can feel God and that you know beyond the shadow of a doubt that he's there is your personal thing, and cannot be expected of or forced on anyone else. So, believe what you want, respect that others don't have to believe what you believe, and govern your own behavior by your beliefs, but understand that you have to separate what is acceptable for you to do (based on your beliefs) from what you must allow others to do.

     

    We really shouldn't need so many laws at all. Use the Golden Rule: Treat everyone the way you want them to treat you. Respect the boundaries, or lack thereof, that others have for their personal behavior and don't try to force them into activities that make them uncomfortable. If a transgender person in a public restroom makes you uncomfortable, don't use a multi-stall public restroom. Find one in which you can be alone and lock yourself in. As others have said, criminals will be criminals regardless of the laws we have. I understand the reservations, especially fathers wanting to protect their daughters (it may not be rational, but it's real, and comes from a place of love), but I suspect that it won't take long for people to realize that allowing this won't introduce any threat that wasn't already there. At this point, any new threat is purely imagined.

     

    And that fire chief in Atlanta was fired because there was some approval he was supposed get from his employer before publishing the book, not because of the views/beliefs he expressed in the book. I'm sure you know that it is quite common for employers to require some kind of notification or approval before their employees participate in some other money-making enterprise. I know my current and previous employers do.

     

    It boils down to this... Stop looking for things to be mad about, mind your own damn business, be as good to everyone as you can be, and let people be free to do what they want with the only limitation being that we can't do something that brings harm to others. I'm just amazed by all the outrage over things that should be an individual's personal decision and have no effect on the people expressing their outrage. We have people in the U.S., and that can walk into the U.S., that hate us and want to kill us, one by one, if necessary, and many of us are more concerned about who gets to pee in which restroom or who gets married to whom. All the while, our elected leaders are trying to create more divide among us. I think we're collectively losing our minds and we're headed for something really ugly if people can't get control of their emotions.

  • Reply 47 of 64
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,654member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post







    Well, I have to leap to TS's defense. He doesn't live in the 1940s, he lives in Indiana, where I used to live. I can attest that the Hoosier state should be declared a world heritage site. Example: they just held the 50th anniversary Bill Monroe Bluegrass Festival at Beanblossom, which I attended just about 50 years ago. Why Indiana? It's a long way from the Blue Ridge Mountains. Answer: the glacial moraine hills, the limestone underneath. It's a time capsule. People are born there and they enter an Einstein-Bose condensate of slowed light.



    Check it out next June, you won't believe it till you see it.



    Nothing wrong with heritage, bluegrass, limestone or the people of Indiana.  None of that has anything to do with civil rights, racism, sexism or someone caring about what I do in my bedroom.   

  • Reply 48 of 64
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     



    Because the mentally ill require treatment. if this is confusing to you, perhaps you’re also mentally ill.




    To which group(s) are your disparaging "mentally ill" remarks directed?

  • Reply 49 of 64
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,654member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ExceptionHandler View Post





    Oh so it's only ok for you and the LGBT to impose their beliefs on us?

    No one is imposing their beliefs on you.   As I previously posted, no one is forcing you to be gay or transgender.   No one is forcing you to give up your virginity before marriage.    But you can't use religion to violate someone else's civil rights.   Religion and so-called "morality" can be used and have been used as an excuse to violate the civil rights of others.   It was used to support both slavery and segregation and laws against mixed marriages. 

     

    You still have the right to believe that gays and transgenders are immoral, that Jews have horns and that mixed marriages violate God's will.   You just can't discriminate based on those beliefs in a place of public accommodation, like a business.   You can do whatever you want in your home and in your church - you can ban gays, transgenders, immigrants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, hippies, lovers of Disco, Samsung phone users, whatever.   (The exception being if you're an employee of a church, especially when working in a business associated with the church, like a hospital).   

     

    And regardless of what you believe, you can't discriminate when you work for the Government.   When you work for the Government, you have to follow the law.    If each government employee could carry out their own beliefs when doing their jobs, you could have employees conducting virginity tests on brides before they permitted them to get married or refusing to marry mixed race couples.    If a Government employee doesn't want to carry out the duties of their job, it's very simple - they can quit that job and go work in private industry or start their own business.  

  • Reply 50 of 64
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,544member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ExceptionHandler View Post





    You don't get to choose whether your male or female. That's a civil rights issue because that is immutable. That is determined at biologically at conception. Having a sexual preference is a choice, whether right or wrong, so it's not a civil rights issue. Pretending to be another gender when your not is a choice, so again, not a civil rights issue.



    Everything we know about all of these conditions says you're wrong. 

     

    Period. 

     

    Choose to believe it or not; as long as you don't, there is no point in discussing gay rights with you, at all. 

     

    You will merely stand and gape in wonder as society leaves you behind. 

  • Reply 51 of 64
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    splif wrote: »
    How does the government preserve "our freedoms"? Could it be through laws? What definition of "our freedoms" do we adhere to? Who is "our"?

    As you well know, the Constitution is the document that defines what our inherent rights are so they may be defended by law. The Constitution is a "living document" so it may be updated, but only through defined legal means. Inherent rights cannot be taken away, but they can be violated.
  • Reply 52 of 64
    spheric wrote: »

    Everything we know about all of these conditions says you're wrong. 

    Period. 

    Choose to believe it or not; as long as you don't, there is no point in discussing gay rights with you, at all. 

    You will merely stand and gape in wonder as society leaves you behind. 

    Says who? You? That's not a way to convince anyone your position is correct. All you've done is resort to ad hominem/bandwagon attacks because you can't come up with a well thought out argument to counter mine. Nice.
  • Reply 53 of 64
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

    [irrelevancy]




    I was not speaking of homosexuality. You, however, will never believe this, because someone’s pathetic feelings were hurt by the truth and the post (and associated quote) was deleted.

  • Reply 54 of 64
    splifsplif Posts: 603member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    As you well know, the Constitution is the document that defines what our inherent rights are so they may be defended by law. The Constitution is a "living document" so it may be updated, but only through defined legal means. Inherent rights cannot be taken away, but they can be violated.

    Again...define "our"? What law abiding American citizens are not a part of "our" and therefore not afforded their inherent rights?

  • Reply 55 of 64
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,544member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ExceptionHandler View Post





    Says who? You? That's not a way to convince anyone your position is correct. All you've done is resort to ad hominem/bandwagon attacks because you can't come up with a well thought out argument to counter mine. Nice.



    Nope, nothing ad-hominem about my argument. 

     

    Saying that people who have a clue disagree with you, and that if you refuse to believe them, there is no point in discussing things with you, is not an ad-hominem attack. 

     

    And I specifically made the point that you are wrong according to "everything we know", i.e. not "says me", but "says everybody who's actually researched the psychological and biological background of the subject", which I can only presume you haven't. 

     

    It is also not an attempt to convince anyone that my position is correct. Indeed, it is quite the opposite: It is acknowledgement that there is absolutely nothing I could do that would convince you of my position, much like it would not be possible to convince a blind man that the sky is not green if he refuses to believe everybody who tells him that the sky is blue, or even consider it possible. 

     

    Believe what you will; you are being left behind. 

  • Reply 56 of 64
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    splif wrote: »
    Again...define "our"? What law abiding American citizen's are not a part of "our" and therefore not afforded their inherent rights?

    Are you a U.S. citizen?
  • Reply 57 of 64
    splifsplif Posts: 603member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    Are you a U.S. citizen?



    Yes. Are you? What does this have to do with the question I asked?

  • Reply 58 of 64
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Splif View Post

     



    Yes. Are you? What does this have to do with the question I asked?




    You either are, or are pretending to be, woefully uninformed about your constitutionally protected rights.

  • Reply 59 of 64
    splifsplif Posts: 603member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     



    You either are, or are pretending to be, woefully uninformed about your constitutionally protected rights.




    Again, answer the question with your infinite knowledge of the Constitution. I'm curious as to who you think is not deserving of its' inherent rights.

  • Reply 60 of 64
    londor wrote: »
    So you are attracted to both sexes then. Let me break it to you, you are bisexual. That's your sexuality and it's something you didn't choose. What you chose is as a bisexual man to only engage in heterosexual sex.

    Capability and wanting are 2 different things. Wanting something doesn't make it right. What you're saying only confirms that it is mutable choice and therefor not a civil rights issue.
Sign In or Register to comment.