Previous 11 - 20 Next
Oh look. An anti-gay bully. Or am I not allowed to point that out?
Oh look. An anti-gay bully. Or am I not allowed to point that out?
Because conservatives think gun laws are awesome exactly the way they are. MOAR GUNZ!!!!
And people like you made sure he hated the way he was if that was indeed the truth. This solves anything how?
I think you're confusing "not allowed to say" with "allowed to say and nobody agrees with you." 1) You realize that transgenderism and homosexuality are two entirely different things, right? Good heavens. This is your opinion written as medical evidence. 2) Even if they chose to be gay, so what? You choose your religion and that certainly gets protection. 3) There is no such things as "conversion therapy". Nobody can change their sexual orientation. People can put on a charade, marry someone of the opposite sex, perhaps even dream about someone of the same sex long enough to pop out of a few kids, but it's all a charade. Besides, the lie is enough to kill you. Ignoring the actual evidence of harm shown by such therapies which essentially teach you to hate the way God made you is immensely harmful, which is why every major accredited medical group is against the barbaric and dangerous practice. 4) Anti-gay bullies are commonplace in America too. When did gangs of gay people go around beating up people? Did you hear the story about the gay kid who beat up the football players Name a single anti-gay person who killed themselves because they were "bullied" to death by a gay person and then we can have a remote discussion about. To even equate disagreement with "bullying" with those who have taken their lives because of anti-gay people like you is an insult. 5) Ugh. Again, insinuating that gay people can't keep it in their pants when kids are around. Have you any idea how insulting that is?
In response to:

10 Things to Know for Thursday

JoeNCA Wrote: Feb 27, 2014 11:57 AM
Which is why the law was vetoed, because of the overbroadness of it. And even if it did, according to this, a doctor just has to say "But Jesus!" and the case would have to be dismissed simply by invoking his/her religion. That's the problem with these "religious freedom" laws. They are intended to thwart a singular problem: Discrimination against gay people. If they are too broad, as in the one was, it goes far beyond just "refusing vendor services for a gay wedding." The bill said nothing merely about refusing wedding services. The bill said -anyone- can refuse -any- service for -any- religious reason, including a doctor could refuse to treat a gay person, or a fireman could refuse to put out the fire of the house of an unmarried couple, or a Muslim taxi driver could refuse to pick up a single woman. Nothing in the bill limited it only to wedding services or gay people. However, if they are too focused, they are immediately (and rightfully) subjected to scrutiny for targeting a particular minority.
In response to:

10 Things to Know for Thursday

JoeNCA Wrote: Feb 27, 2014 3:13 AM
Because it does not follow. Polygamy, child and incestual marriage are primarily legal in places where homosexual is banned, let alone gay marriage. They tend to be the province of -more-, not less, religious countries. In fact, in countries that have legalized gay marriage, two of them, Canada and Uruguay, have actually increased the age of consent. So no, it doesn't follow. Unless you completely haven't been paying attention.
In response to:

10 Things to Know for Thursday

JoeNCA Wrote: Feb 27, 2014 3:09 AM
"Gov. Jan Brewer said the bill, which would have granted people the right to refuse service to gays, was divisive and could have resulted in unintended negative consequences." So Townhall is "the left"?
In response to:

10 Things to Know for Thursday

JoeNCA Wrote: Feb 27, 2014 3:08 AM
And allow a doctor to refuse to treat gay people if it ran contrary to his religion.
In response to:

10 Things to Know for Thursday

JoeNCA Wrote: Feb 27, 2014 3:07 AM
"Gov. Jan Brewer said the bill, which would have granted people the right to refuse service to gays, was divisive and could have resulted in unintended negative consequences." So it was all about discriminating against gay people and not about religious freedom.
In response to:

Setting the Record Straight on SB 1062

JoeNCA Wrote: Feb 27, 2014 3:06 AM
Setting the record straight? The only "problems" legislators cited in reasoning for this bill was so that businesses could discriminate against gay people. That was it. There has been no other case that's actually happened except not being able to discriminate against gay people. That's it. This is still just a whole ruse of discrimination under the guise of "religious freedom". The press had it right all this time. They just weren't your lap dog into thinking you were pissing on gay people and saying it's raining.
Previous 11 - 20 Next