Quote:
Originally Posted by OccultHawk
a position that could be misinterpreted as homophobic.
|
That would be the correct interpretation. The first thing that he did to justify his stance was dismiss homosexuality as frivolous while oddly using it interchangeably with gender-fluidity. Later on, he dismissed those who didn't agree with him as only doing so because the scenario involved the LGBT community. Both of those (among many others) espouse the motivation behind his reasoning on this subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by [MERIT]
Aren't we all special. We all have to be treated nice and neat. Again someone SHOULDN'T discriminate against others based upon their race, sexual orientation, religion, gender, etc., but do we really need the government to tell us that?
|
History tells us yes.
Quote:
|
If the only reason you act good is to avoid incarceration or eternal damnation, does that REALLY make you a good person? In my views, you do good things because they are the right thing to do. In the eyes of those arguing against me in this thread, you do good things because the government tells you to.
|
Strawman alert!
Quote:
|
You have the right to health insurance. You don't, however, have the right to someone else's labor. again, that doesn't really apply in this situation, as has been discussed, but I need to stress that FACT.
|
both sides of the scenario are very plainly opinions. Morality and fact are not even in the same family tree.
WOULD YOU MIND ANSWERING THE QUESTION THAT I ASKED HERE?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland
Besides for "freeeeedom", what do businesses lose when they're not allowed to discriminate against customers? What do individuals lose when they are discriminated against? Which one of those is the bigger or more important loss?
|
You're free to say "no I won't answer your question, Frownland."