please stop proving me right...

[Hyena Dandy]

The problem is Smiley, that you've picked a position, and you're only going to look for evidence from that position. And when you find some, you say 'ah-ha, I was right, all Republicans are like this'. There are clearly Republicans who AREN'T like that, even though many of them are. A great deal of them are. Quite a few of them are. There are a great many, and many of the ones who are are quite open about it. A large amount of anti-gay voters are Republican. Numerous vocal Republicans are anti-gay. It is quite easy to find anti-gay Republicans. There are homophobic Republicans. More words establishing that I was never trying to deny homophobic Republicans exist, only that not ALL of them are.

In fact, the Republican candidate for Governor in Massachusetts has an openly gay running mate, which it seems to me he wouldn't do if he were a homophobic bigot.

Edit: Edited for clarity.

[Greenday]

The problem is Smiley, that you've picked a position, and you're only going to look for evidence from that position. And when you find some, you say 'ah-ha, I was right, all Republicans are like this'. There are clearly Republicans who AREN'T like that, even though many of them are.

You have to admit though, it's pathetically easy to find that evidence.

[Hyena Dandy]

The problem is Smiley, that you've picked a position, and you're only going to look for evidence from that position. And when you find some, you say 'ah-ha, I was right, all Republicans are like this'. There are clearly Republicans who AREN'T like that, even though many of them are.

I think I did. I'll re-edit it to make it more clear if it was confusing though.

[smileyeagle1021]

You have to admit though, it's pathetically easy to find that evidence.

You forget, for those of us who live in the Bible Belt and the Deseret States, we don't have to find evidence, it is forced upon us on a daily bases.

When is the Republican party in Wisconsin going to make Utah officially decriminalize homosexuality (the law is still on the books even though they can't enforce it)? When is the Massachusetts Republican candidate going to make it illegal to discriminate in the half the states where it is legal to discriminate? When are the accepting Republicans going to vote for a presidential candidate who's platform doesn't support keeping gays out of the military and amending the US Constitution to ensure that gays NEVER have equal marriage?

You know who has had a positive impact in my life?
Mayor Becker pushing through the anti-discrimination laws, democrat.
Mayor Peter Coroon pushing through anti-discrimination, democrat.
The vote in the Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County councils was perfectly along party lines, democrats supported criminalizing discrimination, Republicans voted to keep discrimination. At the state level it is the exact same thing, every democrat voted for an end to discrimination and every republican voted against it. To date ONE republican council has voted to end discrimination, and that was in Logan city, but that was because the democrats that run Utah State told them in no uncertain terms that the laws would be passed (and when you control 40% of the economy, you can tell the council to outlaw pants and pants will become illegal).
West Valley City did have Republicans break rank, but that was under pressure from the Democratic county.

Thanks to Democrats, I can now speak freely about my relationship at work with my coworkers (who are also discussing their relationships) without fear of getting fired for it. Thanks to Democrats I cannot be evicted for living with my boyfriend. The Republican response has been to constantly threaten to overthrow those few hard won protections at the state level.

I still have an open challenge, find me a republican who has improved my life, not the life of people I have never and likely will never meet, and then we can talk about my views being misplaced.

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

You forget, for those of us who live in the Bible Belt and the Deseret States, we don't have to find evidence, it is forced upon us on a daily bases.

When is the Republican party in Wisconsin going to make Utah officially decriminalize homosexuality (the law is still on the books even though they can't enforce it)? When is the Massachusetts Republican candidate going to make it illegal to discriminate in the half the states where it is legal to discriminate? When are the accepting Republicans going to vote for a presidential candidate who's platform doesn't support keeping gays out of the military and amending the US Constitution to ensure that gays NEVER have equal marriage?

You know who has had a positive impact in my life?
Mayor Becker pushing through the anti-discrimination laws, democrat.
Mayor Peter Coroon pushing through anti-discrimination, democrat.
The vote in the Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County councils was perfectly along party lines, democrats supported criminalizing discrimination, Republicans voted to keep discrimination. At the state level it is the exact same thing, every democrat voted for an end to discrimination and every republican voted against it. To date ONE republican council has voted to end discrimination, and that was in Logan city, but that was because the democrats that run Utah State told them in no uncertain terms that the laws would be passed (and when you control 40% of the economy, you can tell the council to outlaw pants and pants will become illegal).
West Valley City did have Republicans break rank, but that was under pressure from the Democratic county.

Thanks to Democrats, I can now speak freely about my relationship at work with my coworkers (who are also discussing their relationships) without fear of getting fired for it. Thanks to Democrats I cannot be evicted for living with my boyfriend. The Republican response has been to constantly threaten to overthrow those few hard won protections at the state level.

I still have an open challenge, find me a republican who has improved my life, not the life of people I have never and likely will never meet, and then we can talk about my views being misplaced.

Your post illustrates why I identify as a conservative and not a Republican.

I may be conservative but I believe that humans have free will (even the bible agrees with that statement) to do as we choose. If someone wants to live with someone else before marriage than so be it.

You can disagree with a position without being vehemently against it or working to have a law enacted to stop it.

The basic point I'm making here is this: Just because I'm a conservative or a christian doesn't mean I have to hate gay people and work against them every chance I get. As I said before, I don't think that's in line with biblical teachings.

[HYHYBT]

when you control 40% of the economy, you can tell the council to outlaw pants and pants will become illegal

In Utah? You probably could outlaw pants even without that kind of force, so long as it's only for women. Heel-length dresses only.

[BlaqueKatt]

I still have an open challenge, find me a republican who has improved my life, not the life of people I have never and likely will never meet, and then we can talk about my views being misplaced.

nope I believe I already answered that challenge....

Ronald Regan-helped defeat The Briggs Initiative.

The Briggs Initiative was the first statewide electoral victory for proponents of gay rights. Historian David Johnson argues that it was "the greatest electoral victory yet of the burgeoning gay rights movement." Had Briggs passed in California, similar proposals would have been introduced around the nation.


If that's not enough I'll give you four more:

In June 2003, the United States Supreme Court issued an historic ruling in the case of Lawrence v. Texas. Justices struck down all anti-sodomy laws around the nation. Four of the six justices in the majority were Republican.

yup striking down sodomy laws didn't have a positive impact....I guess those Republican judges put there by Republicans had no impact in equality. And preventing further discriminatory laws did nothing either.

again sodomy is no longer illegal anywhere in the US because of REPUBLICAN judges-that didn't help you or do anything to improve your life at all?

[smileyeagle1021]

I was not alive during the Regan administration. And Lawrence v. Texas was only necessary because a republican government refused to repeal or at the very least stop enforcing an outdated law.
So we have one person nearly a quarter century ago.
Fast forward and with the exception of four republicans bound by the Constitution (not their own conscience) there is NOTHING except for hatred.
Did you know if you are gay and you try to enlist and you refuse to leave the recruiting office you have committed a felony? Yup, gay people in recruiting offices are considered trespassers. That is a republican policy.
So please, while you followed the letter of the challenge, you failed the spirit, let's try to find a modern example, not a quarter century in the past.

[jackfaire]

Did you know if you are gay and you try to enlist and you refuse to leave the recruiting office you have committed a felony?

Did you know that if you are no longer welcome in a location and refuse to leave when asked you can be charged with trespassing and that this applies equally to everyone and is a felony and has absolutely nothing to do with being gay?

[protege]

Did you know that if you are no longer welcome in a location and refuse to leave when asked you can be charged with trespassing and that this applies equally to everyone and is a felony and has absolutely nothing to do with being gay?

Exactly. The law doesn't look at it that way. It doesn't matter if you're gay, straight, or someone who has relations with cantaloupes. If you're asked to leave, and you refuse...you're breaking the law. The "gay card," much like the "race card" over on CS, has nothing do with with it. To claim otherwise, really does cheapen cases of real discrimination.

[Rapscallion]

People can be held to account for discriminating against people of differing sexual orientation, but is it right that the law cannot?

A gay person in a recruiting office would be asked to leave because of their sexuality - in that circumstance then the law in question is discriminatory. If asked to leave because they are walking around in a gorilla suit with anti-war placards, then that wouldn't be anything to do with their sexuality.

Not sure if I'm making sense. Don't really care

Rapscallion

[jackfaire]

Not sure if I'm making sense. Don't really care

Rapscallion

Kind of. If they are telling him to get lost for the sole reason he is gay then they are being discriminatory. However if they are telling to get lost because he can't enlist and they are telling everyone that can't enlist to get lost then charging them with trespassing if they don't then it's not discriminatory.

The law itself is not discriminatory but the way it's applied can be.

[Hobbs]

People can be held to account for discriminating against people of differing sexual orientation, but is it right that the law cannot?

A gay person in a recruiting office would be asked to leave because of their sexuality - in that circumstance then the law in question is discriminatory. If asked to leave because they are walking around in a gorilla suit with anti-war placards, then that wouldn't be anything to do with their sexuality.

Not sure if I'm making sense. Don't really care

Rapscallion

Kind of. If they are telling him to get lost for the sole reason he is gay then they are being discriminatory. However if they are telling to get lost because he can't enlist and they are telling everyone that can't enlist to get lost then charging them with trespassing if they don't then it's not discriminatory.

The law itself is not discriminatory but the way it's applied can be.

What you both aren't understanding in this situation, however, is that the military is allowed to discriminate. We also don't take people who are overweight, unfit, mentally unstable or otherwise unfit for military service. Women are excluded from combat roles, you can't pilot or be Nav/ABM if you're color-blind. As the United States Code states:

(a) Findings.— Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces

It is only disciminatory if the government is trying to deny a right to a citizen. A citizen has no obligation or right to serve. Further within the section it states:

(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.

Thirdly, as it has already been pointed out, the situation Smileyeagle said was, "if a gay man is in a recruiting office and refuses to leave." Trespassing on federal property (which is what a recruiting office is because it is owned and operated by the federal government) is a federal offense and a felony.

I feel the need to add this last part from the US Code:

(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that—

(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and

(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

*Taken from US Code: Title 10, s. 654

PS: Maybe you should make my link a Sticky, Raps. I use if often enough...and it comes up handy in these conversations.

[BlaqueKatt]

I was not alive during the Regan administration. And Lawrence v. Texas was only necessary because a republican government refused to repeal or at the very least stop enforcing an outdated law.
So we have one person nearly a quarter century ago.
Fast forward and with the exception of four republicans bound by the Constitution (not their own conscience) there is NOTHING except for hatred.
Did you know if you are gay and you try to enlist and you refuse to leave the recruiting office you have committed a felony? Yup, gay people in recruiting offices are considered trespassers. That is a republican policy.
So please, while you followed the letter of the challenge, you failed the spirit, let's try to find a modern example, not a quarter century in the past.

you'll just dismiss it out of hand like you did the last two-you change the rules as you see fit to dismiss anything that doesn't support your own hatred-I'm done-live in your hate,wallow in it like you have been-it will consume you eventually-I'm done being called every name in the book, and seeing good people trying to open your eyes to the good out there-but you're so convinced the world is out to get you because you're gay that your refuse to see reason-you're blinded by anything but hatred-check the list of co-sponsors for the federal anti-discrimination act-ya know the one with the sole purpose of trying to make it so no state can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation for employment, housing etc. you think they're all dems? got news for you there are quite a few Republicans on that list-and again you totally dismiss the log cabin Republicans.

My state is around 70% Democrats, 20% Republican, 10% other-yet gay marriage was voted down 60%-40%-if only 20% are Republicans, and Democrats are so "gay friendly" where did the other 40% of votes come from?

then there'sthis


The Republican Liberty Caucus strongly opposes the Texas GOP platform’s anti-gay and anti-liberty planks. We call for the state party to take action to address this problem. While it may not be possible to repeal or change the party platform, the state leadership should issue a clear statement that the platform is non-binding and does not represent the core, shared beliefs of Texas Republicans or of our candidates.

and this article

"the platform is non-binding on candidates and does not represent the core beliefs of the party or its candidates. This runs directly opposite from proposals made during the convention, but not acted on, that candidates be required to publicly endorse the platform in some way. Having seen the platform, many party leaders are recoiling from that idea"





Huh-you were saying? Forgot to follow up after the wharrrgarble and "moral outrage" did we-or did you deliberately exclude the fact that it was NOT a consensus decision(written up by a small committee of maybe 6 people and NOT put to a vote)-and Republicans are appalled by it?

I'm sure you'll find some way to twist it so they're still all but burning crosses on your lawn wearing full KKK gear....let's hear it-I like a good crackpot conspiracy theory.....

[jackfaire]

What you both aren't understanding in this situation, however, is that the military is allowed to discriminate.

You don't understand that we are talking about being arrested for trespassing by refrusing to leave a recruitment center when asked not about whether or not the military can ciscriminate about who enlists.

We aren't talking about enlisting but about trespassing.