All Things LGBTQ+ (1 Viewer)

[Farb]

Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right now

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/sup...y-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html

• The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a unanimous defeat to LGBT couples in a high-profile case over whether Philadelphia could refuse to contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says its religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.
• Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion for a majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption.

I will admit, I was hopeful for this decision by the SCOTUS but I was surprised by the unanimous decision.

While I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with same sex couples adopting and raising children (I actually think it is a good thing as it not an abortion) but I also did not want to see the state force a religious institution to bend to a societal norm.

 

[Farb]

I haven't seen any world leaders literally laughing at our president to his face.

I've only see that happen to one president.

no one likes to laugh in a mentally declining person's face. That is why they could do it Trump and can't do it Biden. Have a heart my man.

 

[Farb]

Can you prove it’s not? Seems to me you would just let it be and assume the police knew the way they needed to describe this person, rather than getting all emotional about what they said. Like it affected your life in any way other than your feelings which were evidently hurt by it.

I can. Look at the picture.

 

[Farb]

Got any proof or is this just transphobic porn for you?

Proof of what? It is a picture from the guy on the right Instagram. I wonder why it wasn't on the news more.

 

[MT15]

I can. Look at the picture.

That isn’t proof - like at all.

 

[MT15]

Proof of what? It is a picture from the guy on the right Instagram. I wonder why it wasn't on the news more.

Oh, it was on the news a lot - just only the kind of places that you visit and that are known for pushing lies and disinformation.

 

[Farb]

That isn’t proof - like at all.

That is odd to me. I remember when a picture was worth a thousand words. What is more proof to you, what this loon tells you he is or what you actually see with your eyes?

 

[MT15]

That is odd to me. I remember when a picture was worth a thousand words. What is more proof to you, what this loon tells you he is or what you actually see with your eyes?

I don’t think we have any indication what this person thinks, do we? Try to stay focused on the facts, not your delicate feelings.

 

[samiam5211]

no one likes to laugh in a mentally declining person's face. That is why they could do it Trump and can't do it Biden. Have a heart my man.

At least you acknowledge that the world was laughing in Trump's face.

progress

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Indentured servitude. You did say that was the same as slavery, still think that?

What the hell does this have to do with what I said?

 

[Farb]

I don’t think we have any indication what this person thinks, do we? Try to stay focused on the facts, not your delicate feelings.

Do you consider visual clues to be facts?

 

[Farb]

What the hell does this have to do with what I said?

You said earlier, I can't find it so maybe i was mistaken or it was deleted or I missed it but you said that the definition of indentured service fits the same the definition of slavery. I just want to be sure you still think that.

 

[MT15]

Do you consider visual clues to be facts?

Not in the way you are doing. They are clues, you just said so yourself. They aren’t conclusive.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Saying something is "settled law" isn't as reassuring as it used to be for some reason
======================================================

Many Senate Republicans, rather than confront the substance of new legislation that would provide federal protections for same-sex marriage, are instead arguing that a vote on the bill is unnecessary.

By their reasoning, lawmakers don’t need to consider this legislation, which has already passed the House and is known as the Respect for Marriage Act, because the Supreme Court will treat the Obergefell v. Hodges decision that established this right as settled law.

In his concurrent opinion in the recent Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, however, Justice Clarence Thomas said that Obergefell was among the decisions he was interested in reconsidering. Previously, multiple justices also said they believed Roe was an established precedent only to vote to overturn it in Dobbs. That’s left Democrats arguing that the marriage bill Congress is weighing is vital to enshrine these protections into federal law in case the Supreme Court reverses the precedent set in Obergefell.

“I think it’s completely unnecessary,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) told Vox. “The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution protects same-sex marriage. It’s under no threat of being reversed or overruled so this is all part of our Democratic colleagues’ attack on the Supreme Court, which has had dangerous consequences.”

Cornyn is among a number of Republicans, including Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), and Mitt Romney (R-UT) who’ve argued that taking the bill up is superfluous, as the GOP seeks to keep the focus on other issues like inflation. While Cornyn and Rubio oppose the bill, however, Cassidy and Romney are among the Republicans who have yet to say where they stand.

“I think it’s completely made up, this controversy,” Cornyn told Vox, arguing that even if Congress were to pass the bill, the Supreme Court could just overturn it. That’s a risk, however, Congress takes with every piece of legislation it passes. Nancy Marcus, a law professor at California Western, told Vox it would be unlikely the Court could nullify a law like this due to the difficulty of finding a plaintiff with the standing needed to bring a case. And if the bill were simply redundant, there would be little harm in taking a vote and reaffirming protections on the issue.

Ultimately, the Republican position is about deflection. GOP lawmakers would be taking an unpopular position if they opposed the bill, so they are instead claiming to be opposed to legislative redundancy and overreach. Additionally, this framing helps them avoid what some GOP lawmakers see as a lose-lose scenario: Opposing the measure could prompt backlash from moderate voters, while supporting it could enrage socially conservative members of their base............

MSN

 

[cuddlemonkey]

You said earlier, I can't find it so maybe i was mistaken or it was deleted or I missed it but you said that the definition of indentured service fits the same the definition of slavery. I just want to be sure you still think that.

I think you are meaning that for this thread/post:

All things Racist...USA edition

I was looking for a place to put this so we could discuss but didn't really find a place that worked so I created this thread so we can all place articles, experiences, videos and examples of racism in the USA.This is one that happened this week. The lady even called and filed a complaint on...

madaboutpolitics.com

 

[MT15]

Saying something is "settled law" isn't as reassuring as it used to be for some reason
======================================================

Many Senate Republicans, rather than confront the substance of new legislation that would provide federal protections for same-sex marriage, are instead arguing that a vote on the bill is unnecessary.

By their reasoning, lawmakers don’t need to consider this legislation, which has already passed the House and is known as the Respect for Marriage Act, because the Supreme Court will treat the Obergefell v. Hodges decision that established this right as settled law.

In his concurrent opinion in the recent Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, however, Justice Clarence Thomas said that Obergefell was among the decisions he was interested in reconsidering. Previously, multiple justices also said they believed Roe was an established precedent only to vote to overturn it in Dobbs. That’s left Democrats arguing that the marriage bill Congress is weighing is vital to enshrine these protections into federal law in case the Supreme Court reverses the precedent set in Obergefell.

“I think it’s completely unnecessary,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) told Vox. “The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution protects same-sex marriage. It’s under no threat of being reversed or overruled so this is all part of our Democratic colleagues’ attack on the Supreme Court, which has had dangerous consequences.”

Cornyn is among a number of Republicans, including Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), and Mitt Romney (R-UT) who’ve argued that taking the bill up is superfluous, as the GOP seeks to keep the focus on other issues like inflation. While Cornyn and Rubio oppose the bill, however, Cassidy and Romney are among the Republicans who have yet to say where they stand.

“I think it’s completely made up, this controversy,” Cornyn told Vox, arguing that even if Congress were to pass the bill, the Supreme Court could just overturn it. That’s a risk, however, Congress takes with every piece of legislation it passes. Nancy Marcus, a law professor at California Western, told Vox it would be unlikely the Court could nullify a law like this due to the difficulty of finding a plaintiff with the standing needed to bring a case. And if the bill were simply redundant, there would be little harm in taking a vote and reaffirming protections on the issue.

Ultimately, the Republican position is about deflection. GOP lawmakers would be taking an unpopular position if they opposed the bill, so they are instead claiming to be opposed to legislative redundancy and overreach. Additionally, this framing helps them avoid what some GOP lawmakers see as a lose-lose scenario: Opposing the measure could prompt backlash from moderate voters, while supporting it could enrage socially conservative members of their base............

MSN

Nobody with a brain should fall for this tired BS.

 

[SystemShock]

Since most don't frequent the religion and philosophy board, I'll leave this link to a reply I got.

greetings

the Lord's response to LGBT Community
​

We read in Psalms 127:3 Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, The fruit of the womb is a reward.

Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

Lev 18:22 (NLT) “Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman.
It is a detestable sin.

We read in Matt 19:4-6 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?
So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

 

[Farb]

Not in the way you are doing. They are clues, you just said so yourself. They aren’t conclusive.

No, they are not, that is why they need to be accurate and not misleading for the sake of a crazy person's feelings of affirmation.

We really need to fire up the asylum the system again.

 

[Farb]

I think you are meaning that for this thread/post:

All things Racist...USA edition

I was looking for a place to put this so we could discuss but didn't really find a place that worked so I created this thread so we can all place articles, experiences, videos and examples of racism in the USA.This is one that happened this week. The lady even called and filed a complaint on...

madaboutpolitics.com

Thanks, Honestly, as you all can tell, I lose track of what and where I am arguing the random brain droppings of mine.