Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Hate speech has nothing to do with what I asked. I asked why people sharing opinions are treated differently? Why are people that express a desire for LGBT to have different rights defended by the right as either free speech or religious freedom while these whiny kids are vilified? 

 

Let me ask you this. Why do you reply to direct questions with "let me ask you this." or "ask yourself this"?

 

As for the bolded... I don't even know what to say. I know you have heard politicians express a desire for LGBT to have different rights and I know you have read it on here.... I am baffled at your statement. 

 

First of all, people sharing an opinion are treated differently on the right.  However, the reasons are far different.  Nobody on the right expressed any sort of desire for gay people to have different rights.  The argument in question is pretty much the definition of what marriage is.  There are a vast majority of people on the right that have no problem with the term "civil union".  The thing is, for many people marriage is a religious as well as a legal union.  The "battle" over that issue has nothing to do with rights.  If somebody is against a gay couple having a civil union being called a marriage legally, that is certainly not hate speech.

 

In contrast to the young kids on the college campus, when they label "Trump 2016" as "hate speech" and say that it has no place on campus, they are trying to stifle free speech.

 

Regarding the part in bold, why did you do the exact same thing?  Is it possible to have a conversation and use that term, or is the fact that I use it somehow different from you?

 

Finally regarding your last statement.  Again, I have seen no politician that is against a civil union for legal purposes, so your "gay community getting different rights" argument is false.  It's all about the term "marriage".

 

Quote:The vocal minority does not mean the majority... Unless you think all conservatives are racist bigots.....

 

Freedom of speech means the freedom to criticize as well. Speaking about and condemning certain speech is not the same as taking away the right to have that speech. 

 

I agree that speaking about and condemning certain speech is certainly freedom of speech.  Where I draw the line is when it is "banned", especially when people (kids) say that they "don't feel safe" or they need counseling... over somebody writing "Trump 2016" or "build the wall" in chalk.  When they say that such expressions have no place on their campus (little safe zone) that's when I have a problem with it.

I don't understand this concept that having a border is racist.  A border is how you define a nation.

 

Most of the people criticizing Trump about Building A Wall are criminals who think it's their "right" to steal from U.S. taxpayers.  The Popes and Politicians against the Wall are themselves protected by high walls and armed security teams.  HYPOCRITES, all.

Quote:gender doesn't exist anymore. its just whatever you feel like being that day.

 

No, it's transgender that doesn't exist.  Jenner still has junk even if it's taped down.  

These kids are just little candy [BLEEP] afraid of the dark. Lord help them if they ever have any real trouble.

Quote:The bathroom thing is a non-issue the state can't regulate what facility a private business permits its customers to use. I own a business who I let usr what bathroom is up to me the business owner.

Gosh eric... Thats kind of cute. Give it five years.

Quote: 

 

Again, I just don't see what the issue is with using the single-stall family/disabled restroom that every department store in America has. Does it isolate or single out the transgender person? Perhaps, but, well, more below...

 

 

To my understanding it is public places these laws are written for since private companies can write their own rules. Most public places that I know of do not have family/disabled bathrooms that are single stall. Unless my idea of 'public places' is lacking which is possible. Are department stores and restaurants considered publicly owned or private? I admit my knowledge on this is sketchy. 

 

Also, I'm sure they want to be able to use the same bathrooms as everyone else so this wouldn't be a satisfactory option. 

Quote:Gosh eric... Thats kind of cute. Give it five years.

The state can and will when it comes to public places. That's what the law in Charlotte was about and NC said no.

Quote:YOU have no idea what you're talking about.

 

This is hate speech.  I'm pressing charges.

 

Ah, so today you feel like being a baby...boy?

Quote:If what you say is true, you could deny bathroom access based on race.

Are you asking should you or what the current law is?


Because of anti-discrinamtion laws no you can't discriminate any access based on race, religion or ethnic background. You can however exclude based upon physical genders, for example some companies have uni-sex bathrooms or family bathrooms, some have male or female and a female only bathroom.


The matter isn't even an issue that needs to be addressed by government, if a company wants to allow any sex or transgender to use any bathroom they want its their property their choice. If a company says male plumbing regardless of identy you use the male bathroom its their property their choice.

Quote:Gosh eric... Thats kind of cute. Give it five years.

So your solution to people using a bathroom you don't like is to create a law that gives government the authority to dictate what toilet you can use on private property? This is why I'm not a conservative, let the private property owners deciede, if McDonald's says transgender can use either or and that makes you uncomfortable eat at burger King.

Quote:The state can and will when it comes to public places. That's what the law in Charlotte was about and NC said no.

Public buildings sure it has to make a choice if they choose something I don't like I just won't use the bathroom at public facilities.


This is such a non-issue but conservatives tend to get sidetracked on theses "culture" issues

Quote:Are you asking should you or what the current law is?


Because of anti-discrinamtion laws no you can't discriminate any access based on race, religion or ethnic background. You can however exclude based upon physical genders, for example some companies have uni-sex bathrooms or family bathrooms, some have male or female and a female only bathroom.


The matter isn't even an issue that needs to be addressed by government, if a company wants to allow any sex or transgender to use any bathroom they want its their property their choice. If a company says male plumbing regardless of identy you use the male bathroom its their property their choice.

 

Does a business owner with restrooms that are available to customers have the right to intrusively determine someone's gender?

Quote:First of all, people sharing an opinion are treated differently on the right.  However, the reasons are far different.  Nobody on the right expressed any sort of desire for gay people to have different rights.  The argument in question is pretty much the definition of what marriage is.  There are a vast majority of people on the right that have no problem with the term "civil union".  The thing is, for many people marriage is a religious as well as a legal union.  The "battle" over that issue has nothing to do with rights.  If somebody is against a gay couple having a civil union being called a marriage legally, that is certainly not hate speech.

<b>The legal definition of marriage is good enough. It does not devalue anyone else's marriage. Should a man and a woman having a non religious ceremony have to call it something difference or is this only for the ones that people frown on? Also the thing is, who cares what it is to other people. Marriage is marriage regardless of how people feel about it. It does not effect them in any way shape or form other than their delicate sensibilities. Again just like these whiny kids you guys are all up in arms about. </b>

 

In contrast to the young kids on the college campus, when they label "Trump 2016" as "hate speech" and say that it has no place on campus, they are trying to stifle free speech.to high lite how obnoxious it is when someone answers questions with questions.

 

Regarding the part in bold, why did you do the exact same thing?  Is it possible to have a conversation and use that term, or is the fact that I use it somehow different from you? are they stifling it? or are they expressing their opinion it should be stifled. There is a difference. 

 

Finally regarding your last statement.  Again, I have seen no politician that is against a civil union for legal purposes, so your "gay community getting different rights" argument is false.  It's all about the term "marriage".<b>I addressed this already. Groups don't get to own the definition of a word because they think they have some right to it. It's a silly argument and frankly one completely lacking in logic. This is entirely about feelings.  </b>

 

 

I agree that speaking about and condemning certain speech is certainly freedom of speech.  Where I draw the line is when it is "banned", especially when people (kids) say that they "don't feel safe" or they need counseling... over somebody writing "Trump 2016" or "build the wall" in chalk.  When they say that such expressions have no place on their campus (little safe zone) that's when I have a problem with it.<b> So basically you have a problem with it because you have a problem with what they are saying. You have the same problem they have with what people are saying they disagree with.  My whole reason for commenting in the first place was to point out the double standard in lambasting free speech against free speech because you disagree with one form of the free speech. </b>

Dude, how did we get on the topic of transgendered women in Burger King bathrooms?  I feel like I've taken an acid trip into a Digital Underground rap song.

Quote:Dude, how did we get on the topic of transgendered women in Burger King bathrooms?  I feel like I've taken an acid trip into a Digital Underground rap song.

 

Welcome to the New World, where there's a law or regulation for every imaginable activity.

Quote:Dude, how did we get on the topic of transgendered women in Burger King bathrooms?  I feel like I've taken an acid trip into a Digital Underground rap song.

 

There's still a free spot on my couch.

Quote:There's still a free spot on my couch.

 

Dibs.

Quote:So your solution to people using a bathroom you don't like is to create a law that gives government the authority to dictate what toilet you can use on private property? This is why I'm not a conservative, let the private property owners deciede, if McDonald's says transgender can use either or and that makes you uncomfortable eat at burger King.

No, u misunderstand. I agree with your position and thats the way it should be in a free society.


I also recognize that the trajectory of the state as an impliment of the left indicates that there is very little real opposition to micro managong tge private sector to advance their social aims.

Quote:Dibs.

 

It's a big couch, your spot is already reserved.

 

I'm a glutton for punishment.

If we're all gonna be trippin', might I suggest very little, and preferably no, political talk.


We'll talk about the universe, man.