Quote:
"The platform also makes homophobia and the denial of basic civil rights to gays, lesbians and transgender people a centerpiece. It repudiates same-sex marriage, despite strong support for this constitutional right in the nation at large. The party invokes “natural marriage” and states’ rights for determining which bathrooms transgender people may use, and it defends merchants who would deny service to gay customers." http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/02/t...-lgbtq-people/ https://ballotpedia.org/2016_preside...n_LGBTQ_rights Quote:
|
And this
GOP to Reintroduce "Religious Liberty" Bill Targeting LGBT People http://www.advocate.com/politics/201...ng-lgbt-people |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Identity politics is DIFFICULT! Should one vote for the candidate who said consistently that gay marriage should be illegal because it is morally wrong, right up to 2013 - the year the law changed and it was clear nothing more could be done about it?
Or this asshole? http://cellar.org/2016/lgbt-trump.jpg (I'm just asking, I don't actually vote) |
Quote:
And, I'd like to know if they think his cabinet will help him get us there. |
Possibly the fourth. I forget where Susan fell on the spectrum.
|
Trump has not said a word about such a platform. I read his published platform and policies. Nary a word for OR against the GLBT crowd. And he had no problem hanging with us at rallies and even invited Caitlyn Jenner to use the restroom of her choice at Trump whatever it was. I don't think he really cares one way or the other. He has much bigger fish to fry.
Don't listen to the hysterical ravings of the increasingly irrelevant. Listen to Trump. HIS words, not what someone says are his words. Give the man a chance; he might surprise you. |
With all due respect, Pam, his words are becoming increasingly meaningless...for his supporters and the rest of us.
|
Quote:
From your own link ... Quote:
Quote:
|
So that everyone understands why the "First Amendment Defense Act" is a discussion topic:
Quote:
|
How is the Federal Government discriminating against these people now? How will that change with this bill?
|
Well there was that County clerk a couple years ago who got fired for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gays. That was a local thing but it was a government thing
|
She did wrong and was fired. What more would you like to happen, glatt?
|
This is my only question. Why would they put that language in there?
It's certainly not "for no reason," so there has to be some reason. And because we're not mind-readers, we have to guess, based on what reasonable assumptions we can make, don't we? This is speculation, yes. Speculation is a large part of being aware of the world around you. People don't announce their intentions. People have even been known to obfuscate their intentions--believe it or not!! Useful queries: is this part of a recognizable trend? (It is.) Have other examples of this trend been straightforward in announcing their intentions, i.e. have the hundreds of state-level, gay-hating laws been similarly, misleadingly packaged and titled? (They have.) Does creating the appearance of innocent, "religious" intentions create a "safe space" for bigots to openly deny basic human rights to other citizens, whose lives are none of their goddamn business? (It does.) Would you have to be naive, disingenuous, and/or extremely obtuse to claim ignorance of the obvious here? (You most certainly would.) |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:42 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.