Illogical charges of bigotry.While we're at it, can we return to the days of slavery, segregation, and where women couldn't vote? The civil rights movement really did put such a damper on things didn't it?
You do have that right. It's called, go to a Christian private school.
She seems to be in the habit of running from thread to thread accusing anyone who disagrees with her liberal viewpoint as hateful.
I'm sorry my friend I don't see all ignorance as willful ignorance. It took me years of experience to arrive where I am and I can assure you that I was never willfully ignorant. Nor was I guillible (sp?)
As for giving the LGBT population the benefit of the doubt I am certainly what one would consider conservative and I just as certainly give them they benefit of the doubt and do not as far as I know seek to actively harm anyone. I am afraid you may be allowing a stereotype to rule your thinking.
As they say the devil's in the details. If you have for instance contributed to right-wing "ministries" pushing harmful legislation your claim would be false. Maybe it's you "allowing a sterotype" in your case one of yourself. A lot of people who claim to be "conservative" really aren't exactly.
Oh it is. And I must say, at least she is consistent. If it has to do with GLBT and your view is not the liberal viewpoint, you can expect to be accused of being hateful.
Illogical charges of bigotry.
A quote of a quote of a black person:
"I have met ex-gays, but I've never met an ex-black."
An action or self-identity is not the same as an objective reality. Therefore, it is impossible to create the equal status necessary to make the charge of bigotry (by alluding to segregation, you have done so). Now that I've told you that, it would be immoral for you to make the charge again.
That's kind of painting with a broad brush. Disagreeing is fine. But there is right and wrong and there is love and hate. To advocate harm to another is generally hateful.
The demonizing of LGBTs, while perhaps stating one's position, can certainly be considered hateful objectively--things such as the 1977 Briggs Initiative which sought to prohib LGBTs serving as teachers and failed by a landslide, was certainly a campaign for institutionalized hatred which the voters wisely and justly rejected.
It seems much of your points amount to overgeneralizations.
I have yet to see a single time where anyone has advocated any such harm to another, yet you and Crazy Liz are calling folks hateful.
I have yet to see a single time where anyone has advocated any such harm to another, yet you and Crazy Liz are calling folks hateful.
Where have you seen someone demonize homosexuals? Honestly some of yall create this notion in your heads that people hate homosexuals and it just some kind of way affects your thinking.
The Briggs Initiative has nothing to do with what any one on this board has said.
It would seem that your overgeneralizations about people hating other people are manufactured and an attempt to win people to your liberal viewpoint.
The advocacy of harm to LGBTs and their families is a well-documented practice of various religious right groups. I'm referring to such things as Focus on the Family's praise of Chick-Fil-A's CEO Truett Cathey asserting he will never make a homosexual a manager of one of their stores. This is advocacy of discrimination in hiring practices, a form of harm, and illegal in about half the states. Other examples abound.
When harm to others is advocated it deserves to be called what it is.
So what? They are his stores. He's a Christian. If he doesn't want to hire someone as a manager who goes against the foundational beliefs of His faith, he doesn't have to. Neither does he have to hire an adulterer, transgendered or liar if he doesn't want to.
So what? They are his stores. He's a Christian. If he doesn't want to hire someone as a manager who goes against the foundational beliefs of His faith, he doesn't have to. Neither does he have to hire an adulterer, transgendered or liar if he doesn't want to.