LGBT News Mike Pence and Donald Trump Are Preparing To Destroy LGBTQ Equality Rights

Gay is not a race, and there is no country of just gay people.

I also don't see how trying to prevent rapists from entering your country makes you a racist. Do you really think everyone who enters the country is a nice guy?

 

Context. This was in reference to illegal immigrants, whom are often breaking the law to escape crimes (Like rape) or the like, and Trump said there are most certainly some kind hearted and wonderful illegal immigrants but he wants the system to enforce the rules so there cannot be favourtism.

 

Yikes. I don't think there's any point of talking about this if you can't see the issues with what Trump has said.. I don't think she wants to talk like Trump at all.. the point is Trump says things that normal people can not get away with.

1. It's racist to assume an Indiana born judge is biased just because he had Mexican heritage. The man wasn't even born in Mexico.

2. If Trump called us "The gays" do you not think we would be offended by that?

3. Obama was proven to be a US Citizen years ago. Trump continued to press the issue when it wasn't even an issue. He wouldn't have done that if Obama was white. So yes, it is racist. And no, she is not racist for saying Trump was racist for doing this.

4. About sexual assault in the military : Trump was basically saying "Well what do you expect? Boys will be boys." because of course sexual assault will happen in the military if men and women are together. He was giving an excuse.

5. "Well clearly Hillary wasn't enough considering Bill cheated on her." Ok well that is an incredibly sexist statement. That's all I will say to that.

6. How on EARTH is a Jewish person even CLOSE to the same as a pedophile?! That is an incredibly anti-Semitic statement. I can't even believe that.

7. He made a mocking hand waving movement that was very clearly mocking the man with a disability.

8. "Again, Obama has been sending people to die in a war zone for eight years and they come back missing legs, arms, hands etc. Why are they struggling to get care? Do you real care more about that trump got sued than that veterans aren't taken care of by the country they died for?" Deflecting. Yes Obama has sent people to war but you completely deflected the issue that Trump has been sued for not listening to the ADA.

9. Rich people are accused of rape all the time sure but that doesn't mean it can't be true. We can't just laugh it off.

10. Grab em by the pussy and then saying it was "locker room talk" is incredibly problematic of him to say for the future of our country.


At this point if you don't understand the problems with what Trump has said and you actually believe the things you said about women, Mexicans, and Jewish people I think we should stop discussing this.

 

Being a minority does not preclude one from harboring beliefs or ideas that are harmful to oneself. Many LGBT people harbor homophobic beliefs due to society. Just like many people of color hold harmful beliefs regarding their race due to societal conditioning. If we should be careful about letting Muslims in, we should also be careful about letting Evangelical Christians from other nations into our country since their beliefs are harmful to LGBT people. Banning people from entering a country due to their faith is un-American and reprehensible, regardless of who believes it. The United States has a friendly history with Saudi Arabia. Both Barack Obama and George W. Bush have ties with the royal family. I don't condone it but Hillary is no different. And Trump will likely also continue the relationship as that's politics. She cannot be judged differently there when other presidents have done the same.

The reason why Trump is popular is because he feeds off the fear people have. He makes society seem worse than it really is and talks about how he can change it. It doesn't matter that he employs LGBT people or people of orientations. Employing people of different orientations and races is his way of making people believe that he is "multicultural" and not a racist. But it doesn't change anything about his character. You can still be a racist and hire people of color. You can still be a homophobe and hire a queer person. Donald Trump is a businessman. He knows how to play the game and get people doing what they want by manipulating them. The American people have been played by the Donald.

You mention that all people are rapists as that somehow excuses what Donald said. Donald did not refer to illegal immigrants when he was making this speech. He specifically targeted immigrants, mainly Mexican immigrants.

Here is a direct quote of what he said:

"When do we beat Mexico at the border? They're laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they're killing us economically.

The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems.

Thank you. It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we're getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They're sending us not the right people.


It's coming from more than Mexico. It's coming from all over South and Latin America, and it's coming probably -- probably -- from the Middle East. But we don't know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don't know what's happening. And it's got to stop and it's got to stop fast."

There is no mention of illegal immigrants and if you also read further back in the transcript, you'll also see he doesn't mention illegal immigrants anywhere. He only said that he was talking about illegal immigrants after people criticized him for that comment. You can't back track what you said when you're running for president. Can you imagine declaring war on a country and then being like, wait a minute I didn't really mean it when I said I wanted war so let's call a truce.:eusa_doh: That's what Donald Trump does about everything. And even if he did mention illegal immigrants (which he didn't) his comments are still offensive because there is no correlation between immigrants and crime. In fact studies by the University of Massachusetts show that Foreign born individuals are less likely to commit crimes.


I agree that the media does like to paint things black and white and unfortunately, American media is extremely biased. However, all evidence suggests that Donald Trump is a racist, sexist, homophobic conman. And the media did not do that by itself.

---------- Post added 16th Nov 2016 at 08:44 AM ----------

^^ Basically all of this. And no I do not want to talk like Trump. I'm not sure where that was even implied. It's like midwestgirl said, Trump can get away with things that the rest of us can't. He can say things that most of us would not be able to say due to his influence.

 

Again, midwest girl already answered this.

 

Words you are calling people that show me you have no argument to make:

Misogynist

Racist

White Privilege

Instead of actually considering what I'm saying, which is Obama, and Hillary and many other politicians/rich people are just as worthy of criticism for the same things Trump is being criticized for, you instead resort to name calling and accusations that you can't back up.

Not cool.

 

Normal people? So are you normal and Trump isn't? He isn't a person?

Sure, he says dumb stuff. Why is this news? A politician said dumb stuff is surprising why exactly?

But wait, why do so many people think a bunch of white racists voted for Trump because Trump is white? Are the people who are saying that about the white people who voted for Trump being racists themselves?

I'm sure some people would be offended. What is your point?

Obama is half white. Is Trump half of a racist then?

You're doing it too. You're saying that he did it because he's racist. How do you know? How do you know he just didn't like Obama as a politician? Why is the immediate response to call him a racist? It couldn't possibly be anything else?

There is this thing called human biology. Men, overwhelmingly are straight. Women overwhelmingly are straight. Men and women have sex to propagate the human species. There is a biological drive to have sex to that end. So yes, men and women when put together engage in behavior which leads to sex. Most of the time it is consensual. Sometimes it isn't. When it isn't then that isn't okay. But what do you expect the military to do about it to prevent it? It's really the parents responsibility to raise their kids to not sexually harass other people. So by the time they join the military they probably are already the kind of person who would sexually harass a woman. So then what? Tell me. Tell me what the military should do about it. How do they find out who is going to sexually harass women before it happens?

How is that sexist? He cheated on his wife. It's not sexist to point that out.

I'm not comparing group A to group B. I'm saying parents have a right to choose their childs education. Do you want someone else choosing what school your kid goes to?

So he mocked the "man with a disability". So primarily this reporter is a man. Therefore Trump must be sexist towards men, right?

He actually mocks men a lot. Why does no one care about who he mocks until it is a woman, or a disabled person? If you don't think it is right for him to mock a woman or a disabled person then you should be against him mocking everyone, right?

It's not a dodge to point out hypocrisy. You can't hold a private citizen accountable for "being sued" and let a public servant who you are paying with your taxes off the hook for doing the same thing. Either they are both horrible (Trump and Obama) or neither of them is.

I'm not suggesting you laugh it off. But I'm also not suggesting that every rape accusation against a rich person must be viewed in an un-skeptical way given the history of frivolous lawsuits against rich people for things other than rape. For example, how many lawsuits are there every year where some recording artist claims they were plagiarized? How many of them win those cases?

What if it was "locker room" talk? Why is this so important?

I'm sorry, but you can't make a strawman to paint my character like that. Well, you can, but it isn't very rational.

 

Why are we arguing about this?

 

PHP:

I honestly don't know. It started off because someone was saying problematic statements and went to someone saying even more problematic statements. You can get back to the topic of this thread though.

 

We can get back to the point of the topic. I'm done trying to prove that Donald Trump is not good for minorities. I don't think he will destroy LGBT rights but considering the house, senate, and president are now Republican, I worry that they may make laws "protecting religious freedom" that end up harming the LGBT community. I doubt he will revoke gay marriage as most people in the country support gay marriage now (it's even gained traction among conservatives). I do worry for trans people, however. I think out of all of the people in our community, they will be affected the most. Both of them are dangerous to Trans people.

 

We've had 43 presidents before President Obama, and not a single one of them was ever asked for their birth certificate because there was skepticism about them being born in America. I think you're just trolling us.

 

The topic is about whether or not Trump and Pence are going to destroy LGBT rights. The answer is no. Maybe they'll prove me wrong? I guess we'll find out. Either way, I think it's time to let the thread die after people are getting worked up to the point of accusing others with baseless claims of racism and misogyny on a "safe space" website. Yuck.

 

Because I assume myself and others are bored, to be honest. Despite any facts evidence or conjectures opinions aren't likely to change and defense is a natural stance for most.

Right, many said 'problematic' statements and everyone involved carried it on with 'problematic' statements. It's a group effort.

Not to be uncaring, but is not this in essence just a trading of one group's rights over anothers? There are many religions so this is also super subjective and contextual specific. You worry they may make laws but is this not disregarding others to suit your own desires? Regardless of whether you feel it is justified or not? Regardless of whether it even has lgbt implications or not?

That's fine, you can worry for trans people, though there are many trans people whom support him and are not worried. I know many trans individuals whom were fearful of Hillary and rejoice she is now out.

 

Sure maybe Caitlyn Jenner voted for Trump, but I'm willing to bet good money that the majority of transgender folks voted against him.

 

Because there are many religions and it's super subjective is exactly why we shouldn't have these bullshit "protect religious freedom" laws. The first amendment already protects freedom of religion. If the people feel that the government is encroaching on their religious beliefs, they can take it to court and make their case on a one-on-one basis. We do not need to add laws that will affect everyone, such as the Indiana version of the Freedom Restoration act. Most "protect religious freedom" laws in the US tend to be like this law, which most definitely can lead to discrimination of LGBT people. For those that don't know, the Indiana Freedom of Restoration act (made by Pence :dry: btw) "allows individuals and companies to assert that their exercise of religion has been, or is likely to be, substantially burdened as a defense in legal proceedings." (this is a direct quote)

What this means is that if an LGBT person goes into a store to buy something, they can be denied service because it would somehow infringe on their beliefs. If a gay couple wants to get married, clerks could deny them that right. Case in point, Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to give marriage licenses to LGBT people despite the fact that it is perfectly legal in the US. She does not have the authority to deny someone a marriage license because of her beliefs. Thankfully, she was forced to comply but if laws like that get passed throughout the country, the Kim Davis' in America will be able to refuse a marriage license and many LGBT people, especially in the South where the majority of people are Evangelical Christians, could get denied the right to marry. And no LGBT person should have to travel a thousand miles to get a marriage license due to someone's beliefs.

And this doesn't only apply to marriage licenses. What if my religion says it's ok to beat my wife when she doesn't listen to me? If I hit my wife and she sues me, I could say "well, it's ok according to my religion." Putting me in jail because I hit her would be infringing on my right to practice my religion and the law should protect me.

In summary, we live in a secular nation. We have a 1st amendment that protects our freedom to belief in whatever the hell we want and go to whatever house of worship we want. That's it. If people feel their 1st amendment rights are being infringed upon, take it to court on an individual basis. No need to make laws, especially when there are too many religions and the majority of these laws tend to be like the one in Indiana that leads to discrimination against other people. We follow secular laws for a reason and if people like Kim Davis can't do the job that they chose because of their religion, then they can either suck it up or find a new job.

Only 14% of LGBT people voted for Trump. That does not qualify as many.

 

One thing to remember is our countries were founded upon Judeo-Christian principles, on that initial worldview presuppositions and belief. It's not or was not secular.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (Imago Dei, in the Image of God), that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

This is in line with Christian teaching, so when bad eggs or poor examples like Kim Davis are brought up, people throw the baby out with the bathwater but often forget these individuals are not actually behaving in a Christian manner.


Luke 6:27-37
"“But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
“Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either.
“Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back.

“Treat others the same way you want them to treat you. “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. “If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
“If you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners in order to receive back the same amount.

“But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
“Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned"

Refusing sale, or help, or blessings to anyone be they gay straight black white male female w/e, is categorically un-Christian.


Galatians 5:14-15
"For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another."


Our society currently has shifted or is shifting away from this model, and has been and is moving into being a neo-pagan/secular society. As such the presuppositions will change too, but even still some religions and societies/cultures are diametrically opposed to the culture we take for granted (Sharia Law is incompatible with Christianity for example, and ties into your example of wife beating as a religion that endorses it)

The reason why so many other cultures or religions or worldviews can typically get along in western society is because within a Judeo-Christian worldview having others of different beliefs or practices won't infringe on those already understood and established. Many religions are also just Ways Of Life as well, so they don't even have an ultimatum on matters of law or individual accountability.

What you're saying is partially right and overall I would agree, denying service or treatment or help regardless of faith or the like is not good.

The only time I would say such things are warranted, is if it -strongly- goes against not necessarily only a person's beliefs, but also their moral judgment. For example, being contracted to endorse an action or movement not agreed to, like creating tshirts that said "murder babies" or the like. Such things would be a case by case basis. If it's a government service it's a different scenario.

It is many, though not a majority. If 'only' 10% of the population is LGBT (A generous %) is that not still many people? Every vote matters and counts.

 

Sorry, but that's not quite what the founding fathers had in mind, and if you want to quote Jefferson, I'll play that game too.

The actual quote from the Constitution is this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Here is the Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, which Jefferson wrote.

http://www.virginiamemory.com/docs/ReligiousFree.pdf

Here's an excerpt from it that states exactly why they had this in the first place.

"that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as
ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to
righteousness,"

Basically, all of what dreamcatcher has said, but in fancier words that are a bit less direct (At least Jefferson is easier to interpret than his opponent). When a country becomes a theocracy, there's little to keep the freedoms of the nation and it's easy to run rampant with it. The whole idea also runs counter to the idea that if you're going to have such an omnipotent god running a country, that's not going to be done through imperfect people, so it's just best to leave that situation out of government's hands.

To further this, Jefferson also stated in the same piece:
"That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry,"

 

^^ Basically this. Because our constitution does not endorse any religion, we are a secular nation. That is all secular means. While the US has many Christians and most people believe in a God, we were founded upon the belief that church and state would be separate.

I would be very careful with arguing that someone like Kim Davis is not acting in a Christian-like manner. Kim Davis was celebrated by many conservative Christian groups in the U.S. She received an award from the Family Research Council and was hailed a hero by other Christian groups. Maybe you think it's un-Christianlike but other Christians may not think so. And it's because religions have such different views on things, even when they are of the same branch of religion, that we have secular laws.

I also think your comment on Judeo-Christian values making western society compatible with other cultures and different religions to be completely off the mark. Keep in mind that after the US became a nation, many Catholics, Jews, and others of different faiths were persecuted. This was all in a country that holds these supposed Judeo-Christian values.

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

It adopts the presupposition that God exists and created all mankind, or at the very least that mankind had a creator (Deist).

We also have free will (If you believe in free will, it's also a presupposition), so we can choose to do anything or everything we want, including adopt any or other religions.

They are not mutually exclusive ideas.

 

I apologize for the formatting of this but I can't figure out how to quote things.

Quote>Dreamcatcher: I don't think he will destroy LGBT rights but considering the house, senate, and president are now Republican, I worry that they may make laws "protecting religious freedom" that end up harming the LGBT community.

Hi :smilewave I am here as someone who knows first hand what this discriminatory law is because I am from Indiana, the wonderful place that our new VP Mike Pence comes from. He is famously known for passing this law of course. It's called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It basically legalizes discrimination against someone just because you "disagree" with someone's "lifestyle." So no, this is not just trading one rights over another's rights. It takes away one person's rights (the LGBT person's). It does nothing to hurt the other person's rights (the religious person's).

There was eventually an amendment to protect LGBT people but it was clear he was going after us.

An example before the amendment was added:
"Within a week of the bill being signed into law, Memories Pizza, a family-owned business in Walkerton, became the first business to publicly announce that they would refuse to cater a same-sex wedding as a result of the law."

"After the bill's signing, a restaurant owner called Ryan called Indianapolis radio to say that his Christian belief in "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" means he should be able to turn away same-sex couples."


If a Christian goes into a Hobby Lobby, she isn't going to be escorted out for trying to buy art supplies for her kids because the manager doesn't agree with how she lives her life.

The fact is, a lot of ultra-conservative religious people in places like Indiana don't agree with the "lifestyle" of "homosexuality". Pence has a very homophobic record and has no reason to protect us.