Author Topic: LGBT rights  (Read 5055 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.


  • Posts: 8
Reply #15 on: September 05, 2016, 08:42:05 PM
I'm not picking and choosing.

Yes you were.  You absolutely were.  Your comment clearly introduced an example of the oppressors vs. the oppressed:

They're equal. Either it's handled as all the same, or don't. You can't choose to have different standards for different people. That's why the enforcement of the law in the legal system is as messed up as it is. That is how I'm presenting the very argument, and if you misunderstood, that would have to be my responsibility for not articulating it well enough in my writing..

I didn't misunderstand a thing.  The statements weren't being used to argue legality.  They were arguing a moral standpoint while trying to deliberately side-step the issue of societal power dynamics as it applies to freedom of expression in about the clumsiest manner possible.

You're arguing for a fascist society where people you deem are "victims" should  be  protected classes and have more rights than those who you deem as not.  If anything, your posts have been basically either trolling or sidestepping the real issues inherent LGBTphobic, than anything I have argued for. Which is the exact opposite.

And if you don't think any of this has an actual legal basis, then I guess the Constitution doesn't matter now, does it?

I don't care about your interpretation of power dynamics, honestly . While I do agree there are injustices in our current system, we stiill should not , and legally should not,  treat people differently based on whatever x event happened in the past,  or based on their race ,sexuality or whatever other equally ridiculous reason because  that's not  equality under the law. If anyone were to use this exact same argument against black men, Latina women, or Indian men, that person would be rightly called a bigot. I'm just calling it as I see it. We had discrimination like that for over 50 years. It was called Jim Crow where systemic racism was practiced against minorities where they couldn't marry , publicly interact or shop with white people. Why do Social Justice Warriors and allied bigots want to bring systemic racism and segregation back I wonder?  With a society that stops giving attention to race and gender issues, these sort of  activists become irrelevant and useless. Booker T. Washington did not mince words back in 1911 when he talks about these kinds of people:

There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. (p. 118)

-Booker T. Washington, My Larger Education, 1911.

Social Justice Warriors or vocal elements of BLM, while some do not adhere to parts of this bigoted ideology, the most vocal espouses this racist/sexist/heterophobic ideologies in the vein of pretending they care about the grievances of the minorities they are serving. They adhere to this exact practice because they only want attention instead of fixing the real issues that do in fact  affect these communities. They dismiss the struggles of white people in poverty, past oppression [such as the Irish] or even mock them. Because acknowledging that whites in Appalachia or in the Rust Belt can be, and are, impoverished and have issues relating to said poverty, as blacks or Latinos have as well as any American, would in fact disprove the flawed thesis of white privilege. It's not because of white or black, it's class.  Black people have no higher potential of criminality than any other demographic, but many of the issues with aspects of the community are due to culture and poverty, both things that can be and in fact are common in places where they are as an acceptable norm.  I would suggest you to read Thomas Sowell's Black Rednecks and White Liberals to get a better glimpse. SJWs and elements of  BLM interfere with improving the lives of inner city minorities or those brought up in that culture.

Equal protection under the law , let alone equal opportunity ,is there so people won't be discriminated unfairly based on their race, gender and sexuality. You can't have that if groups are treated differently than each other based on those factors.  Your notion of power dynamics as an excuse towards legalized discrimination is unconstitutional. Legally, since all Americans are equal under the law, why does one group deserve privileges the rest of society or other groups cannot partake in?  Creating protected classes of people is not legally or constitutionally sound by any means necessary, or otherwise, what 's the point of laws if you just need to be the right race, gender or sexuality and be excused from the same responsibilities? It was wrong when Jim Crow made it advantageous for white people, and it's as wrong in any and every other case.

These race, gender and ethnic-based scholarships or admission policies are bigoted as well, as for minorities who have literally have gotten into college based on their intelligence, hard work and diligence. It's a frank insult to their merit and makes college an uphill battle socially for some because instead of being assumed that they got into that particular institution based on their own ability[unless you're actually rich, then it's a tossup]  these policies in fact created a divide where it's assumed people gotten into college based on their appearance alone. For instance, at the University of Michigan's admission process, they immediately award 20 points for admission if you're a minority.  The flip side of these practices , which should be illegal by the way due to their discriminatory framework, is that they are  exclusionary towards others that aren't privileged. A poor young  white man will have a harder time getting into college and funding it, than a rich white man with parents from money will get into that college of said money and connections. Because of class. Race and gender based scholarships only further the gap.This only leaves poor people to either be athletes and get a free ride, or be exceptional despite their challenges.  I particularly like policies such as Harvard's that pays for a student's tuition if they are under the poverty line, but I can see where it'd be harder to apply nationwide. Germany does this for the college application process, but I just don't believe it should be funded by taxpayers. Because of said government's funding into college, they jack up the prices and loan companies can prey on students. Which in turn, makes the college experience less about education and a piece of paper and more about job training, learning things that should've been taught prior and getting a piece of paper.

Legally, no one is entitled to either a job or an advanced education. You're entitled, however by the Constitution to have the opportunity by your own merits, or be a customer and not be refused based on the basis of your race, gender, and or sexuality. Cakes on the other hand, don't fall under a necessary service, especially tailor-made services. The laws on the books now aren't constitutional because they interfere with the freedom of association and the notion of private property that our society was founded on.

Today, refusing to serve people isn't accepted as good business practice, and I argued then as now that legislating morality on the basis of emotions and not what the Constitution would be about,  is dangerous. It doesn't mean it should be illegal. If business owners want to lose money and go out of business for not associating with groups of people they would rather not by their own beliefs, then it is their problem and their own issue alone. There are businesses founded with exclusionary practices against groups of people in mind that have changed their policies for public opinion and profit. It's about protecting the rights of all Americans, not just who are deemed acceptable by society. Where would we be as a society if we only protected people based on what is right at the moment and not what protects freedom for all? Harry Truman went against the majority by de-segregating the military, while Dwight Eisenhower went against the majority by de-segregating the schools. Or the Civil Rights movement, which gradually eliminated racial segregation and got rid of Jim Crow. 

If we're going on the basis of tyranny of the majority or the minority, then we don't have a law system now, do we? We might as well allow anyone to do anything they want because laws are pointless if they only are applied and enforced towards certain groups instead of all people who reside and are citizens of the United States. If we are to argue that everyone under the law is forced to serve and make any sort of special accommodation in a service such as in my examples for cakes, then it should be universally enforced on everyone. No one should be excluded or prioritized from enforcement, period. That's why it's much more preferential that the government  stays out of micro-managing businesses, from the legal as well as a moral standpoint.



  • The Avatardist
  • Posts: 94
  • Savage... Brutal... Bendt.
    • Art of Neil
Reply #16 on: September 06, 2016, 07:04:41 PM
You're arguing for a fascist society where people you deem are "victims" should  be  protected classes and have more rights than those who you deem as not.

Seriously, ya mind providing the quote from me that backs this nonsense up?  I mean, I did you the courtesy after all...


  • False Prime
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 245
  • I'm Loooooopy!
    • My Fanfic @ tumblr
Reply #17 on: August 21, 2019, 07:37:20 PM

« Last Edit: August 26, 2019, 04:44:46 PM by Loopy »