Sick of the LGBT agenda

a reply to: Liquesence

But not the freedom to visit any establishment one wishes without being discriminated against or denied service.

I believe in freedom.

No you don't. You believe in taking away others' freedom.

Like I always say........

As one person gets their rights, another is having their own rights eroded.

I'll pose another question (again, do not take this as an attack if you're pro or a member of LBGT, matter of fact, I'm looking for that input)
In Florida where I live, and in Pittsburgh where I previously lived, there were a number of pedophiles hiding out in the ranks of the LGBT community, piggybacking off their movement, and claiming their protection. This was actually brought to my attention by gay and lesbian friends.
A) is this something that is common everywhere?
B) is the LBGT community doing anything about it?

a reply to: Macenroe82
Then there's this:

originally posted by: eletheia
a reply to: tanstaafl
A pedophile is not interested in teens a pedophiles interests are in children who havent reached puberty, prior to them being fully matured and that if for no other reason makes it wrong, WRONG, WRONG by any standards.

Point taken, and I agree - but you make it sound like I said otherwise?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
In most states the age of consent is 16.

Not with actual adults...

originally posted by: Liquesence
But not the freedom to visit any establishment one wishes without being discriminated against or denied service.

Sorry, but you do not have the right to force someone else at gunpoint to 'service' you.

"I believe in freedom."

No you don't. You believe in taking away others' freedom.

No, you falsely believe that you have a Right to deny someone else their Right to live their life the way they want to.

If it is their business, what right do you have to tell them what they can or can't do?

originally posted by: eletheia
Like I always say........

As one person gets their rights, another is having their own rights eroded.

An obvious conflict based on a false presumption.

No one has the Right to force someone else at gunpoint to 'serve them'.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Sorry, but you do not have the right to force someone else at gunpoint to 'service' you.

Absurd example. That is a crime, and is not discrimination in the legal sense.

If it is their business, what right do you have to tell them what they can or can't do?

I don't. The State does, though, because it's discrimination and denies public service to others, which is illegal.

I agree OP. Also tired of this rainbow nonsense as well, they got a flag of it hanging at the high school across of our business, what's next......

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: eletheia
Like I always say........

As one person gets their rights, another is having their own rights eroded.

An obvious conflict based on a false presumption.

No one has the Right to force someone else at gunpoint to 'serve them'.

Sorry where have I in any of my posts mentioned *Guns* or gunpoint?

Are you replying to the right person?

a reply to: tanstaafl

Scroll down on your link, plenty of consent at 16 with no age difference caveat.

Humans were designed to have sex in 1 specific way.

I really couldn’t care less what someone identifies as or what gender they have sex with... why do they have to shove it down our throats? Force feeding it to us? That’s when things seem fishy

I would assume that for those vets, their sexuality would come a far second to their service and what they endured, and what Veterans Day really stands for? And possibly even frown on this a little? Maybe they didn't treat their sexuality as their prime character trait, like some do today.

a reply to: dfnj2015
Great ad homoinem. Theres a difference between being anti lgbt and being against the promotion of lgbt

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Macenroe82

Native Americans are the only group that can legitimately claim they have some extra rights because they were here first and the ancestors of some people who were here long ago screwed them over. For the good of the people continued to screw native Americans over even into the nineteen sixties and in some instances even later.

Yup! Mr. president, RELEASE LEONARD PELTIER!!!

originally posted by: AlexandrosTheGreat

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Macenroe82

Native Americans are the only group that can legitimately claim they have some extra rights because they were here first and the ancestors of some people who were here long ago screwed them over. For the good of the people continued to screw native Americans over even into the nineteen sixties and in some instances even later.

Yup! Mr. president, RELEASE LEONARD PELTIER!!!

Well, freedom to murder people is not included in their extra rights.

a reply to: dfnj2015
Your posts are as confusing and idiotic as your political beliefs. If you for one second condone a drag queen pervert dancing in front of children as ok go get some help. My own son is gay and is disgusted by that. You sound like a troll.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: eletheia
Like I always say........

As one person gets their rights, another is having their own rights eroded.

An obvious conflict based on a false presumption.

No one has the Right to force someone else at gunpoint to 'serve them'.

Next time I suggest you add the word proverbial (it means a perceived truth, that is used like a proverb or story to make an example) you could also use metaphorical (A metaphor is a figure of speech that, for rhetorical effect, directly refers to one thing by mentioning another. It may provide clarity or identify hidden similarities between two ideas) before the word you assume everyone knows is proverbial/metaphorical.

I do it all the time so you don't get people who just want to troll or fight using the word you meant metaphorically, and obviously meant that metaphorically, as you meaning it literally. Just so they can write a "gotcha" to make you angry and reply to their trolling.

originally posted by: Liquesence
"Sorry, but you do not have the right to force someone else at gunpoint to 'service' you."

Absurd example.

It is actually a spot-on example. You just don't understand the nature of what is being discussed.

That is a crime, and is not discrimination in the legal sense.

You are correct, you getting together with a bunch of your buddies and telling a business owner they must provide service to you even if they don't want to is criminal, not discrimination.

"If it is their business, what right do you have to tell them what they can or can't do?"

I don't. The State does, though,

And you are apparently unaware that there is no difference in our country.

because it's discrimination

Yes, it is. Each and every one of us engages in discrimination each and every hour of each and every day. It is how life works.

and denies public service to others

Sorry, there is no such thing as 'the public'. A business owner should be free to serve whomever I want.

which is illegal.

Only because you and a bunch of your buddies got together and hired thugs to enforce your 'law'.