Republican Presidential Hopefuls Are Justifying Discrimination By Erasing Gay People

They keep trying and FAILING, but they don’t seem to ‘get it’. Maybe they will when they’re voted out of office. Marco Rubio is an idiot of the top order. You know, Hilary Clinton might have made bad choices with that email fiasco, but the way I see it, ALL politicians are liars, but at least she’s not trying to destroy the country like Republicans are.

Despite the backlash after Indiana and Arkansas tried to pass laws designed to allow for discrimination against LGBT people, conservatives are still peddling the same talking point that “religious freedom” must be protected — e.g. that refusing to serve a same-sex couple’s wedding is justified for a business owner who opposes same-sex marriage. And it’s a talking point that presidential hopefuls are amplifying.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), having just tossed his hat into the presidential ring, offered a rambling answer to NPR this week in support of these “license to discriminate” provisions that demonstrates how this anti-LGBT discrimination is spun. “I think there’s a difference between not providing services to a person because of their identity, who they are or who they love, and saying, I’m not going to participate in an event, a same-sex wedding, because that violates my religious beliefs,” he explained. “There’s a distinction between those two things.”

Full story

signature

3 thoughts on “Republican Presidential Hopefuls Are Justifying Discrimination By Erasing Gay People”

  1. The Indiana pizza place owner was asked a hypothetical question. It got blown out of proportion. Why should someone be forced to provide a service for something they consider to me wrong.

    Let’s turn the tables a minute. What if the wedding was between a young woman who was molested by a man, then after prison they married?

    What of someone wanted to marry their mother or father?

    What if the customer was a former spouse of yours who committed adultery with that person they are now going to marry?

    Engaging in homosexuality is clearly against the Bible, no matter what some preachers tell you. Some pastors are so afraid of losing membership that they have caved.

    Again, no one is forcing a person to adopt their religious beliefs, but they could at least respect their differences and go elsewhere for their business. NO, they have to make a “federal case” out of it and spread hate and discontent. They do the things that they say are wrong and cruel to others..

    The law can be what it is, but forcing someone’s sexual preferences on someone else is immoral.

    Hillary and others caved to political pressure. I would be leery of someone who suddenly decides to embrace something that is clearly against their religion, in the name of politics. Enter Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton. Morals versus politics, and morals lost.

    1. The problem with your “tables turned” scenario is that in every case, no one is going to ask the potential couple if any of your ideas apply to them. Why? Because you know they’d walk right out and not give you business. It’s easier to spot a gay couple when a same sex couple walks into your establishment holding hands.

      I hope that I am not around when this country turns into a theocracy like Christians want. It’ll be no better than North Korea. I thought your god was about love, but I see I am wrong.

      1. God is about love. If you love someone you want to do what makes them happy. God is our Creator, He sets rules for our well-being and Satan fights those rules.

        Gay couples might end up having a legal right to marry, but not a Biblical one. Why should someone support something that violates their religious beliefs? The LGBT community is in essence, forcing everyone to accept their chosen sexual preferences. If not, they threaten to sue. Where is the love in that?

        It is your choice whether to follow God or not. Likewise, it is my choice whether to honor your humanistic beliefs or not.

        – Dave

Comments are closed.