ADVERTISEMENT

Dear Republicans, stop it. Please.

ecouch

All-American
Gold Member
Aug 14, 2003
9,168
4,547
113
This is why it is so difficult for me to any longer identify as a republican. From Hobby Lobby to this, I simply no longer understand the conservative movement. The turning of every point of sale into a religious struggle will do nothing but retard civilization.

Republicans propose discrimination bill
 
Sure.

Originally posted by ecouch:
This is why it is so difficult for me to any longer identify as a republican. From Hobby Lobby to this, I simply no longer understand the conservative movement. The turning of every point of sale into a religious struggle will do nothing but retard civilization.
Yes, because people should be FORCED to do things that violate their most basic beliefs... they should be FORCED to bake wedding cakes for gays and lesbians, in spite of their beliefs. That's no longer a "tolerance" issue, it's become an "acceptance" issue.

Hobby Lobby? Really? HL should be forced to provide abortions (and abortifacients), which morally violate the most basic beliefs of many in the company? They should be FORCED to provide such "services"??

Where's the respect for religious beliefs? Is it only reserved for Muslims? Shouldn't it be extended to all religions?

This is a battle the left lost long ago.
 
Originally posted by ecouch:
This is why it is so difficult for me to any longer identify as a republican.
Just curious what conservative beliefs you once held but no longer do? Or what conservative beliefs you still hold?

For the record, I've never considered myself a "republican" as I don't agree with everything the republican party does. I consider myself a conservative who mostly votes republican because I agree with more of their platform than any viable alternative.
 
Re: Sure.


Originally posted by Purdue85:
Originally posted by ecouch:
This is why it is so difficult for me to any longer identify as a republican. From Hobby Lobby to this, I simply no longer understand the conservative movement. The turning of every point of sale into a religious struggle will do nothing but retard civilization.
Yes, because people should be FORCED to do things that violate their most basic beliefs... they should be FORCED to bake wedding cakes for gays and lesbians, in spite of their beliefs. That's no longer a "tolerance" issue, it's become an "acceptance" issue.

Hobby Lobby? Really? HL should be forced to provide abortions (and abortifacients), which morally violate the most basic beliefs of many in the company? They should be FORCED to provide such "services"??

Where's the respect for religious beliefs? Is it only reserved for Muslims? Shouldn't it be extended to all religions?

This is a battle the left lost long ago.
As a pastor, I am obviously concerned with the preservation of religious freedom. That said, there is a rather interesting question here. In terms of the business/employee relationship, at what point does the business owner exercising his or her religious freedom become invasive and actually cross into the line of "forcing" (to borrow your word) their employees to abide by the business owner's religious beliefs? And the reverse - at what point does protecting the religious freedom of the employees become invasive and actually cross the line of "forcing" the business owner to abide by the employee's religious beliefs?

There is also the question of whether a business qualifies for religious freedom protection.

It's interesting, to be sure - and I'm not entirely sure either side has the right of it.
 
Re: Sure.

Originally posted by pastorjoeboggs:

Originally posted by Purdue85:
Originally posted by ecouch:
This is why it is so difficult for me to any longer identify as a republican. From Hobby Lobby to this, I simply no longer understand the conservative movement. The turning of every point of sale into a religious struggle will do nothing but retard civilization.
Yes, because people should be FORCED to do things that violate their most basic beliefs... they should be FORCED to bake wedding cakes for gays and lesbians, in spite of their beliefs. That's no longer a "tolerance" issue, it's become an "acceptance" issue.

Hobby Lobby? Really? HL should be forced to provide abortions (and abortifacients), which morally violate the most basic beliefs of many in the company? They should be FORCED to provide such "services"??

Where's the respect for religious beliefs? Is it only reserved for Muslims? Shouldn't it be extended to all religions?

This is a battle the left lost long ago.
As a pastor, I am obviously concerned with the preservation of religious freedom. That said, there is a rather interesting question here. In terms of the business/employee relationship, at what point does the business owner exercising his or her religious freedom become invasive and actually cross into the line of "forcing" (to borrow your word) their employees to abide by the business owner's religious beliefs? And the reverse - at what point does protecting the religious freedom of the employees become invasive and actually cross the line of "forcing" the business owner to abide by the employee's religious beliefs?

There is also the question of whether a business qualifies for religious freedom protection.

It's interesting, to be sure - and I'm not entirely sure either side has the right of it.
Here's a thought... how about freedom of employment for the employee? If you don't like your employer's health plan, go find another d@mn job, Joe. There's no "forcing of employees to abide by the employer's beliefs", for g-d's sake. If they want to kill thier unborn baby, go do it, but where on earth was it written it must be paid for by a person's employer?

Your position is stunning, and you're being lukewarm, "pastor".
 
This is viewed as becoming a necessary step because otherwise here is the conversation, fill in the blank for whatever the current topic of the day is.

US Govt: You need to do _________.
Church: Doing ________ is against our beliefs.
US Govt: Do _______or else lose your tax exempt status.
Church: _________ is against our beliefs, so I guess we lose our tax exempt status.
US Govt: Now that you are a normal business, you need to do _______ or we will shut your business down.
Church: _________ is still against our beliefs, so I guess you'll have to shut us down.
US Govt: We win!!!! Now there are only churches left that believe what we believe!!! Who else can we shut down?


Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Originally posted by kescwi:
All they have is identity politics and shrill screeching about all things Obama. ZERO ideas.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Identity politics? As a leftist, you don't want to go there. That's all your side is built on.

Ideas? Like Big Government solving all your emotional ills by taking more money, spending more money, driving us closer to bankruptcy.

Those aren't "ideas". It's gaining power by pitting one group against another. "Identity politics".
 
Re: Sure.

So, if you owned a business, you would require a "religious test" from all potential customers and employees? Besides all of the bureaucracy this would create (something you seem to abhor), how would you implement it, and enforce it, especially if someone wasn't truthful in their religious test answers? Might they have to go to confession, depending on their faith of course?

And, if you could do this, would you have problems then with Sharia Law tests being implemented by Muslim owned businesses? I am sure there are other religious affiliations I do not know enough about here that could have similar circumstances. What about them? Have you considered that?

Like the OP stated, this kind of law will lead to a "challenged" civilization. and IMO probably just lead to more litigation. We certainly need more of that. tic
 
Re: Sure.

Originally posted by TheCainer:
So, if you owned a business, you would require a "religious test" from all potential customers and employees? Besides all of the bureaucracy this would create (something you seem to abhor), how would you implement it, and enforce it, especially if someone wasn't truthful in their religious test answers? Might they have to go to confession, depending on their faith of course?

And, if you could do this, would you have problems then with Sharia Law tests being implemented by Muslim owned businesses? I am sure there are other religious affiliations I do not know enough about here that could have similar circumstances. What about them? Have you considered that?

Like the OP stated, this kind of law will lead to a "challenged" civilization. and IMO probably just lead to more litigation. We certainly need more of that. tic
Do tell, where's this stupid test you speak of? HL was excoriated for some idiotic "test", they were criticized for NOT paying for abortions.

A "religious test"? Are you insane? Where does that fit in the discussion?

It appears those who don't share your radical view should just roll over, admit defeat, and do what you d@mn well say. Instead, they're fed up with the constant litigation to impose your beliefs which violates their beliefs, and they're looking for a way to fight back. But, hey... that's not allowed.
 
Its not a religious struggle

Its about protecting people's rights. Yet you think that retards civilization??? Just admit you're a statist who wants the government force people to comply with what YOU think is good.

From the article:

A battle is shaping up in the Indiana legislature over a proposal that supporters say will protect people with strong religious beliefs but that opponents say would legalize discrimination against gays and others.

It should always be legal to discriminate against gays and others. That is the essence of freedom. Any law that forbids such discrimination is a violation of people's rights.


"We feel any public business should treat everyone equally and should not discriminate against anyone," she said. "We would obviously vigorously oppose anything that allowed discrimination against the LGBT community."


Schneider said no one will be discriminated against by this bill.

Fool. As long as you use language like this you're going to lose. Stop bowing down to the false gods of the left and start defending people's rights.
 
Precisely

The left has never been for freedom, tolerance, etc. They've always been totalitarians. More people should realize that and stop trying to appease them. The left will never be satisfied as long as Western civilization lives and breathes.
 
Re: Sure.

So, if you owned a business, you would require a "religious test" from all potential customers and employees?

Up until now businesses have been free to refuse to participate in same-sex marriages without any religious tests being required. What a stupid question.

Besides all of the bureaucracy this would create (something you seem to
abhor), how would you implement it, and enforce it, especially if
someone wasn't truthful in their religious test answers?

Simple. When a same-sex couple insists that, for example, a baker bake a cake for a same-sex wedding the business can respond with "No".

Wow, that must've taken hours of paperwork.

And, if you could do this, would you have problems then with Sharia Law tests being implemented by Muslim owned businesses?

Yet another reason to stop importing Muslims. But, yes, I would have a problem with this. Which is why I would try to avoid doing business with the one you described.
 
Re: Sure.

A "religious test"? Are you insane? Where does that fit in the discussion?

It seems to be at the heart of this discussion. If you don't adhere to my religious beliefs, I won't do business with you???? If it's not a religious test, just what would you call it?


My radical view?

This legislation wasn't my idea, nor will it have my support.

It sure seems to have yours though.
 
Re: Sure.

Originally posted by TheCainer:
A "religious test"? Are you insane? Where does that fit in the discussion?

It seems to be at the heart of this discussion. If you don't adhere to my religious beliefs, I won't do business with you???? If it's not a religious test, just what would you call it?


My radical view?

This legislation wasn't my idea, nor will it have my support.

It sure seems to have yours though.
You're nuts.

What's wrong with the answer, "sorry, we don't do lesbian weddings, but I know a baker down the street who does" ... or, "sorry, we don't do gay weddings due to our religious beliefs"... permitting the people to go elsewhere.

Answer: They WILL comply, or be forced out of business!

Really? Is that where you want us to be as a society? To be forced to comply with anyone and anything that's asked of us, with no ability to object? Or say, "no"? Is this what you want? If not, speak up. Or, your silence is tacit agreement!

Don't be an ass. I haven't given it my support, nor have I condemned it. What you refuse to do is understand and acknowledge the reason it was crafted. These people have been backed into a corner, one in which they WILL comply or face persecution/prosecution. They've been backed into that corner through bullying in the courts. They can roll over and comply, or find a way to fight for their ability to be conscientious objectors. (Remember when that was "cool"? When you agreed with that school of thought??!)
 
You are strange.

Called me out? Let's see, you yelled leftist and then blew the big government dog whistle. Yep I guess that demonstrated beyond any doubt that Republicans are about ideas and not identity politics.
 
Re: Its not a religious struggle

And women, too, right?

Just want to make sure we are clear on this point.

If your daughter were unable to find employment related to her degree because it was common practice in her field not to hire women because they are women, then you would be totally fine with that.
 
Re: Sure.


Originally posted by Purdue85:

Here's a thought... how about freedom of employment for the employee? If you don't like your employer's health plan, go find another d@mn job, Joe. There's no "forcing of employees to abide by the employer's beliefs", for g-d's sake. If they want to kill thier unborn baby, go do it, but where on earth was it written it must be paid for by a person's employer?

Your position is stunning, and you're being lukewarm, "pastor".
Are you of the opinion that a person who doesn't take exactly the same position as you is "lukewarm?" I don't see where my position is stunning - particularly since I didn't state my position at all. I merely asked a question.

Setting aside for the moment the moral side of the discussion, the issue is not as simple as you describe. Sure, in a perfect world with an infinite, or at least adequate, number of jobs that pay a living wage, telling someone to "go get another job" is a possibility. We don't live in a perfect world, though. You are suggesting that people should have to go hungry or, alternatively, go on unemployment if their employer will not provide "full healthcare."

In addition, it is at least a little disingenuous to suggest that the law requires employers to pay for "abortions," as though Hobby Lobby would be cutting a check to CVS for plan B. That's not the case - Hobby Lobby would be providing insurance that, in turn, would pay for it. That may be a semantic difference, but it is a difference.

Finally, there is the question of to what lengths we will go to to extend the same privilege to business owners of other faiths. That is a valid question. No matter how much you might like to, the Constitution will not allow the creation of laws that privilege Christianity over other faiths. If Christian businesses are allowed to not provide certain things because of their faith, so too will Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, etc. Where is the line? If we are okay with a bakery saying, "I won't bake for your lesbian wedding, but I know another bakery who will," are we also okay with "I won't bake for your interracial wedding, but I know another baker who will?" And is it really that far from that to "I won't serve you in my restaurant because you are Muslim?"

Again, my point here is not that either side is entirely wrong. There are good and strong points on both sides of this issue. I would enjoy having a real discussion about them, but not if every response from you is going to be insulting and mocking.
 
Re: Its not a religious struggle

No, I wouldn't be "fine" with that but it wouldn't justify government force that violated employers' rights. Do you think its OK for the government to force others to do what you want simply because its what you want?
 
Re: Its not a religious struggle

You are kind of missing the point of "government" here.

But while we wait for that reality to set in, maybe you could expand for us on the concept of "employers' rights." What are these rights? Is there a list of them someplace? Where do they come from? How are they to be enforced?
 
Re: Its not a religious struggle

......maybe you could expand for us on the concept of "employers' rights." What are these rights?

They're self-evidently true. We have a right to do business with anyone and likewise we have a right to refuse to do business with anyone.

Is there a list of them someplace?

What a stupid question.

Where do they come from?

I take it you've never read the Declaration.

How are they to be enforced?


Enforced? I'm not surprised you don't know what the word "right" means. They're not enforced. They're either exercised, taken away, or protected.
 
I wish Christians would just realize, and accept, that discrimination is completely acceptable when they are the target. The sooner they realize that their beliefs are wrong and detrimental to all, the sooner society can begin to reverse the moral decay that the Christians have caused. DWS
 
Re: Its not a religious struggle

So then, let's review.

1. There's no list of rights. Throw out all the laws that frame out how a business works. It's..."self-evident." To you.
2. Business is a natural concept and should have no rules to protect itself nor anyone else, notwithstanding anything our constitutional government has set up to the contrary for both purposes.
3. "Enforced" is different from "protected," at least enough to split hairs over.
4. That which is "self-evident" to you should be forced, by someone, upon the rest of society.

Got it.
 
So unless Christians are allowed to discriminate they are being discriminated against? Got it, I mean telling a bakery it can't discriminate against homosexuals is exactly like telling Christians they can't practice their beliefs.
 
That seems to be the whole crux of this matter. I'm not even sure why it's still being pursued though as I thought these issues had been settled during the civil rights battles of the 60's. Now though instead of not letting African Americans eat in certain restaurants or use certain restrooms and water fountains however, they seem to have now focused their efforts against the LGBT community, with probably other minority groups to be identified later once they lose this battle.
 
Re: Sure.

Why is your god telling these people that baking pastries in exchange for money is wrong? If they bake the pastries in exchange for money, is their eternal salvation at stake?
 
Re: Sure.

Originally posted by ecouch:
Why is your god telling these people that baking pastries in exchange for money is wrong? If they bake the pastries in exchange for money, is their eternal salvation at stake?
Why are you avoiding my question to you above?
 
Originally posted by kescwi:
You are strange.

Called me out? Let's see, you yelled leftist and then blew the big government dog whistle. Yep I guess that demonstrated beyond any doubt that Republicans are about ideas and not identity politics.
I'm really concerned, now that you thin I'm ... "strange".

On second thought, that likely means I'm normal.

Yes, you were called you out. The B-S flag was thrown.

But, you know what? You're right. Democrats/leftists have done nothing with identity politics. Race, gender, sex acts, Pitting the "poor" (or "middle class) against the "rich". Homosexuals (or, LGBTwxyz). Race-based politics. Gender-based politics, like a "war on women"... none of that has occurred. It's all occurred on the right.

Got it.
 
Re: Sure.

Originally posted by pastorjoeboggs:

Originally posted by Purdue85:

Here's a thought... how about freedom of employment for the employee? If you don't like your employer's health plan, go find another d@mn job, Joe. There's no "forcing of employees to abide by the employer's beliefs", for g-d's sake. If they want to kill thier unborn baby, go do it, but where on earth was it written it must be paid for by a person's employer?

Your position is stunning, and you're being lukewarm, "pastor".
Are you of the opinion that a person who doesn't take exactly the same position as you is "lukewarm?" I don't see where my position is stunning - particularly since I didn't state my position at all. I merely asked a question.

Setting aside for the moment the moral side of the discussion, the issue is not as simple as you describe. Sure, in a perfect world with an infinite, or at least adequate, number of jobs that pay a living wage, telling someone to "go get another job" is a possibility. We don't live in a perfect world, though. You are suggesting that people should have to go hungry or, alternatively, go on unemployment if their employer will not provide "full healthcare."

In addition, it is at least a little disingenuous to suggest that the law requires employers to pay for "abortions," as though Hobby Lobby would be cutting a check to CVS for plan B. That's not the case - Hobby Lobby would be providing insurance that, in turn, would pay for it. That may be a semantic difference, but it is a difference.

Finally, there is the question of to what lengths we will go to to extend the same privilege to business owners of other faiths. That is a valid question. No matter how much you might like to, the Constitution will not allow the creation of laws that privilege Christianity over other faiths. If Christian businesses are allowed to not provide certain things because of their faith, so too will Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, etc. Where is the line? If we are okay with a bakery saying, "I won't bake for your lesbian wedding, but I know another bakery who will," are we also okay with "I won't bake for your interracial wedding, but I know another baker who will?" And is it really that far from that to "I won't serve you in my restaurant because you are Muslim?"

Again, my point here is not that either side is entirely wrong. There are good and strong points on both sides of this issue. I would enjoy having a real discussion about them, but not if every response from you is going to be insulting and mocking.
No, you're lukewarm because you're attempting to straddle a fence.

Yes, the issue is as simple as I describe. A company's benefits are clear from the outset. What's more, if said employee doesn't do his/her homework before employment, they're free to leave at any time. You cannot possibly make the issue any more complex than that. HL stores are not located in some out-of-the-way location where there's no other option for employment. As hard as you try, you cannot possibly construct a scenario where people go hungry for not working at Hobby Lobby. That's absurd!

Nobody said anything about a law forcing HL to pay for abortions. Where have you been? That was the whole blowback constructed by the left in response to HL. And, yes, you are engaging in semantics when trying to twist in a pretzel by saying HL paying for healthcare which would provide abortions isn't really HL paying for healthcare providing abortions.

No, saying "I won't serve you in my restaurant because you're a Muslim" is not the same as saying, "no, I won't bake a cake for your gay/lesbian wedding because if violates my religious beliefs, but I know someone who will." Again, trying to compare the two is, again, absurd.

Yes, I think there is a right and a wrong. You don't. I get that.

If you think I'm being "insulting and mocking", I would respectfully suggest you're in the wrong place with such thin skin. I've done no such thing. I have, however, taken a stand, which causes a problem for you.
 
Originally posted by kescwi:
So unless Christians are allowed to discriminate they are being discriminated against? Got it, I mean telling a bakery it can't discriminate against homosexuals is exactly like telling Christians they can't practice their beliefs.
Take that statement and substitute "Muslim", and see what that does.

There are different sets of rules. You're not paying attention if you don't see that.
 
Re: Sure.

See, you say you're not "insulting and mocking" - but then you say things that are patently intended to be both insulting and dismissive.

Like - "Yes, I think there is a right and a wrong. You don't. I get that."

Or - "I have, however, taken a stand, which causes a problem for you."

And at no point have I suggested that your faith is somehow lacking or that you are inferior to me - spiritually, intellectually or otherwise.

I would love to hear more about what exactly the difference between refusing service to someone for reason of sexual orientation and for reason of religious is. I'm not being dismissive, I genuinely don't see a difference beyond the semantic. If there is a substantive reason, I'd be all ears.

I never suggested that not working at Hobby Lobby would mean someone would go hungry, but here's a plausible scenario. You are an hourly worker at Hobby Lobby - raising your kids as a single parent. Because of your kids, you have to have that income - you can't just quit. Your like or dislike of the insurance policy doesn't come into play because if you quit or take a job for less money at, say, McDonald's, you can't afford basic necessities for your children. In essence, you are "trapped" by economic necessity in your job. Does that mean that your values and right to choose for yourself are no longer relevant? Can you honestly not see that there is a bit of gray area here?

Perhaps the larger issue is that you are speaking in terms of only legal right and wrong - in which case, you are right. The employment laws and all of that support your view. However, I am not as interested in limiting the discussion to legalities. There is a right and wrong that supersedes that of law. Which is where my question (which you seem to keep mistaking for a position or stand of some sort) comes in - the balance between differing moral imperatives. There is the moral imperative that all life matters and there is the moral imperative that people not be subjected to poverty.

You keep clamoring for me to take a stand, so here goes:

The Bible I read tells the story of a God whose primary concern is for the poorest, the weakest, the outcast, the oppressed, the underprivileged. In every single book of the Bible at some point, God's "preferential option for the poor" (to borrow a phrase from Catholic theology) is clearly in evidence. Jesus was born to a no-name unwed teenage mom in a backwater town. Everything about Christianity points to the care of God for the poor and dispossessed.

With that in mind, my stand is that my primary concern is to follow what I read - and not some narrow reading of one or two verses pulled out of context, but a reading that does its best to come to grips with the whole story of Scripture; and a reading that acknowledges that interpreting that story is hard and fraught with difficulties and, even on some occasions, outright contradictions. So, here are a few stands for you:

The poor matter and deserve to be treated with a dignity and respect that is often not given them. Minorities matter - both racial and religious. My "rights" matter less than the needs of others around me.The Bible has really strong words against empires and that my identity as American will always be second to my identity as a Christian.When any corporation chooses profit over care for its employees, it is wrong - indefensibly so.Most days I fail more than I succeed at remembering all of these things.Grace is the most important gift anyone can ever receive.
 
Re: Sure.

I must say, I agree with your detractors. This is apologetic pap. No substance. Extreme liberal theology.

Let me know when you wish to discuss reality. The god you created isn't the god most Christians follow.
 
Re: Sure.


Originally posted by ecouch:
I must say, I agree with your detractors. This is apologetic pap. No substance. Extreme liberal theology.

Let me know when you wish to discuss reality. The god you created isn't the god most Christians follow.
If this God is what most "christians" do not follow, then it would seem that "christianity" today is sorrowfully lacking in their understanding of our Lord's teachings. I hope that maybe Pope Francis can save true Christians if this is actually the case.

I would also guess this means that Jesus was the leading liberal of his day, btw. His theology would seem to closely align with what pastorjoe describes.
 
Re: Sure.


Originally posted by ecouch:
I must say, I agree with your detractors. This is apologetic pap. No substance. Extreme liberal theology.

Let me know when you wish to discuss reality. The god you created isn't the god most Christians follow.
Respectfully, I would ask if you have read the Bible in its entirety - and for more than just looking for reasons to hate it. I said nothing in that post that is not accurate. It is not, in fact, extreme liberal theology - I know this because I have friends who are extremely liberal in their theology and we disagree on many, many very important issues. More importantly, if you think that the points I listed represent the entirety of my theological worldview, you are incorrect. There's not enough time to try to capture it all.

Now, if your main point is that many, if not most of us who claim to be Christians do not do a good job consistently living to those teachings, you're absolutely right. That doesn't make what the Bible says any less clear.

You seem to be dead set against any religious.belief of any kind. That's fine, but your closed-mindedness means discussion is not a real possibility. I suspect that, no matter what I had posted, your response would have looked very much the same.
 
Originally posted by pastorjoeboggs:

Originally posted by ecouch:
I must say, I agree with your detractors. This is apologetic pap. No substance. Extreme liberal theology.

Let me know when you wish to discuss reality. The god you created isn't the god most Christians follow.
Respectfully, I would ask if you have read the Bible in its entirety - and for more than just looking for reasons to hate it. I said nothing in that post that is not accurate. It is not, in fact, extreme liberal theology - I know this because I have friends who are extremely liberal in their theology and we disagree on many, many very important issues. More importantly, if you think that the points I listed represent the entirety of my theological worldview, you are incorrect. There's not enough time to try to capture it all.

Now, if your main point is that many, if not most of us who claim to be Christians do not do a good job consistently living to those teachings, you're absolutely right. That doesn't make what the Bible says any less clear.

You seem to be dead set against any religious.belief of any kind. That's fine, but your closed-mindedness means discussion is not a real possibility. I suspect that, no matter what I had posted, your response would have looked very much the same.
Pastor, good stuff, really good stuff.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
No, please keep going

I fully anticipated that sooner or later the pendulum would swing, and we'd have young people who were more conservative. Maybe the next generation since this past one has been fairly liberal.

But one thing that seems universal among the young crowd is a completely lack of caring about homosexuality. They seem almost collectively to not care whether you are gay, straight, bi, trans, etc. So one of the few sure ways of keeping them turned off is stuff like this. And I doubt that changes with coming generations.

So please keep shooting yourselves in the foot with this and immigration issues, and keep two, large future demographics out of the Republican Party.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT