Heterosexual Pride: The great builder of humanity.

[taxme]

17 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Do you think exaggerating the supposed problem way beyond the bounds of what is real actually helps your argument?  

What exaggerating are you talking about? Show where and when. 

[impartialobserver]

When I was in SF in 2014... I saw a few openly gay couples getting it on. I still do not how that tangibly affects me. Did not lose money, no physical harm was done to me, did not lose any life or health. Did I stare at them? No. Just saw it and moved on. 

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

When I was in SF in 2014... I saw a few openly gay couples getting it on. I still do not how that tangibly affects me. Did not lose money, no physical harm was done to me, did not lose any life or health. Did I stare at them? No. Just saw it and moved on. 

But if you are straight, you're allowed to be so offended that you can ask them to NOT do that.  It's a version of "they're shoving it in our faces" that directly implies that we straight people have rights that they don't.

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

But if you are straight, you're allowed to be so offended that you can ask them to NOT do that.  It's a version of "they're shoving it in our faces" that directly implies that we straight people have rights that they don't.

I laugh at this "shoving it in our faces" when I am the one that walked up on them. They were stationary (somewhere near the ball park) and so it is pure chance that I walked up on them. In most cases.. one knows when you are encountering an area where gays are prevalent and if this so bothers you... you just move along. Playing victim is not a very Conservative trait... IMHO.

[reason10]

26 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

But if you are straight, you're allowed to be so offended that you can ask them to NOT do that.  It's a version of "they're shoving it in our faces" that directly implies that we straight people have rights that they don't.

To bring you up to speed with the educated sector of this forum (and most of America) there's such a thing as topless strip bars, places where heterosexuality is kinda SHOVED IN ONE'S FACE. And minors are not permitted entry. If a minor is caught, the club loses its liquor license.

A school inviting drag queers to put on a sex show for CHILDREN is engaging in child abuse. That is the epitome of SHOVING FAGG STUFF IN OUR FACES, except that this is shoved in OUR CHILDREN'S FACES.

There are drag queer clubs where legitimate drag queers dance, put on shows, and whatever, and THEY also have a no minors policy. There are gay bars and restaurants, where queers can go to hook up. And it's a NO MINORS ALLOWED situation, just like normal clubs. Nothing is being shoved in anyone's face. And in these legitimate situations, queers and normal people have the SAME RIGHTS.

They are not to be confused with the PEDOPHILES who want to put on a drag queer show for CHILDREN. That is crossing the line.

 

Edited July 24, 2023 by reason10

[reason10]

25 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

I laugh at this "shoving it in our faces" when I am the one that walked up on them. They were stationary (somewhere near the ball park) and so it is pure chance that I walked up on them. In most cases.. one knows when you are encountering an area where gays are prevalent and if this so bothers you... you just move along. Playing victim is not a very Conservative trait... IMHO.

Hardner is about as conservative as Whoopie Goldberg.

[CdnFox]

26 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

I laugh at this "shoving it in our faces" when I am the one that walked up on them. They were stationary (somewhere near the ball park) and so it is pure chance that I walked up on them. In most cases.. one knows when you are encountering an area where gays are prevalent and if this so bothers you... you just move along. Playing victim is not a very Conservative trait... IMHO.

Right right - so if gays enter an area where there's a lot of christians preaching about hating gays, they should just 'move on'.  Or not live in the areas or whatever.

And it's assinine to suggest after all the demands of gays that they should be able to demand businesses cater to them and trans to change bathrooms and to make it illegal to use a 'wrong pronoun'  and all the other victimization of the left to suggest that claiming victimhood is a 'conservative' thing.

LOL  well at least you've certainly proven it's a lie that the left is tolerant of other views  

Edited July 24, 2023 by CdnFox

[impartialobserver]

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Right right - so if gays enter an area where there's a lot of christians preaching about hating gays, they should just 'move on'.  Or not live in the areas or whatever.

Precisely.. or at least if they do so acknowledge that they knew the lay of the land and should not play victim. If you go to SF expecting Leave it to Beaver-Style Americana.. that is a you problem. 

In my example.. it is quite asinine to clam that they were shoving their homosexuality in my face (and therefore giving me permission to play victim). The two couples were simply occupying a given section of sidewalk and making out.. I came upon them knowing that there was a high probability of encountering them. 

As for the businesses catering to them, I think that they should have simply taken their business elsewhere. In Colorado.. they have plenty of other options. 

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Precisely.. or at least if they do so acknowledge that they knew the lay of the land and should not play victim.

But they have for years.  Decades.  And it's already been widely acknowledged that this is their right.  Every time a business refuses to produce a gay specific product it's national headlines. A 'mens only' barber who only does mens haircuts was taken to court by a woman for refusing to cut her hair. If there's a statue of John A Macdonald in a public place, various groups demand it's taken down (or do it themselves with no repercussion)

And in your example there's a lot of places where it's considered inappropriate for any couple to be agressively 'making out'  in public. But apperently it's different rules if they're gay right?

Here's the thing -  you can't play the victim for decades every time someone anywhere doesn't behave as you wish, then turn around and claim somehow it's really bad to complain when it's NOT something you approve of. (and by 'you' i mean the left wing or society,; not you personally per se)

And this is something we see on the left all the time.  "THAT PERSON WOULDN"T MAKE THE GAY WEBSITE WE DEMANDED!!! THEY SHOULD LOSE THEIR JOB!! THEY SHOULD BE CANCELLED!! THEY SHOULD BE CAST OUT!!!!! "    -   hey, we don't like you dry-humping each other in public.  "WHY ARE YOU MAKING SUCH A BIG DEAL ABOUT IT?!!??? WHY CAN"T YOU JUST LET PEOPLE MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS AND AVOID THE PLACES YOU DON"T LIKE!?!?!?!"

Can't have it both ways.

Edited July 24, 2023 by CdnFox

[impartialobserver]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And in your example there's a lot of places where it's considered inappropriate for any couple to be agressively 'making out'  in public. But apperently it's different rules if they're gay right?

In SF.. there probably are old, outdated laws against it however most do not care if a heterosexual/homosexual couple does it with some oddball exceptions. One of those would be to not do it in front of the door at a restaurant/bar.. just move to the left or right. No different rules. 

I find in today's socio-political climate.. everyone plays victim. The left may have started it but the right has taken the baton and ran with it. To claim that you are oppressed simply because your ways are no longer the default option is not valid. 

If I was a small business owner, I would like to think that I have the right to refuse service to anyone. The customer surely has the right to take their business elsewhere. It comes down to the transaction being voluntary. If someone came to my business and wanted me to do something that promoted white supremacy and neo-nazism.. I would not do the job for them. In the West... they would have plenty of options as long as they ventured outside of SF, LA, Vegas, Portland, Seattle, Reno, and Salt lake city. 

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

I find in today's socio-political climate.. everyone plays victim. The left may have started it but the right has taken the baton and ran with it.

The left started it and continues - the right is just now beginning to realize it's the only effective way to stand up for their rights and are not even walking with it yet - if you think it's bad now just wait till they do run with it.

But the point is, the left turned a blind eye to it and thougth it was perfectly acceptable for decades - so those on the left or supporters of them have absolutely no rounds to complain now.   You cannot do something for years and then when it's turned against you stand up and say "woah woah - should we be behaving like this?"   

And you certainly can't blame the right for using the tactics that have been used against them for so long.

14 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

If I was a small business owner, I would like to think that I have the right to refuse service to anyone.

Well you don't.  And even in those cases where  you do you can expect to have to spend your money defending against a lawsuit or Civil Rights Tribunal (canada) case anyway because some gay activist somewhere is going to claim 'victim' and challenge you.

When THAT stops i don't think anyone on the right is going to be interested any more.  Everyone was fine with 'you do your thing and i'll do mine and lets not bug each other".   The gays and the trans are definitely 'in people's face' these days and that's what's creating this backlash

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

 If you go to SF expecting Leave it to Beaver-Style Americana.. that is a you problem.  

Please see this: