He’s been pretty much the working definition of totalitarianism. I’m pretty sure the 1st Amendment is still nonexistent in California - people haven’t been able to go to church as far as I was last made aware. They were holding their services inside Wal-Mart stores.
Only to a point. Republicans have enough people posing as “republicans” in office. Hence the term: RINO - or Republican in Name Only.
They basically take advantage of the party to push more democratic bullshit under another political party. I’m not sure I’d consider Bruce a “conservative” - just a republican. And yes, there is a difference.
But mostly, yes. It’s how politics work for the most part - blue votes blue and red votes red. Blue needs less socialists in office and red needs more conservatives. It’s very unbalanced - since we are on a bullet train to communism right now.
Caitlyn Jenner is the silver bullet that will get us the White House back from Senile Joe in 2024. Trump runs again and dumps Traitor Pence for Jenner — history making, Leftist heads will explode and vote Trump/Jenner out of their own white guilt.
I think that a Trump needs to drop Pence. I’m not sure about Jenner though. I need to look at her political ideas. My top three for a Pence replacement are Tim Scott, Candace Owens, and Candace Owens. I don’t want Trump Jr. though.
There are. I have nothing wrong with them; although I do not believe it’s something that needs to be taught to younger impressionable children. It just confuses them.
But, again a true conservative would hold Judeo-Christian values and frown on Trans and even gays. And that isn’t to say they shouldn’t have equal rights. It’s just how the country was founded - under God.
Oh? In all Republican-controlled states, how many officially discriminate against LGBTQ+ folks in any way, shape, or form? Specifically cite laws that deny them civil liberties enjoyed by straight folks.
They’ve even nearly categorized them by year and whom they specifically target. Including non-discriminatory ones that actually add protections that they should’ve already had.
Isn’t that convenient?
0 ups, 6m,
OK, here's my response to that having read the page and about a dozen of the bills:
First, a LOT of those bills either died or are about to die. You can propose literally anything for consideration as a law, so we'll set those aside on the grounds that they were (rightly) determined to be unreasonable. The majority of those remaining focused on things like transgender therapy for minors and religious determinations.
- Transgender therapy for minors is something I oppose because it is a permanent and life-altering decision that should be reserved for adulthood. We don't let people drive, drink, or smoke until they've reached a certain age where the risk-assessment portion of their brain is more fully developed. Letting them decide to undergo a procedure, one that could cause serious complications and is not fully reversible, before they've reached a similar age limit seems at best to be a serious breach of scientific common sense and at worst a major violation of ethics regarding how we treat our youth. Therefore these are less 'anti discrimination' bills and more 'youth protection' [open for your rebuttal]
- There is a difference between refusal to allow and refusal to condone. The bills in the religious tab that I read, at least, only extended so far as allowing religious institutions and individuals to run their own operations as they see fit, not extend that influence into the lives of LGBTQ+ folks unnecessarily. (Side note: This is something to which the folks in the LGBTQ+ stream have been quite receptive, so I'm not just making BS up when I say it's not an issue for people to 'agree to disagree'). It was famously said that, "The right to swing my fist ends where the next nose begins." These bills that I read only protected the right of someone to swing their own fist (run their own religion/business) and in no way hurt the next nose (interfere with right to self determination of others, shut down pro-LGBTQ+ businesses, etc). I cannot in good faith call that discrimination.
- The outliers (bathroom bills, birth certificate bills, etc) coooooooould maybe qualify, but that would depend on the individual bill and I didn't read them all. I presume it was the generic, "Make birth certificates display the sex of the individual at their birth and only allow one sex in single-sex bathrooms.".
Except from what I understand of transgender therapy is that it’s not like conversion therapy. Transgender therapy is determining on a case by case basis whether a child displays symptoms of gender dysphoria and needs treatment. Not only that but these treatments aren’t just for trans children but cis children as well. There may even be cis children who may have a hormones deficiency with their assigned gender and a lot of the bills I’ve read target limiting hormone use no matter the circumstances.
Businesses hiding behind religious freedom is old hat discrimination. Religious freedoms remained a popular defense for those championing segregation. If a church organization wishes to exempt people based on discriminatory practice; that is unfortunate but understandably so within the reasonable realm of religious freedom. Businesses and individuals refusing to serve people that are paying for a service like anyone else based on their religious freedom is still discrimination.
Also, one of my biggest pet peeves in recent years was actually reversed a few years ago but it got buried it seems. In addition to the bullshit legislation against same-sex marriage, which I believe was finally reversed in late 2016, was that many Republicans had still successfully created legislation in many states to ban same-sex couples from adopting. Literally one of the best ways for some same-sex couples to contribute to society is by raising children and adoption is sometimes the only way they can do that. However, I just read last night that the Supreme Court has already reversed many of these anti-same-sex adoption bills in 2017. Still, you should at least find it disturbing that so many bills are being proposed annually with the intention to limit the civil rights of some or all LGBTQ, even if they fail or only just now starting to relax many of these discriminatory legislations.
I prefer to keep my guard up and not my fingers in my ears.
Last but not least, no. I, as a conservative and registered Republican, do not support this and I don’t vote for any Republican that does. I’m fortunate that my local red state politicians do not support many of these measures. However, it appears many of these sensible Republicans are on their way out. And not all of them are gutless either and have been saying no for years. When they go, these proposed discriminatory legislations that lack traction might just start to stick.
0 ups, 6m,
- While that is a valid criticism (I work in the Montana state legislature and a bill we tried to pass recently on banning such trans therapy failed to account for the what, 1/50,000 who are born androgynous) it is a measure more suited to an amendment for the bill or another bill itself rather than terminating the legislation...injecting hormones into a child is rarely a good thing, for any reason. Using the few who actually need it as justification for allowing everyone to get it is not exactly a sound line of thinking.
- But we have always held that a business can refuse service to whomever because it is a private entity. Heck, think of life today; businesses are refusing service to folks who won't wear masks. People have a right to determine who can enter their home and private property, and by extension they have a right to determine who can patronize their business. Now, if they start to go and actively infringe upon the ability of someone to patronize a different business that does support them then THAT is wrong, but I very much dislike the idea that a business should be forced to accommodate someone if it causes them some sort of moral dilemma. It would be like people suing a kosher restaurant that refused to make them pulled pork sandwiches, or a bunch of Proud Boys suing a cafe that refused them service just because of their Proud Boy shirts. That's the owner exercising his right of association.
"Using the few who actually need it as justification for allowing everyone to get it is not exactly a sound line of thinking."
But no one is doing that. The problem with the legislation stands as it doesn't address the few who will actually need it. You doom them to suffer unnecessarily and possibly with major health risks. Any time there is blanket legislation it is harmful. Conservatives should know this.
"But we have always held that a business can refuse service to whomever because it is a private entity. "
No, they can't refuse service if their policy is discriminatory in nature. "No shoes, no shirt, no service" isn't the same thing as, "We don't cater to transgenders." One is obvious discrimination and the other is not unless there is a religion that strictly forbids shoes and shirts... but I'll admit that is probably a stretch. And even then, the PC police would certainly raise hell that the former was discriminatory lol.
Mask wear falls under the former of "no shoes, no shirt." Mask wearers are not a religion, race, gender, nor orientation. So that is a false dichotomy to claim businesses are discriminating against anti-maskers.
Again, a Kosher restaurant would be protected because that specifically addresses a religious exception. That I agree with. But if a kosher restaurant refused service to non-Jewish customers, that would be discrimination.
0 ups, 6m
As I said, those bills need amendments or followup legislation to fix those issues. I don't want to say they were all good or all bad, because I didn't read them, but it's certainly not a tough ask. Like I said, I work in the MT legislature and that particular bill was mired in so much partisan fighting over its basic nature that no one focused on solving the one issue that actually existed within it, which was both sad and laughable.
A fair point with the masks, but I still feel that it shouldn't be an issue. Difference of viewpoints I suppose!
Well, sure. A Republican would see nothing wrong with it.
Unless it goes against a religious standing. Which most true conservatives will conserve the Judeo-Christian values.
So no, true conservatives did not begin to support transgender people.
5 ups, 6m,
I'm Catholic. If I lived in California I'd still vote for Jenner. I don't agree with trans folks on a lot of levels, but they absolutely deserve equal civil rights under the law and I have to leave my issues at that particular door. The right to swing my fist [of religious liberty] ends where their nose begins [at their own right to self-determination].
Right, if it were between Newsom and Jenner - it would be a tough call for me. But I’d probably vote for Jenner too. Only because Newsom is a proven tyrant. Better to take a chance on someone else than live under that type of control.
Not saying they don’t deserve equal rights. But conservatively - as this nation was founded under God - wouldn’t adhere to transgenderism. The reason it’s okay in my opinion, is because God has given individuals three unalienable rights. Two of those being liberty and pursuit of happiness. So if being Trans fills that void in ones heart - who is to say otherwise.