VANCOUVER – Progressive and LGBTQ+ groups say they’ve been excluded from Vancouver’s Lunar New Year parade in Chinatown this weekend, with one of their representatives saying they we...
You are attempting to draw a false equivalence between something a person is vs a choice a person makes. A logically equivalent statement to yours would be, “You can’t demand someone publicly endorse gay/trans if you won’t publicly support people who choose to drive drunk.”
What say did the public have on deciding how is protected and who is not? How do you enforce that when you see people making fun of trans? How do enforce that for someone who says they will never be friends with trans?
You’re either daft or just trying to create a “gotcha” moment.
As an individual you can say whatever you want, however when you express bigotry or racism publically you face public criticism.
Nothing is stopping you from being a POS nothing is stopping you from being a homophobe nothing is stopping you from being a bigot. AT AN INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
You don’t need to be friends with trans people, they don’t want to be your friend anyways.
“What say did the public have” idk maybe all the decades of fighting for rights…
What s a “homophobe”? I know a phobia is to have an irrational fear. Are you saying if someone rejects homosexuals, is against homosexuality, that they have an irrational fear? By the reasoning it can be said a lot of people in BC are Jewphobes, they publicly claim their Jewphobia in marches. It’s a nonexistant political word to beat people into conformity and submission to not allow other views and shame anyone who won’t fall in line.
Groups don’t, that’s a protected class under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. individuals of course can discriminate as they wish as long as they don’t spread hate speech.
You are an idealogue totalitarian. Enforced conformity will only cause people to make fun trans and homosexuals. Do you consider yourself an example of humility and self restraint? You show yourself to be a weak coward because you can’t say “I enjoy people with whom I disgree because it does me no harm for someone to reject what I believe in.”
The law I linked is the product of a democratically elected government. Though I agree with it, I had no personal hand in it except perhaps in casting a vote for someone who would have voted for it when it came up in the House of Commons. If you disagree with the law, you are free to petition your fellow Canadians to vote for a party that will change it.
Well if it’s the law and everybody is obligated to be nice, make sure you call the police on anyone who talks about fags and trannies and you make sure the police arrest anyone who would dare say “Tranny rapist”.
Except it does do harm, quite a bit of it actually. The normalization of violent and exclusionary rhetoric is exactly why over a hundred years after the first trans surgeries it’s now politically convenient for big government to step in and ban access to them even though it was a non issue a decade ago. Getting the common people to pretend ‘I sure wish the government would hurry up and kill all the dirty Jews already’ is a minor political disagreement is persicely how one of the most tragic slaughters in history came about, and it is disturbing to see such ideas being repeated openly,
We, as a society have standards. We expect people to not go outside naked, and pushish thouse who do. That is not totalitarian, and it does not lead to gangs going around beating the clothed to death because the government has public indecency laws.
We already have, and have possessed since near the beginning, laws against useing certain slurs in media and it has also not led to the installation of a totalitarian regime. To pretend that extending such laws to protect all people and not just the feelings of religious busybodies is absurd.
It is not normal to pretend that being a such a broken and horible person that one wishes harm on innocent people one has never met, and it is not in the best interest of civil society to tolerate or amplify such people’s cruelty.
Don’t expect it to stay south of the border, none of the other attempts to create social wedge issues have tanken long before the Conservatives inport them.
You are attempting to draw a false equivalence between something a person is vs a choice a person makes. A logically equivalent statement to yours would be, “You can’t demand someone publicly endorse gay/trans if you won’t publicly support people who choose to drive drunk.”
I’m sure you can see how absurd that is.
Do individuals and groups have a right choose to reject anyone who says they are trans, yes or no?
No, that’s discrimination against a protected group.
What say did the public have on deciding how is protected and who is not? How do you enforce that when you see people making fun of trans? How do enforce that for someone who says they will never be friends with trans?
You’re either daft or just trying to create a “gotcha” moment.
As an individual you can say whatever you want, however when you express bigotry or racism publically you face public criticism.
Nothing is stopping you from being a POS nothing is stopping you from being a homophobe nothing is stopping you from being a bigot. AT AN INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
You don’t need to be friends with trans people, they don’t want to be your friend anyways.
“What say did the public have” idk maybe all the decades of fighting for rights…
What s a “homophobe”? I know a phobia is to have an irrational fear. Are you saying if someone rejects homosexuals, is against homosexuality, that they have an irrational fear? By the reasoning it can be said a lot of people in BC are Jewphobes, they publicly claim their Jewphobia in marches. It’s a nonexistant political word to beat people into conformity and submission to not allow other views and shame anyone who won’t fall in line.
Hey dipshit: you can’t always tell the meaning of a word straightforwardly. Also. Fuck you.
Jewphobes = antisemitic
We already have a word for that…
Also I get a vibe this would be you.
https://youtu.be/h4t7oinDFhg?si=V8MMcqKWEpecezWO
Groups don’t, that’s a protected class under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. individuals of course can discriminate as they wish as long as they don’t spread hate speech.
What is the universally recognized definition of “hate speech” that all people agree on?
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html
Though not everyone agrees with it, I suspect. That said, they don’t have to. It applies regardless.
You are an idealogue totalitarian. Enforced conformity will only cause people to make fun trans and homosexuals. Do you consider yourself an example of humility and self restraint? You show yourself to be a weak coward because you can’t say “I enjoy people with whom I disgree because it does me no harm for someone to reject what I believe in.”
The law I linked is the product of a democratically elected government. Though I agree with it, I had no personal hand in it except perhaps in casting a vote for someone who would have voted for it when it came up in the House of Commons. If you disagree with the law, you are free to petition your fellow Canadians to vote for a party that will change it.
All that to say your accusations are histrionics.
Well if it’s the law and everybody is obligated to be nice, make sure you call the police on anyone who talks about fags and trannies and you make sure the police arrest anyone who would dare say “Tranny rapist”.
You are an infinitely worse blight on society than any of the people you are bigoted against.
Except it does do harm, quite a bit of it actually. The normalization of violent and exclusionary rhetoric is exactly why over a hundred years after the first trans surgeries it’s now politically convenient for big government to step in and ban access to them even though it was a non issue a decade ago. Getting the common people to pretend ‘I sure wish the government would hurry up and kill all the dirty Jews already’ is a minor political disagreement is persicely how one of the most tragic slaughters in history came about, and it is disturbing to see such ideas being repeated openly,
We, as a society have standards. We expect people to not go outside naked, and pushish thouse who do. That is not totalitarian, and it does not lead to gangs going around beating the clothed to death because the government has public indecency laws.
We already have, and have possessed since near the beginning, laws against useing certain slurs in media and it has also not led to the installation of a totalitarian regime. To pretend that extending such laws to protect all people and not just the feelings of religious busybodies is absurd.
It is not normal to pretend that being a such a broken and horible person that one wishes harm on innocent people one has never met, and it is not in the best interest of civil society to tolerate or amplify such people’s cruelty.
Who is tryig to ban adult trans surgeries? Who is saying that adults are not allowed to change their bodies?
The Republican Party
Don’t expect it to stay south of the border, none of the other attempts to create social wedge issues have tanken long before the Conservatives inport them.