TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
wing wrote:There was once a time when the majority of the world's population regarded anything outside of heterosexual relations between adults as perverse, sinful and even illegal. Now that the rainbow agenda is being pushed throughout the world, what other perverse and sinful behaviors could become acceptable? Maybe the rainbow warriors in here can elaborate.adnj wrote:redmanjp wrote:it shows that indoctrination at younger ages through universities and now elementary and high schools is working - and the younger it starts at the more likely they will.
I'm still waiting to see someone clearly explain what indoctrination entails.
Nelson Mandela once called T&T a rainbow country due to our racial diversity. Now certain tuners want us to be a different kind of rainbow country.
Would you consider pedophilia and bestiality to be ok based on your lecture above?maj. tom wrote:wing wrote:There was once a time when the majority of the world's population regarded anything outside of heterosexual relations between adults as perverse, sinful and even illegal. Now that the rainbow agenda is being pushed throughout the world, what other perverse and sinful behaviors could become acceptable? Maybe the rainbow warriors in here can elaborate.adnj wrote:redmanjp wrote:it shows that indoctrination at younger ages through universities and now elementary and high schools is working - and the younger it starts at the more likely they will.
I'm still waiting to see someone clearly explain what indoctrination entails.
Nelson Mandela once called T&T a rainbow country due to our racial diversity. Now certain tuners want us to be a different kind of rainbow country.
That time was called the Christian Colonization Period based on Abrahamic religion. Engrained religious bigotry and stupidity is the root cause of the closed-mindedness most people today have on sexuality. If such bigots had the capacity to just ask themselves why would it be wrong on "various perverse and sinful behaviours" they would not come to any logical conclusion except how they were told to feel about it. Many other civilizations on earth existed before Spanish and British global colonization. All of them recognized and accepted a third gender and homosexuality. Gay people have always existed. It's not something new. This current civilization has now reached another turning point of once again recognizing these facts and learning to accept our own people and move forward with treating people equally. At some stage, evolving society will be able to harness the resources and productivity of an ostracized and separated group by creating these social changes, same like with women's rights, same like with racial civil rights. Everything you say here has been said about those other groups in the past. The same reasoning and justification too with religious bigotry.
But one religious doctrine would have most people who can't think for themselves believe that it's not normal and created such a taboo on the subject that priests (not drag queens) started molesting children in the Church which protected them.
You were the one who were saying that there is so much crime today because Kamla passed a law so they would NOT beat and abuse children in schools? Hey, once they're not gay though. That's how your mind works?
Maybe it's a good thing that I probably won't get to see Tom's utopia of animal and child abuse being normalized and legalized to cater to their depravity and calling it humanity evolving. It makes no sense trying to discuss without the bullying and insults. To each his/her own, just don't force me to accept it.maj. tom wrote:You consider that will be something that society will accept in the future?
Based on my "lecture" above you cannot see that pedophilia and bestiality actually won't be accepted because it's harming other persons and animals that cannot consent to sexual relations nor even understand the extent of the physical and mental injuries that are forced upon them at the time?
Please try to think on your own for a bit rather than all the engrained hysterical fear you've been taught. I always want to give so many tuners the benefit of the doubt and then they always reply with more stupidity and remove the doubt.
wing wrote:Maybe it's a good thing that I probably won't get to see Tom's utopia of animal and child abuse being normalized and legalized to cater to their depravity and calling it humanity evolving. It makes no sense trying to discuss without the bullying and insults. To each his/her own, just don't force me to accept it.
maj. tom wrote:So many people don't realize why this was a "meme" way back in the early 1990s on a very popular mainstream prime time tv show. A lot of things go over many people's heads on these forums. It's no coincidence that it's the same people who are convinced that they're smarter than everyone else out there, from lawyers who write pre-action protocol letters, to scientists and doctors who issue public health mandates.
I sure rellllllll men watch the first set of X-men movies and still don't have a clue about any of the issues that the films and even comics were referencing.
alfa wrote:Peter minshall and Calypso rose have been gay from before Edison invented the lightbulb. They are two very popular and influencial figures in society and both have reached ripe old age being fully respected. We are now living in the most tolerant time in history so all this take about ostracized and the church is as extremely exaggerated as those who believe every gay person wants to molest them. My personal reason for not supporting the alphabet group has nothing to do with religion. If religion had encouraged this nonsense I would have been an atheist. But blaming the church and referencing racism segregation seems to sell a story. The same people who would decry those who equated vaccine mandates with segregation now singing another tune, no surprise there
Rose and minshall reached where they are today not by waving rainbow flags and trying to force their idealog onto kids but this generation of pride marching, cross dressing we're coming for you kids freaks are actually undoing the very strides made by those before them. Oh won't you think of the kids is supposed to be condescending and sarcastic but some of us actually do care about them
This issue has already been tested in the US Supreme Court specific to the workplace as sexual harassment. The finding of sexual harassment extends the precedent to other public settings.redmanjp wrote:Policing speech is likely unconstitutional. Not to mention you are also stating biological facts. It might likely be challenged in court.
adnj wrote:This issue has already been tested in the US Supreme Court specific to the workplace as sexual harassment. The finding of sexual harassment extends the precedent to other public settings.redmanjp wrote:Policing speech is likely unconstitutional. Not to mention you are also stating biological facts. It might likely be challenged in court.
In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618 (S. Ct. June 15, 2020), the Supreme Court held that firing individuals because of their sexual orientation or transgender status violates Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination because of sex. The Court reached its holding by focusing on the plain text of Title VII. As the Court explained, “discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second.”
It is unlawful to subject an employee to workplace harassment that creates a hostile work environment based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Harassment can include, for example, offensive or derogatory remarks about sexual orientation (e.g., being gay or straight). Harassment can also include, for example, offensive or derogatory remarks about a person's transgender status or gender transition.
Although accidental misuse of a transgender employee’s preferred name and pronouns does not violate Title VII, intentionally and repeatedly using the wrong name and pronouns to refer to a transgender employee could contribute to an unlawful hostile work environment.
While the law doesn't prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that aren't very serious, harassment is unlawful when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).
The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.
alfa wrote:adnj wrote:This issue has already been tested in the US Supreme Court specific to the workplace as sexual harassment. The finding of sexual harassment extends the precedent to other public settings.redmanjp wrote:Policing speech is likely unconstitutional. Not to mention you are also stating biological facts. It might likely be challenged in court.
In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618 (S. Ct. June 15, 2020), the Supreme Court held that firing individuals because of their sexual orientation or transgender status violates Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination because of sex. The Court reached its holding by focusing on the plain text of Title VII. As the Court explained, “discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second.”
It is unlawful to subject an employee to workplace harassment that creates a hostile work environment based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Harassment can include, for example, offensive or derogatory remarks about sexual orientation (e.g., being gay or straight). Harassment can also include, for example, offensive or derogatory remarks about a person's transgender status or gender transition.
Although accidental misuse of a transgender employee’s preferred name and pronouns does not violate Title VII, intentionally and repeatedly using the wrong name and pronouns to refer to a transgender employee could contribute to an unlawful hostile work environment.
While the law doesn't prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that aren't very serious, harassment is unlawful when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).
The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.
Selling a homo book in RIK , freedom of speech. Calling someone what they actually are despite what they think they are, hate speech. No agenda here at all
adnj wrote:alfa wrote:adnj wrote:This issue has already been tested in the US Supreme Court specific to the workplace as sexual harassment. The finding of sexual harassment extends the precedent to other public settings.redmanjp wrote:Policing speech is likely unconstitutional. Not to mention you are also stating biological facts. It might likely be challenged in court.
In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618 (S. Ct. June 15, 2020), the Supreme Court held that firing individuals because of their sexual orientation or transgender status violates Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination because of sex. The Court reached its holding by focusing on the plain text of Title VII. As the Court explained, “discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second.”
It is unlawful to subject an employee to workplace harassment that creates a hostile work environment based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Harassment can include, for example, offensive or derogatory remarks about sexual orientation (e.g., being gay or straight). Harassment can also include, for example, offensive or derogatory remarks about a person's transgender status or gender transition.
Although accidental misuse of a transgender employee’s preferred name and pronouns does not violate Title VII, intentionally and repeatedly using the wrong name and pronouns to refer to a transgender employee could contribute to an unlawful hostile work environment.
While the law doesn't prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that aren't very serious, harassment is unlawful when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).
The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.
Selling a homo book in RIK , freedom of speech. Calling someone what they actually are despite what they think they are, hate speech. No agenda here at all
If you're not buying the book, or if you don't need to speak to the LGBTQ person, why are you so threatened? Why would you bother being so deliberately odious?
alfa wrote:Selling a homo book in RIK , freedom of speech. Calling someone what they actually are despite what they think they are, hate speech. No agenda here at all
alfa wrote:adnj wrote:alfa wrote:adnj wrote:This issue has already been tested in the US Supreme Court specific to the workplace as sexual harassment. The finding of sexual harassment extends the precedent to other public settings.redmanjp wrote:Policing speech is likely unconstitutional. Not to mention you are also stating biological facts. It might likely be challenged in court.
In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618 (S. Ct. June 15, 2020), the Supreme Court held that firing individuals because of their sexual orientation or transgender status violates Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination because of sex. The Court reached its holding by focusing on the plain text of Title VII. As the Court explained, “discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second.”
It is unlawful to subject an employee to workplace harassment that creates a hostile work environment based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Harassment can include, for example, offensive or derogatory remarks about sexual orientation (e.g., being gay or straight). Harassment can also include, for example, offensive or derogatory remarks about a person's transgender status or gender transition.
Although accidental misuse of a transgender employee’s preferred name and pronouns does not violate Title VII, intentionally and repeatedly using the wrong name and pronouns to refer to a transgender employee could contribute to an unlawful hostile work environment.
While the law doesn't prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that aren't very serious, harassment is unlawful when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).
The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.
Selling a homo book in RIK , freedom of speech. Calling someone what they actually are despite what they think they are, hate speech. No agenda here at all
If you're not buying the book, or if you don't need to speak to the LGBTQ person, why are you so threatened? Why would you bother being so deliberately odious?
I was merely pointing out the contradictions in logic, but you already knew that but playing obtuse
adnj wrote:alfa wrote:adnj wrote:alfa wrote:adnj wrote:This issue has already been tested in the US Supreme Court specific to the workplace as sexual harassment. The finding of sexual harassment extends the precedent to other public settings.redmanjp wrote:Policing speech is likely unconstitutional. Not to mention you are also stating biological facts. It might likely be challenged in court.
In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618 (S. Ct. June 15, 2020), the Supreme Court held that firing individuals because of their sexual orientation or transgender status violates Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination because of sex. The Court reached its holding by focusing on the plain text of Title VII. As the Court explained, “discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second.”
It is unlawful to subject an employee to workplace harassment that creates a hostile work environment based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Harassment can include, for example, offensive or derogatory remarks about sexual orientation (e.g., being gay or straight). Harassment can also include, for example, offensive or derogatory remarks about a person's transgender status or gender transition.
Although accidental misuse of a transgender employee’s preferred name and pronouns does not violate Title VII, intentionally and repeatedly using the wrong name and pronouns to refer to a transgender employee could contribute to an unlawful hostile work environment.
While the law doesn't prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that aren't very serious, harassment is unlawful when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).
The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.
Selling a homo book in RIK , freedom of speech. Calling someone what they actually are despite what they think they are, hate speech. No agenda here at all
If you're not buying the book, or if you don't need to speak to the LGBTQ person, why are you so threatened? Why would you bother being so deliberately odious?
I was merely pointing out the contradictions in logic, but you already knew that but playing obtuse
I really feel badly when people present a logic fallacy in an argument and don't realize it.
Print your book about what you think. That would be a parallel. Then see if it sells anywhere. That is your disappointment.
If not acknowledging the dark underside of your frustration is something that you dislike, then feel free to hate me. I don't mind at all. The fact of the matter is, you are on the losing end of yet another argument based on opinion and misinformation. You want the world a certain way; I don't see that happening in my lifetime.
alfa wrote:adnj wrote:alfa wrote:adnj wrote:alfa wrote:adnj wrote:This issue has already been tested in the US Supreme Court specific to the workplace as sexual harassment. The finding of sexual harassment extends the precedent to other public settings.redmanjp wrote:Policing speech is likely unconstitutional. Not to mention you are also stating biological facts. It might likely be challenged in court.
In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618 (S. Ct. June 15, 2020), the Supreme Court held that firing individuals because of their sexual orientation or transgender status violates Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination because of sex. The Court reached its holding by focusing on the plain text of Title VII. As the Court explained, “discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second.”
It is unlawful to subject an employee to workplace harassment that creates a hostile work environment based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Harassment can include, for example, offensive or derogatory remarks about sexual orientation (e.g., being gay or straight). Harassment can also include, for example, offensive or derogatory remarks about a person's transgender status or gender transition.
Although accidental misuse of a transgender employee’s preferred name and pronouns does not violate Title VII, intentionally and repeatedly using the wrong name and pronouns to refer to a transgender employee could contribute to an unlawful hostile work environment.
While the law doesn't prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that aren't very serious, harassment is unlawful when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).
The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.
Selling a homo book in RIK , freedom of speech. Calling someone what they actually are despite what they think they are, hate speech. No agenda here at all
If you're not buying the book, or if you don't need to speak to the LGBTQ person, why are you so threatened? Why would you bother being so deliberately odious?
I was merely pointing out the contradictions in logic, but you already knew that but playing obtuse
I really feel badly when people present a logic fallacy in an argument and don't realize it.
Print your book about what you think. That would be a parallel. Then see if it sells anywhere. That is your disappointment.
If not acknowledging the dark underside of your frustration is something that you dislike, then feel free to hate me. I don't mind at all. The fact of the matter is, you are on the losing end of yet another argument based on opinion and misinformation. You want the world a certain way; I don't see that happening in my lifetime.
Well you feel free to bark at a dude who identifies as a dog as he raises his leg to piss on you. As for me I'm to old to be entertaining these mental illness games. And you could claim you won this one too if it'll make you feel important
redmanjp wrote:children done already identifying as cats an purring in class. it's not a stretch.
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 65 guests
