Anything to be a bigot, I guess.
this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2026
221 points (99.6% liked)
politics
28571 readers
2449 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You know we could solve this problem pretty easily if everyone would just admit citrus fruits turn people gay and make kids trans.
private citizens never faced punishment for not recognizing same-sex marriages in their private lives. they want private citizens to be able to enforce their opinions in the public square. Like that idiot pharmacist wanting to not fulfill birth control orders. eff them all.
Nothing stops that pharmacist from doing that though, its a company policy that would allow or prevent it.
If the company policy is they can't refuse then they can refuse and lose their job.
For a small owner run business it could be different though like we wont make you a wedding cake.
I very much doubt this. there are a lot of regulations in that industry and you can't have pharmacists or pharmacies just willy nilly deciding to not fill prescriptions.
The pharmacy no, the pharmacists absolutely, they'll just lose their job.
This bill is about the individual, so it doesn't really change anything in this example.
that seems reveresed but even then I have doubt. pharmacies should have plenty of regulation and pharmacist is one of those jobs where you have to be licensed. It kinda sounds like at the end you are agreeing with my statement though that private citizens have never been blocked from doing things in their private lives.
Yes, I was saying that they can and still do what they want, but can/will still face punishment if they decide to do it because individuality has no place in a company setting. Its the company rules that will dictate if they can or can't do something, and those company rules may also be dictated by laws.
That pharmacist would (should) have faced punishment because it was at work.
ah I see what you mean now. your saying the law won't protect them in that setting. maybe. republicans are pretty good at double standards in the way they do things.
I dont get it. I refuse to acknowledge the existence of lima beans ... because they are gross ... but it doesnt mean they dont exist.
Do I get a special snowflake lima bean law?
Lima beans' existence doesn't depend on other people recognizing they exists.
A better analogy would be nations' sovereignty.
Yes, but a marriage is legal, this person is basically disbelieving a piece of paper (marriage license). I just want to disbelieve a bean ... Basically the same. Its all organic.
I don't recognize eggs or cilantro as food
It depends. Does your special one true Sky Man Lord want you to rule the world with an iron fist against non-believers? If so, you may already be a winner!
load more comments
(2 replies)
What's so special about same-sex marriages? I say expand it to include all marriages!
Let us not recognize the unions of conservatives. Clearly, any woman in such a relationship is being held in such a position against her will. Or she's mentally addled somehow and is being taken advantage of.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Remember kids.
In Nazi Germany they didn't start off by killing the Jews.
They started by denying them basic human rights hd dignity first.
349 million frogs in a pot that's slowly getting hotter and hotter.
The 14th Amendment says no State can "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". This bill is literally saying it will protect some marriages and not others. DOA.
DOA
I mean, that would be nice if it was true, but there are enough fascists in control of enough legislative and judicial bodies that it's not a guarantee.
I'm so sick of these fucking fascists.
load more comments
(4 replies)
What? What the fuck does this even mean? A legislation allowing you to think what you want to think?
Look, it's just a consequence of making comedy legal again, don't you want comedy legal?
load more comments
(1 replies)
It's really infuriating how absolutely pants on head fucking stupid these people are.
Seriously.... why do you dumb fucks give a shit what other people do amongst consenting adults? It's supposed to be "a free country", but these idiots keep curtailing freedoms while still claiming "freedom".
Fuck. Off.
There was an article years ago that delved into the differences between the Northern version of freedom vs. the Southern kind. The problem as a country is that normal Americans keep talking about "freedom" and assuming everyone has the same definition of what freedom and liberty mean. I wish I could dig that article up; I used to share it all the time. Of course cons would try to act like these differences did not really exist, when they absolutely do.
Essentially: the Southern kind of "freedom" is predominantly obsessed with the freedom to rule over property and not have anyone else tell you what you can do with your property. That property may include other humans.
I suspect that's why some people that keep lying about "whole cities burning down" under BLM are so worked up - they view property damage as something just as bad as, possibly worse than, the murder of a human being, especially if the human being is not considered a worthy victim.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Why not just move to Afganistan where all of those "problems" are already solved?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Why not? The usa passed a law requiring a fruit to be a vegetable (the tomato). It's anything goes when constructing their brave new world.
"Vegetable" isn't a botanical term, and I doubt something like cucumber or corn or snow peas would get the same pushback. The legal designation matters for taxation and is totally normal.
Next they'll declare pi equals 3
These fucking POS headlines really piss me off. This is so private companies can discriminate, keep people off their insurance, etc.
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a controversial bill Thursday that would allow private citizens and organizations to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages without facing punishment.
House Bill 1473, filed by Republican Representative Gino Bulso, of Brentwood, would not outlaw same-sex marriages but legally establishes that people outside of government don’t have to recognize same-sex marriages as valid and cannot be punished for it.
The legislation also states that private people and groups aren’t bound by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees due process and outlaws discrimination at the state level.
Opponents worry the bill would allow private hospitals, banks and other businesses to refuse to do business with gay and lesbian couples. They fear it could eventually allow private discrimination against bi-racial couples, immigrants and others.
load more comments
(2 replies)
The conservatives are just never going to give up on the culture war bullshit. This is why none of them should ever be allowed into office.
It's in their DNA, they cannot help it. Don't buy into the other bullshit, thinking they'll be "gud at 'conomy" and that they don't really mean it when it comes to their culture warrior demagoguery. They absolutely mean it. Some of them even think there should be capital punishment for homosexual acts. Because bible, that's why.
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is all so stupid. It's the religious term "marriage" that they all fight for. Give it to them.
Instead government issues and recognizes contractual unions between two consenting adults.
Problem solved.
Give it to them.
Excuse me? Absolutely fucking not. You don't get to concede my marriage, and to be frank, fuck you for even suggesting it.
Instead government issues and recognizes contractual unions between two consenting adults.
Marriage is not a "contract". A contract binds two parties to an agreement. Marriage binds many third parties to be obligated to recognize it for things like hospital visitation, privilege to not be forced to testify against one's own spouse, "married filing jointly", and hundreds more examples.
This argument you're making right now is the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT I was having with people vocally and financially supporting band on same-sex marriage in the 2000s. I thought this braindead bigoted bullshit died in the 2010s, but here you are
load more comments
(3 replies)
Separate but equal is not the solution you think it is.
It does not have to be separate. No legally recognized marriage for anyone. You want marriage, go to a priest. No reason for gov to stick their nose in.
It is pretty much a violation of separation of church and state to take a religious term from a religious ritual like marriage and giving it legal weight.
I think you made my point better than me.
load more comments
(16 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
view more: next ›