The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Once again, gay republican group banned from Texas GOP Convention for the 20th time

Perhaps the conference centre has a maximum defined capacity limit for cunts.
 
It's so heartwarming to watch other gay people work so hard to join a group who specifically outlines it's intentions in their platform and in action to discriminate against the rest of us....

....and then they whine about not being accepted by other gay people.:roll:
 
What did they do to deserve being banned? People don't just get banned all willy nilly for arbitrary or superficial reasons, not in America.
 
eastofeden said:
It's so heartwarming to watch other gay people work so hard to join a group who specifically outlines it's intentions in their platform and in action to discriminate against the rest of us....

....and then they whine about not being accepted by other gay people.:roll:
Click to expand...

I mean, who would have thought, ya know?
 
eastofeden said:
It's so heartwarming to watch other gay people work so hard to join a group who specifically outlines it's intentions in their platform and in action to discriminate against the rest of us....

....and then they whine about not being accepted by other gay people.:roll:
Click to expand...

Their allegiance to.... certain ideals within the GOP trumps their sexual identity which most of them struggle with anyway. Most brown people sorta see the GOP as the party of angry white men and unfortunately that includes angry white queens and the 'mos and Toms that want their butta biscuit crumbs.
 
This is exactly why I am a conservative and not a Republican. There's no room for me in a party that dictates sexual behavior. It's none of their business.
 
fabulouslyghetto said:
What did they do to deserve being banned? People don't just get banned all willy nilly for arbitrary or superficial reasons, not in America.
Click to expand...

Oh really!? I've learned here that America is obsessed with race in every corner :^o

tumblr_inline_nxzjdeJP8b1sa6g3f_500.gif
 
Stupid, sad, annoying and infuriating. :mad:

Like ballcaphair I would consider myself conservative (well maybe populist or 'light' nationalist is more accurate) but I would have thought these policies would have gone decades ago.

They're not even speaking for either all Christians or all Republicans (despite the rhetoric on JUB always stating otherwise)

More importantly they're a political organisation, and yet their reasons for refusal in the article invoke religious doctrine.

The State Republican Executive Committee voted on April 7 to deny the group permission to attend, with a “clear majority” of lawmakers opting to reject the group’s presence after a two-hour debate.

According to the Austin Statesman, speakers cited religious objections to the group’s mission.

It was also claimed that their presence would run counter to the GOP state platform, which states that “homosexuality is a chosen behaviour that is contrary to the fundamental unchanging truths that has been ordained by God.”
Click to expand...

What exactly is the legality of all of this?

How is this not a violation of the separation of church and state?

In Texas, could these reasons for refusal also apply if I sought membership of ANY club or organisation? If I wanted to join a Car Racing Association, or a Golfing Club, or a Wine Tasting group, or a Plane Spotters club, etc. etc.

It is not their right to be imposing religious tests on the membership of a political organisation. They are not a church. They should stop acting like it.

And again, can anyone in the United States tell me how this is legal when it has been outlawed for race or ethnicity since the 1960's?

:##:
 
maybe the gay republicans should arrive at the convention dressed in S&M leather---they are their bitches after all---might get in :spank:(*k*):cowboy:
 
^^^...uh...because the republicans would love to end the separation of and state?



.
 
ChickenGuy said:
Stupid, sad, annoying and infuriating. :mad:

Like ballcaphair I would consider myself conservative (well maybe populist or 'light' nationalist is more accurate) but I would have thought these policies would have gone decades ago.

They're not even speaking for either all Christians or all Republicans (despite the rhetoric on JUB always stating otherwise)

More importantly they're a political organisation, and yet their reasons for refusal in the article invoke religious doctrine.



What exactly is the legality of all of this?

How is this not a violation of the separation of church and state?

In Texas, could these reasons for refusal also apply if I sought membership of ANY club or organisation? If I wanted to join a Car Racing Association, or a Golfing Club, or a Wine Tasting group, or a Plane Spotters club, etc. etc.

It is not their right to be imposing religious tests on the membership of a political organisation. They are not a church. They should stop acting like it.

And again, can anyone in the United States tell me how this is legal when it has been outlawed for race or ethnicity since the 1960's?

:##:
Click to expand...

When your politics involve upholding or creating laws that 'encourage' shitting on lgbt people I can't think the reason for those politics make a difference when people who are not politically similar (in the club's mind) are asking to join.

Cue the world's tiniest violin and a solitary tear.
 
ChickenGuy said:
Stupid, sad, annoying and infuriating. :mad:

Like ballcaphair I would consider myself conservative (well maybe populist or 'light' nationalist is more accurate) but I would have thought these policies would have gone decades ago.

They're not even speaking for either all Christians or all Republicans (despite the rhetoric on JUB always stating otherwise)

More importantly they're a political organisation, and yet their reasons for refusal in the article invoke religious doctrine.



What exactly is the legality of all of this?

How is this not a violation of the separation of church and state?

In Texas, could these reasons for refusal also apply if I sought membership of ANY club or organisation? If I wanted to join a Car Racing Association, or a Golfing Club, or a Wine Tasting group, or a Plane Spotters club, etc. etc.

It is not their right to be imposing religious tests on the membership of a political organisation. They are not a church. They should stop acting like it.

And again, can anyone in the United States tell me how this is legal when it has been outlawed for race or ethnicity since the 1960's?

:##:
Click to expand...

Then maybe the political party shouldn’t get get behind religious reasoning to justify their discrimination against LGBT people? Just a thought.
 
ChickenGuy said:
More importantly they're a political organisation, and yet their reasons for refusal in the article invoke religious doctrine.

What exactly is the legality of all of this?

How is this not a violation of the separation of church and state?

In Texas, could these reasons for refusal also apply if I sought membership of ANY club or organisation? If I wanted to join a Car Racing Association, or a Golfing Club, or a Wine Tasting group, or a Plane Spotters club, etc. etc.

It is not their right to be imposing religious tests on the membership of a political organisation. They are not a church. They should stop acting like it.

And again, can anyone in the United States tell me how this is legal when it has been outlawed for race or ethnicity since the 1960's?

:##:
Click to expand...

The separation of Church and State is an evolved judicial precept that has come to mean the State may not establish a institutional endorsement of a sanctioned church. There can be no state church as there is (or was) in European countries and elsewhere. The Texas GOP is NOT the state. It adopts bylaws or platforms based on its votes and procedures as an organization.

However, political parties are just that, private parties who are voluntary associations of citizens who advocate for anything and everything. There is no implied mirroring of the Constitution of the United States. By their very nature, they advocate change, or the status quo, or both.

Parties can and do advocate pacifism, green reforms, black power, communism, animal rights, white supremacy, the equality of women, and many other positions. Once elected, they must still abide by the Constitution, in theory anyway.

Whereas I don't actually know any Log Cabin Republicans, or at least any who are out to me, I can actually see their reasoning in remaining a thorn in the side of the GOP. The Republican Party once had viable factions, most notably, fiscal conservatives who had no interest in social conservatism. Beginning sometime around the Nixon administration and his courting of the religious right and Billy Graham, there has been an increasing pandering to use religion as a weapon, just as the British government did in its brutal subjugation of India, and it has come at the cost of pissing off the moderate Republicans.

It is not hard at all to believe that the ideological scions of the fiscal conservatives include gay moderate Republicans who want to take back their party and intend to keep poking the Texas branch in the eye.

By no means think of Texas as monolithic. The same trend can be seen in the de-evolution of the Southern Baptist Convention in Texas. Although the Convention is centered in its Nashville, Tennessee headquarters, the demographic and financial center of the group is in Texas. A few decades back, as the aforementioned trend was occurring in the GOP, the Southern Baptists were conducting their own pogrom, ridding the state organizations of moderates, and taking over university boards in colleges and seminaries that were founded by the church.

It all backfired. The moderates, and there are more than a few, finally withdrew in toto, and formed the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, based in Atlanta, Georgia, but with some major sized congregations in Texas. The money involved from the Texas rift was significant. Texas churches account for a large percentage of the wealth of that denomination. The South is generally a poor region economically, outside Texas. Texas' economy is larger than Canada's.

So, even though the Cooperative schism only involved 700,000 members and 1800 churches, it represented more in lost face and money for a denomination that is fighting to cover up its own decline, much less any alleged evangelical growth.

I'm not a conservative or a Republican, but I think the Log Cabin faction has more chance at success with their party in other states and on the national stage, but they probably represent some wealth and power locally in Texas so are not about to sit down and shut up there either. Unlike the families of gay LDS members who keep trying to make a run at the Mormon doctrines, I give the Log Cabin bunch better odds at eventually effecting the change.
 
Log Cabin Republicans are the sorriest group of pocketbook trash conservatives that ever fleeced their donors.

Gee, Texas Republicans won't let the homos through the door.

Colour me surprised.
 
rareboy said:
Log Cabin Republicans are the sorriest group of pocketbook trash conservatives that ever fleeced their donors.

Gee, Texas Republicans won't let the homos through the door.

Colour me surprised.
Click to expand...

This. These Uncle Toms need to go unfuck themselves.
 
Anybody here know why they named themselves log cabin? Is it suppose to be where they meet for sex, a log cabin?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top