http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/04/michigan-law-its-ok-to-bully-gay-kids-if-youre-a-christian/

THIS IS NOW A LAW PEOPLE. WHAT THE HELL?

Is there any way to like, stop this? This is disturbing.

Wow I hate myself. Just noticed the stupid typo
***Christian

WTF is wrong with michigan officals.
i swear our goverment is out of there minds

Didn't bother reading this since I saw a similar article earlier today, but before a big debate comes on about how "Christians always cause the problems," an extremely large majority of Christians also don't approve of this, damn correct that they shouldn't.

but im christain and i have tons of gay friends thats just so stupid!

Lol, Michigan officials are quite sneaky trolls.

Well, looks like another stunning victory for extremists in a religious faction.

Good job, guys. Keep letting these assholes be the most vocal spokesmen for your way of life! They've done a stellar job so far.

Edit post button want...

To be completely fair, the law itself doesn't single out "christians". If your religion holds a grudge against odd sexuality choices, then you are sanctioned.

Its not even really about homosexuals and christians, its just another instance where religion in any form gets special treatment.

i'm a christian and i don't believe bullying gay kids is right. >:O this is such a crappy law, who the heyall made this up? idiotboys...

well, i don't want any of you getting the wrong impressions just because it says "if you're Christian", and like Aya said, "the law itself doesn't single out "christians". If your religion holds a grudge against odd sexuality choices, then you are sanctioned. "


Yeah, quoting you is just.....aahhhhhhh =w=b

......What if you're not gay? what if the "bully" just assumes the kid is gay, how would he prove it in the court of law? Or is it just Legalizing bullying under any circumstances?

"Why did you pick on this kid for 5yrs? Not to mention he committed suicide, so that implements manslaughter"
"I thought he was gay"
"Oh, that's alright then, never mind"

The law itself is completely unconstitutional. U have the right to freedom of self expression and no one persons rights are more important then anothers. So the any law that tells u can ignore others rights just bc u think the other person is wrong shouldnt have ever been thought of. Sometimes I think goverment officials haven't ever heard of the bill of rights.

>>11 The twisted part of this is that the part of the bill this post addresses is made to protect the first amendment.

If you didn't read the link, I'll just repost that excerpt here:
"THIS SECTION DOES NOT ABRIDGE THE RIGHTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OR UNDER ARTICLE I OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION OF 1963 OF A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE, SCHOOL VOLUNTEER, PUPIL, OR A PUPIL’S PARENT OR GUARDIAN. THIS SECTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT A STATEMENT OF A SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF OR MORAL CONVICTION OF A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE, SCHOOL VOLUNTEER, PUPIL, OR A PUPIL’S PARENT OR GUARDIAN."

It's still a terrible thing to add on to what was supposed to be a bill to protect students from bullying, given what it implies. Contrary to the radical way it was stated here, it does not say it only applies to christian beliefs - that's an assumption drawn out of context. What it does imply is that morally controversial statements are sanctioned as long as it is subjected to a legitimate religious belief or moral code.

I don't imagine this will be used to protect every person who attempts to blame their actions on religion, since it must be verified or at least justified. This is not a case of christian favoritism, but one of roundabout politics. If you look at it from the other side, if they didn't append that to the bill, they would get just as much flak from people who blindly assert the first amendment.

Obviously, there are more things wrong with that law than I can ever list. I lament the lack of common sense in some people...

Ah hell... well, we can at least be glad it's only in Michigan. Not saying I approve of it, but at least they haven't done this elsewhere.

wow really predjust isn't it against feadrail law to do that

>>5 I dont have tons but i do know a few
>>9 wow we must think alike...the gov's gone crazy these days!

im christian as well,IM STILL SHOCKED AT HOW THIS LAW COULD'VE BEEN ABLE TO PASS..doesnt the public vote be4 anything becomes officail?!?!(this isn't even rite 4 any chrisian to pick on any1)-doesnt matter if they think they're a sinner or not.
AS BEING A CHRISTAIN I KNOW "THIS" IS MEANT 4 GOD TO JUDGE ALONE ON WHO SHOULD BE EQUAL IN SOCIETY..not man! #smh

Guys, read the actual news article.

It's not specific to christians.

See >>12. I'm not saying what they did was a lesser evil, nor do I approve, but if you're going to hate on it, do so in an informed manner before making assumptions. OP was just a tad fallacious in representing the topic in a biased manner, regardless of whether or not it was called for.

>>17 Ah, sorry. I wasn't trying to blame Christians in particular at all. I'm aware MANY are entirely against this.

wtf man thats not right thats like saying if you follow a religen that tells you to rape people it gives the ok thats just fucking stupid

thats mest up making it into a law seriosly wants going on here!

WTF

What about agy bullies?

WTF

the problem is 3 things form corruption, madness,and stupidty

Religion:Corruption in some-check,madness in some-check,stupidity-check

Politics:Corruption-check, Madness-check(Refer to WWII), Stupidity-big check(refer to american population)

Science:Corruption(See atomic bomb aposed to Einsteins Ideals),
Madness-stare at a blackhole for a few minutes,even if its just a simulation shown on a science channel show...itll unnerve u..not to mention most theorys of the big bangs final result also will screw with your head,near all involve the universe tearing,receding,or expanding on forever into darkness.
Stupidty...refer to anything on the news concerning health factors of what you eat for diets.it NEVER works.

Also for stupidity,refer to weather forcast.

Stupid people. >:O

Thats Horrible and im religious.

You shouldn't be able to bully anyone regardless of what you believe! I mean by bullying the kids it just contradicts Christianity in its own way! I've seen so many people who have been hurt by bullying and who I've worked so hard to protect and comfort, but sometimes words just don't work! I want to speak out against bullying! As a Michigan Dollar, I feel that it is our duty to protect and comfort and speak out against injustice in our state! Michigan Dollars join with me and make this world a better place!

thats stupid and really religionist the fuckers better back off. >:( i hope the person who thought of that's father is gay/ lol

Seriously, though, as I have stated, are they making ALL bullying legal, or just gay bashing? Cause one can pick on someone for one reason, and say another, and also, if taken to court (which you can) how would said bully prove the kid was gay?

Listen, once again, since people are likely to continue to ignore what I say until I restate it.

The thread title is fallacious and presumptuous. While technically correct, it narrows the scope of what was actually implemented with the law.
The original bill was meant to prevent bullying and harassment in schools, due to cases where students became depressed or suicidal from such ridicule. However, the Republicans, when reviewing the bill, took a stance with the intent to protect the first amendment, freedom of expression, to its logical extreme.

I copypasted the addition they added to the bill somewhere higher up in this thread, it's in allcaps. Basically, it protects people from being prosecuted for that sort of behavior if they can justify it with a legitimate moral or religious belief. That is to say, you can't discriminate against someone who discriminates due to their very culture, since it's technically discriminating their culture by relation. It's fallacious and kind of a dumb loophole, but it's meant to protect the rights of both parties.

Of course, that allows people to start lying about their beliefs, using it as a leverage to ridicule even further. Without intending to, this bill potentially magnifies the very effect they tried to put an end to.

If you look at it from what the Republicans claim their point of view to be, for all intents and purposes it isn't wrong. They're viewing it from the opposite end of the spectrum, and preempting potential backlash from people who would abuse the authority of the first amendment.

If you still choose to believe they did it specifically to protect gay bashing, then go ahead and narrow the scope as you see fit. Do not interpret this to mean they specifically said Christians are allowed to gay bash. Let's not make this a religious argument either, since it extends to moral codes as well.

if they were truly christian they wouldnt bully period. just shows how corrupt things are nowadays

THATS SO SILLY D: why i dont get it why is that a law :( it should never be ok to say mean things on purpose because of your religion :( im sorry but its stupid and just plain WRONG >:(

man christians are accutally SUPPOSED to be peaceful and kind but people just abuse this ,, sigh sigh this world

>>31 I agree
If they where truly Christian they wouldn't do this.
I hate it how people use religion as an excuse for these kind of things.

I am a Christian and i have gay friends

what the crap with this new law

LOL! Wow, this is so fucked up in so many ways... if I see anyone bully a gay kid because their Christian, im going to let them know whats up >:)

dood, people please read the other posts =,="

>>35 I have to agree with you I'm a christian and I don't believe in bulling anyone no matter what the reason it's just wrong

>>35 I have to agree with you I'm a christian and I don't believe in bulling anyone no matter what the reason it's just wrong

God fucking damnit.

READ THE OTHER POSTS IN THIS THREAD, AND AT LEAST LOOK AT THE ARTICLE AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND IT ON YOUR OWN.

Every other post on here has been ignorant due to only going off of the title of this thread, which is biased and off-kilter from what the bill actually means. I am not retyping the explanation, because I have done so multiple times in this thread.
That said, read the rest of the posts in this thread before making an ignorant, "religiously tolerant" comment; you aren't impressing people with your spotless morals when you are basing it on a wrong conclusion in the first place.

>>42
I'm really sorry D: All I did was take the title from the original article.

woe woe misuto calm down. geez, ultispy is right i've heard of this law before.

well, it's not a law okaying bullying but rather a perspective loophole around the law. so in short you'd have to be a dick to do it in the first place and that probably wont stop as long as people hold those same beliiefs. where the article is WRONG however, is that it is only ok to excercise your rights in the USA so long as they do not hinder the rights or well being of another person, in this case even if you belief that homosexuality is wrong and evil, you can not go and punch him in the face, you will get in trouble no matter what.

Original article was biased, is my point, but everyone here is glancing at it and drawing uneducated responses. It's bothersome that it's getting propagated like that when there is a more legitimate reason to be upset about this news.

I'm not really blaming you, ultispy, if that's what it seemed like. You just fall under the same category of people that misinterpreted it due to a biased article, and that's what I'm upset at.

Kumo's got it pretty much right. It gives a loophole for what was already legal - freedom of expression. That hasn't changed. What has changed is now they must have a "good reason" before expressing themselves in an offensive way. Technically, the law still does good - the bad part was the loophole they inserted last-minute.

Retardo people, the government...

>>49, read >>42.

>>46 I didn't feel like you were blaming me, I just feel kind of bad for posting with a misleading title. And I did misinterpret the law at first.

A Christian telling a gay kid they're going to hell and getting away with it would be more of an example of this law.

I've been told by my friend's parents growing up I'm going to go to hell just for not being Christin and all through my teenage years. I eventually found a cool collective way to replay to that which was "Just because I believe in a different invisible man than you do doesn't mean what you say is true."

Oh my. Certain children in this thread seem to have the wrong idea.

There is a key difference between "You are a fag so I hate you" and "God did not create humans to be gay" (ignorance versus belief).

Yes, some Christians can be out of bounds, but the add-on is basically there to keep the constitutional rights. It isn't just Christians.

Everyone, unfortunately, has the right to say what they want. Our constitution guarantees it. Bullying is wrong, but there isn't a real clear way to enforce an anti-bullying law.

Of course, that's just my opinion after reading that incredibly biases, sensationalist article the OP gave us. When reading the news, it's important to get it from a reputable source.

*biased

Excuse my errors if there are others I haven't caught.

Thats horrible!

what the hell?! this is terrible!

SO now instead of people saying hey i dont like you for being gay.... people will be legally forced to amend that and say hey the true god doesnt like you if your gay and you will go to hell -__-

Jesus christ in a muslim synagogue.

I say it again - read the actual article, and if your attention span allows, the more informative posts made in this thread.
OP linked a biased article, and title of thread is inaccurate as a result. If discussion is to continue on this thread, PLEASE come up with your OWN OPINION on the matter after UNDERSTANDING THE ACTUAL LEGISLATURE AND THE AMENDMENTS TO IT before you end up making an equally ignorant response piggybacked off of the thread title.

I got it off of this http://swampland.time.com/2011/11/04/why-does-michigans-anti-bullying-bill-protect-religious-tormenters/

relax man

I didn't mean it as a personal attack on you, but your opinion on it is still taking it to a logical extreme. It seems like it can't be helped that every article about it is extremely biased and inaccurate by way of over-specifity.
I mean, they wouldn't get readers otherwise, I guess.


Let me explain in better detail the likely cause and apparent effect.

The bill was passed to protect people from being bullied and harassed, something that is already difficult to accomplish due to the first amendment protecting free speech and expression.

The fact that they edited it to protect the opinions of those with moral or religious obligations does not equate to the sanctioning of persecution based in them. So far, everyone is reading this bill as "It is now okay to make fun of gay people because of religion," when it is actually saying "It is not okay to harass anyone, but we can't do anything about it if we end up violating someone's religious/moral principles."

See it from the perspective of the legislators themselves. If you think about it, they realized the amount of bullshit they'd have to put up with if a free speech activist or, in the worst scenario, a religious radical started protesting the unamended bill. They would throw the first amendment back in their face, and there would be so much unnecessary chaos because they failed to cover their asses.

That's what the amendment to the bill is: assurance. It isn't passive-aggressive discrimination, it isn't protection of those with disagreeable morals. It's legally covering their asses, in a way that is accidentally specific enough that the masses interpret it as an attack towards a specific group of people.

Nowhere in the bill does it specify christians, and nowhere in the bill (as far as I know) does it specify homosexuality. The bill extends towards all forms of bullying and harassment, and the protection clause extends to all religions AND justifiable moral principles. Yes, it defends christfag gay bashers, but that's just one possible case of the bill backfiring... and even then, they were protected by the first amendment long before this bill had anything to say about it.

>>60 tl;dr... haha, but seriously.

All I seem to gather is that,
'OP linked a biased article, and title of thread is inaccurate as a result. If discussion is to continue on this thread, PLEASE come up with your OWN OPINION on the matter after UNDERSTANDING THE ACTUAL LEGISLATURE AND THE AMENDMENTS TO IT before you end up making an equally ignorant response piggybacked off of the thread title.'
According to Misuto. And I usually trust his judgement... usually.

So try to take things in and understand whats up before suto posts another wall of text that nobody reads.

>>61 lulz
>>60 Mael is right too

I understand what you are saying buddy i know the intentions as well... What I meant was that it should have been worded better because it comes across as giving someone the ability to use his religion as a means to loophole it. Again you must understand that being someone who has been religiously discriminated, i kind of understand why homosexuals automatically have fear of anything that has a provision that says"DOES NOT PROHIBIT A STATEMENT OF A SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF OR MORAL CONVICTION OF A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE, SCHOOL VOLUNTEER, PUPIL, OR A PUPIL’S PARENT OR GUARDIAN" because it is sincerely held beliefs that have been the ones hurting homosexuals the most. I mean think about it it is because Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed by the biblical god (which is also the same story for jews muslims and christians) that caused the idea of the "evils of homosexuality".

Just saying with that addition it doesnt take away the ability of those who use religion as an excuse to hate them, to ...use religion to hate them..

>>60 pretty much explains it all, the only counter argument that i could provide is that the legislature doesn't even need to add the whole "religious beliefs" part of the law based on one single thing, and that is that it is NEVER ok to express yourself or your views in a way that causes harm or limits the rights of ANYBODY. i mean, i understand why they would add it, and i know that regardless of the addition it is not ok for anybody to bully another for any reason, but i don't think that it was totally necessary to add the whole "religion is still protected" thing. in the end it seems like it doesn't matter, because WITH the addtion, we get people misinterpreting the situation and overreacting to what the bill means and WITHOUT it we would most likely get people misinterpreting it as an attack on religious freedom. i do appreciate the link >>59 posted, it brought a more informative and less biased opinion into the mix.

When I saw this thread, I had to stop and read it through.
I live in Michigan, in the LP, and in the school rules, it states tat it is against the rules to discriminate and bully others based on religion and race, but it never said anything about sexuality. Being the VP for a GSA, I believe that this is wrong, it should also be against the rules to bully kids because of their sexuality, but really, with all the homophobic slurs going around (i.e 'that's so gay'), it'd be really hard to enforce such rules. However, in my school, if someone is being a bully, regardless of what it's for, they do get punished. not like they have much choice, the GSA holds good enough amount of influence over such things and we could organize a protest, not to mention everyone's rights as a student include a safe learning environment, which is not being provided if that student is being bullied.

F**ked up. Im a christian and Im definately against this.

>>65 in the words of Misuto, actually read the link and the responses before making a judgment on this.

>>66 That's not the words of Misuto, I could read everything you said without having to scroll down once.

Shame on you for misquoting him.

>>67 my apologies. i should have said "to sum up previous comments made by misuto"

Fuck you Navi, don't make me write at you

>>67 LULZ
>>69 misuto ya should be like one of those newspaper rant writer, would be fitting

This might just be for lulz they might be both in on it but its funneh and relavent to teh topic

this is just wrong i cant believe that its a law, its nothing but bull

>>71 read the whole thread please

Why do people take religious beliefs so seriously? I might to be an atheist if some people in certain religions didn't take things soo far or so seriously

I AM UBER PISSED AT THIS NEW LAW!!!!!!! it should *NEVER* be right to bully a person just because they prefer a different gender!! WHAT THE HELL?!! i have friends and family who are gay! so just because somebody prefers a different gender automatically makes them evil? thats like saying Adam lambert or the lead singer for Queen is evil! I CANNOT BELEIVE THEY WOULD PASS A LAW AS MESSED UP AS THIS!!!!

Well I don't agree with it at all, I'm a chirstian and I have gay, bi-sexaul, and lesbian friends. They are people too, and no one has any right to bully them. I would go further into this but that would end up as a nonstop rant. Gay Support! <3

ITT no one reads entire thread.

>>76 i have almost given up. this particular thread is something that i have put some effort into. i can't even imagine what how Misuto feels about this. READ THE WHOLE DAMN THREAD BEFORE COMMENTING BASED ON THE TITLE

i'll say this, if i see anyone bullying anybody i will stick up for that person, if its a "christian bulling gay" situation then i will start a fight.

>>77 Yessir! *half hour later* I read the whole thing, as time consuming as it was. Now it's my turn >:) lol

It's an interesting law, honestly, but I'm pretty sure they only included that part so that no one could say it was "unconstitutional". They can always change it later, but they needed to get it passed in the first place. They probably thought that adding that in would give it a better chance at not being seen in a better light regarding the Constitution. That part can always be removed later.

They definitely worded it horridly... Nonetheless, if I lived in Michigan, the law wouldn't affect me. If someone bullied my friends because they're gay, I'd definitely beat the law to their punishment.

>>47 My sentiments exactly XD

Well thats a stupid law. I also read on yahoo answers there was an old man who wanted to force his kid to go to church by not feeding them on Sunday. My question is are people really this stupid? Or do they do this just to make everyone angry?

wdf is ur deal what right do u have too bully a gay person just let them be u jack ass ( am not gay but i do not hate them there just people oh like the race)

I dont think this law is a very good use. Just because someone is different from you doesnt mean you have the right to hurt someone else. Dont judge people for their beliefs. We have one life and we can live it however we want. If someone i knew was gay and being bullied, i would make fun of them and punch them in the nose. I dont live there but it is the truth

I woul make fun of the people who are being a bully. sorry if you misunderstood. ;)

>>79 i appreciate it, lol. in truth, you don;t have to read the WHOLE thread, just a good chunk of it. the people raging that this law is bull are taking it wrong because of the title.

tl;dr for the thread for those who comment from this point on:
the source the OP used for this news is biased, it never has been or never will be OK to bully anyone for any reason, the legislators just tried digging themselves out of one whole and into another.

Are you damn serious!? some people are so screwed up in the head I swear!>;( Exactly how does this help at all!?!?

>>86 :'( read the thread. this has been covered...just look at >>84 if you are too lazy to actually read it

this pisses me off grrrrrrr
one thing i can't stand is prejudice of any kind.

we should do something about it rather then just siting here. that would be a cool mission.

>>88 read >>87.... this is getting ridiculous......

>>89 should also read >>87

i think this isn't real actually.(maybe)

>>92 read the thread plz, we have established all there really is to establish on this subject.

Okay

I'm just going to say that everyone should read the whole thread before posting.

Hope I'm the last one

im a christan and that is bogus and it makes me sick. christans we arnt supose to do that kinda stuf. hipacrates this rellgon is full of em but there still are a few good ones out there

you got the said it bro I can't stand guys like that I deal with depressin and get called gay and last week I nearly cut off my left arm cuz some bitch called me gay and my family woundn't let me kick his but

ya im with ya im not afrid to settle the to hammers god gave me

Wow, even more reason for me to leave Michigan, this is not right and if anything should be illegal...

Maybe if you collected signatures against this law and maybe, just maybe, if you get enough you can show it to the council or whoever created this law and tell them to take it off...
Maybe someone already said this, but it's a possibility that is quite commonly used, and normally works.

I am not explaining what is wrong with your statements again, >>96 through >>100.

You can read the points made in this thread before making generic morally righteous comments.

>>101 thank you.

Crazy i don't care if you have good points it's crazy,if people can bully they'll do what they can to bully...And now they are allowing it?! What sick person causes the reason a person goes to suicidal thoughts...

that's messesd up.
right along with people in your neighbors yard burning crosses.

>>103 the points do not make the law ok, the points are that the law does not say that at all and that people are misinterpreting it. god read the posts before assuming you know the topic.

Misuto I've read most of what you're saying and I still feel like no matter how you look at it it's still wrong. It really doesn't even matter that much because I don't believe there's any religion that validates bashing anyone. Therefore, it would be a miracle if someone could pull off using religion to validate it in court. Why should they be afraid of stepping on religious toes by prosecuting Christians for bullying or bashing gay kids? Morally it's wrong......period. And if it gets so bad to the point where legal issues are involved there shouldn't even be a discussion. Religion just isn't an excuse in my opinion.

>>106 thank you for actually reading 1st. anyways, i think the reason they were afraid of doing this was the backlash they would get from "restricting religious freedom in america". maybe this lead them to become blind to the fact that it could be misinterpreted the other way or maybe they saw that and saw it as a neccissary risk because there are more christians than gay people and they wanted to piss off less people rather than more. who can say for sure?

I think this is just one of those tricky things that can't be helped. You're screwed on both sides when you think about it. A product of a imperfect world.

>>108 exactly.

Another useless law. Fact of the matter is, people are going to what they're going to do. Our job is not to judge or mistreat them, because the world operates on the basis of free agency. I don't condone a lot of the things people do, but I acknowledge and accept that not everyone will agree with me or believe as I do. Bullies, no matter who their targets are, need to understand that as well.

>>111 even then, the law doesnt OK it. this has been pointed out several times in other comments of people who actually read and understood what was said officially and how the link provided blew it out of proportion.

You spelt Christian wrong...

>>113 they acknowledge this on >>2

I think that the link to the website added more spin to the incident just so it could get more people to visit the site;however , it does bring up the tension between Christian extremists and the gay communities. This truly is a cruel world.

>>112 I didn't say it was okay, Kumo. I was agreeing with the fact that this is a law that does no one any good. It just makes things far worse than they already are. People deserve to be treated as people, regardless of choices and beliefs. That's why things of a degrading nature, like this law, are useless. It just keeps the cycle of hatred going.

by "the law doesn't OK it" i didnt mean that the law makes it morally right to pick on someone due to your belief, i meant nowhere in this law does it actually say what the thread name implies. the link provided by the OP was to a site that formed a biased and unrealiable opinion blown out of porportion by people who overreacted. the law just states "we are not inhibiting religious freedom due to this anti-bullying act" as a side note. this is where some of the discussion on this thread took place,some people, including myself, believe it wasn't necessary for them to say that because regardless of belief, it is legally NEVER ok to hurt someone unless it's in self defense.

now that law is just wrong cuz i have a gay cuzin an hes cool and i have lesbian friends i wanna go back to my home state and kill the person who made that law >:|

what about us biesexuel girls

I'm gay and I have gay fiends where does this leave me?
Now we have to fight for our rights even harder...
:(

i think its messed up that would just leave to more probliems...

im christian and i dont like bully or bullying or anything negitive of things GOD IS GREAT!

god said hate the sin love the sinner

i thin k its worng no one follow that law its like vilonce but of the heart

this goes a against the constitution all people will be treated equally

GUYS PLEASE READ THE THREAD BEFORE COMMENTING, NOT CAPPING IN ANGER, BUT TO DRAW ATTENTION BECAUSE IT WORKS. THE LAW DOES NOT ALLOW GAYS TO BE BULLIED BY CHRISTIANS, THE NEWS WAS BIASED.

didnt we learn anything from the holocaust? i swear it always 2 steps forword and 3 back agen it always the saime with us human beings what makes us great can also tear us apart

>>126 >>126>>126>>126>>126>>126

:'( please read. this is depressing. READ THE POSTS PLEASE BEFORE COMMENTING.

Aw hell no!
That is it I have now decided to go to Michigan and ware a support gay shirt
Fuck the law
He'll if I had a car I'd go right now and ware it in from of a freaking police station

>>128 before you get a plane ticket to michigan, READ THE POST. if you did, you would know that the law they are talking about does NOT allow gays to be bullied by ANYONE

sorry, forgot to change the name from the favorite member post, lol

WHAT THE FUCK THAT IS NOT RITE

I have had a few gay friends and I'm Christian, so I know what I saying when I say, bullying is wrong, no matter who you are or why you believe someone deserves to be demoralized and terrorized. I try to believe that some bullies have had a bully of their own to deal with and no one helped them, but bullying someone else is not right, no matter the reason.

as a...person of the LGBT ..i find this horrible and wrong

Please tell me this isn't happening

thats horrible and sad why would anyone do that to people

GUYS! PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING ON THIS THREAD! THERE IS NOT A LAW THAT STATES THIS, THE PERSON READ A BIASED ARTICLE ONLINE OF AN ACTUAL ANTI-BULLYING LAW IN MICHIGAN WHERE A SECONDARY STATEMENT WAS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT, THERE IS NO WORRIES TO BE HAD OF CHRISTIANS BULLYING GAYS. GOOD GOD. I DON'T KNOW WHY I EVEN TRY SOMETIMES, I HAVE WRITTEN 4 OR 5 CAPITALIZED POSTS TO TRY AND GET PEOPLES ATTENTION NOW AND EVEN THOSE GOT IGNORED BY PEOPLE.

and again, i will re-state, that the above was NOT capitalized in genuine anger, but as a mixture of frustration, and actually getting people to read event he bottom most posts on a thread before commenting on shit.

*even the

I've done a little research and what you guys are talking about is a bill not a law that republicans passed. A BILL IS NOT A LAW. Though, in my opinion, it is pretty sick. Using religion as an excuse to hurt people? It's disgusting.

There is a video on here thats pretty informative.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/11/05/michigan-senate-says-its-ok-to-bully-if-its-in-the-name-of-jesus/

>>139 yes a bill is not a law, but even the information provided by the OP, as biased as it is, when viewed in a neutral stance says nothing to imply that the law even does what this thread suggests. it's merely stating that our basic constitutional rights of freedom of religion will not be infringed upon, not "ok, jesus lovers, go punch a queer." that last statement may have sounded a bit harsh, but that's what people are making this out to be. it simply DOES NOT happen.

>>70 XD I love that picture

I dont care if your christian, i don't care if you are JESUS, you can't bully gay people! it not right! You cant bully them based on which gender they like. THEY'RE PEOPLE TOO!

Really? It's a bill?

Really, I can't be entirely against this law now that I understand it :/ It's just trying to keep Freedom of Speech, but at the same time not tolerate bullying, which is a hard thing to do.

>>143...... READ THE POSTS. that is all

I was once told that Christianity is a religion open to everyone... So why does this always come up whether with Gays, Jews, etc. And why is the government so corrupted to let this happen so much it HAS to be a law???

>>146 READ THE POSTS. that is all

i am a christian and this is just rong what hapened to brotherhood and love thy neighbor that law needs to go like now and who would even try to bring that to a cort let alone vote yes to it

>>148 READ THE POSTS. that is all. and yes, i am going to continue to spam this message until people actually get around to reading some of the posts before they comment on this one.

THATS SOO STUPID!!!!!!

THATS SOO STUPID!!!!!!

>>151 READ THE POSTS BEFORE COMMENTING! that is all

I just recently saw a news clip of Matt Eppling. The world is a cruel place..
Well, at least they took some action. Christians just follow their belief, I suppose there's nothing to do about it since it will be probably thousands of years until it fades away. Or it never will.
I want to see what this new law gains.

READ THE POSTS BEFORE COMMENTING! that is all

what kind of post is that

but it funny dude

that law sucks!

Wrong!! That's just wrong! Who the heck thinks like that!!

?!?!?! that mset up man

an ape can do a better job in office then them the law is stupid

wath the fuck!?!?!!! wath kinda hitler like world is this turinig into!??!!

READ THE POSTS BEFORE COMMENTING BASED ON THE TITLE PEOPLE.

Even though the article is not specific to Christians, I would like to note that there are some that persecute homosexuals that are obviously devoted to their religion, and that they don't realize this. It's quite depressing.

>>164 the article doesnt excuse the bullying of anyone period if you really read into it

Thats just plain horrible, I am a christian and If I had gay friends I would be the first to stand up for them

>>166 read. the. posts. too many people are commenting without seeing what people who have actually read this law have said about this matter. it's really obvious when you havn't read ahead.

That's a lot of response.

Me? I believe being gay is wrong. I never deny this.
BUT! It is also my belief to understand ppl. If they feel it is right to do it, then all my yelling at them that it's a sin would only strengthen thier conviction or make them suicidal.

For Christians like me, Jesus was always around bad ppl. And he offered them help and friendship, and didn't persecute them.

A good Chirstian's job is to share a loving experiance with what has changed thier lives. Understand and accept the people, even if you completely disagree with thier choices (some ppl dont consider it a choice, but a fact, so excuse the phrase).

>>169 and you didnt read them did you?
I have to admit, you're the first person in a while who has a) actually posted something on this thread about gays being wrong/sinners and b)someone who has said so in a respectful/understanding way while c) actually making an extended response to this thread

While I respect your viewpoints, but not necessarily agree with them, i have to point out that one of the only reasons that you have shared these views is due to the misleading title posted by the OP. if you had actually read through the entire post, you would see that this is not really a law. it's not you in particular, but EVERYONE who has posted on this thread so needlessly with comments that were made irrelevant earlier on in the thread that they would have seen IF THEY HAD READ ahead that irritate me about this post as a whole. this is the only reason this post has so many comments.

I am almost inclined to request a sage on this thread since it's been so misleading. Informative or not, it's outright incorrect.

Perhaps someone would want to make a more correct version of this thread, assuming it's still discuss-able news?

I think we would still come to the same ending given time

>>171 i wouldnt mind that actually...

but >>172 makes a decent point...

Oh dear... I am just disgusted at this new law. It may be legal, but will we tolerate this kind of behaviour? HELL TO THE NO!

Shame on those people who use religion as an excuse to cause the misery and social suffering of others. Shame on the Michigan government to yield to such stupidity and corruption.

You may believe what you want, but in the US, and in basically every single democratic country there is, there is no way in which those who believe in the right to live in a safe, and sound environment will stand for this new law.

That is all I have to say on the matter. I'm just shocked and appalled at this. That this has even been passed has disgusted me. I expect a huge outcry from a huge amount of American citizens.

>>175 READING THE POSTS will help with thast feeling of disgust you have

I have. Didn't help.

>>177 shouldve read harder.

>>177 wait til you get to the part where misuto and then myself start to actually disect it. or better yet, look at the actual link the OP provided, google it, and compare and contrast

Are you fucking kidding me? I just got done serving a couple months in juvie because I got jumped by three guys for being bisexual, and I stabbed one of them. I was going for a self-deffense plea, but all I could get it down to was agrevated assault. I even got lucky and my sentencing (dec. 7th) is three days before I turn 17, where otherwise I would have been charged as an adult and been in jail for up to two years. This is beyond bullshit. So all those kids have to do is say 'I'm a christian, and I think being gay is wrong' and I have absolutely no case? We need to fucking change this. We're the Dollars, for shits sake. We have numbers, and we have initiative. Someone please help change this.

>>180 read what has been said by myself and Misuto about this law before you decide to get too angry about it.

Dude, no matter how many times I read something, it's not going to change how I actually feel on this type of issue. I have my own opinions, and it doesn't matter if I look like an idiot.

There shouldn't be something like "we don't say that this is alright, but...". That sort of thing is just a big, fat no to me. It's practically the same as a person going "I'm not racist, but...", or "I'm not sexist, but...". What kind of good will that do? You're just going to give some leeway and in the long run, encourage those to do those same things again and again and unknowingly promote the intolerance we are trying to prevent. People WILL be inclined to bully, due to this law, and will just later say "but I was just trying to save this person from Hell..". That's just the way people actually are. They use excuses and excuses like this, and the same things happen again and again.

I'm not just talking about these articles here, but my own experience. You can see this sort of homophobic behaviour everyday. I'm not gay, or bi, or anything like that at all. I'm not religious, but I know many who are religious, and I can tell you that they are good people. But those who keep on ruining the reputation of a religion, saying that it's part of their practice or whatnot, just sickens me. Sorry if I am an idiot, this is how I feel. Not every religious person has to seem pushy and slander another group of people. They usually aren't. I apologise if I differ from your opinion, and if that has offended you, but why can't we just let each other be? If you had a different opinion from someone else, would you try to pressure them into your beliefs, or try to convert them into your own way of thinking?

The thing about tolerance is that you have to say "yes, you have a different opinion than I do" and just leave it at that. There is no needless preaching. Gay people certainly don't believe that they are going to Hell for how they are attracted to the same sex, but why do so people still insist that they are, trying to help them on what they believe is the "right path". The government may be protecting the rights of religious freedom and practice, but they leaving a hole open for the gay community to harassment. Which later on leads to harassment for religious people, for the small majority who obviously annoy the heck out of me.

Can't you see where I'm going with this? You can't really expect me to be all fine about it all. And most likely you don't.

I guarantee you that this is my own opinion. I'm being honest here, and I'm honestly being disgusted by this law. I just don't see how this is going to protect anyone but those doing all of this crap that's making the religious people look horrible, and the gay community verbally, and morally bashed.

I apologise if I seem a bit brash and harsh. I'm sorry, this is my own opinion, so deal with it.

...What they meant, and if you had read it, is that the law actually states "any sincerely held religious belief."

It doesn't single out Christianity, nor does it give someone an easy opt out by going "Oh, my religion states X". It must be a belief that is actually kept and practiced by the individual for the law to even come into effect - And even then, it doesn't cover anything at all regarding antagonizing or otherwise attacking other sexual orientations.

The law is to be interpreted as "If your religion sincerely believes that X is wrong, we will not censor your speech by refusing to allow you to voice these opinions." Anything beyond freedom of speech - Such as verbal harassment territory, or in your case being physically assaulted, is not covered in this law. Nor is it even addressed or hinted at being "condoned".

The thread title comes from a very biased source, whose article and article content was also quite biased in this regard. The way this piece of news is being presented by the source, it is meant to offend you and get you upset by misconstruing facts about it.

You are completely entitled to an opinion of being enraged by this, but get a more unbiased and/or neutral presentation of the facts regarding this before you become too firmly set in it.

what >>183 said. I respect and agree with some of the points made by people in the article here, but at least 99% of them are made for no real reason, and that by actually READING what was said by others in the post before assuming it's only 180 posts of hate, they could have saved themselves the heart attack/anger/conspiracy theories/anti-religious feelings/need to rant at the government.

also, it just occurred to me that some people might not get this, but POST means the comments made by the people on this site, if i was going to ask people to read the source OP posted, i would have said LINK. just in case some people needed to clarify.

>>171 Should I just delete this?

no we need to take a stand and stop bullying we don't need to come out and say hey were the dollars or somthing but we can't just stand by and let this happen

The problem is that even if I DID read an article that was so called "un-biased" or even "neutral", I would still feel angry, or even more entitled to be disgusted. Seriously, what would you expect? If there was a so-called neutral article on let's just say, children being bombed by terrorists, and it stated the facts of how millions died and many more were injured, how would you feel?

Yes, I do understand that they are only allowing freedom of speech for religions, and I have read these things over the internet, and saw even a few news stories here in Australia, but what says that people wouldn't stop to use this law to their advantage? Sure, they might have broken it, but what's to say that it won't fuel their reason to verbally harass? It's all going to give them an excuse to bully and patronise.

The Michigan government may have good intentions in mind, but all I see is that they are not even doing this the best way possible. It's all going to open holes for harassment to those innocent people who have the courtesy to leave others be.

Worst case scenario, I say, would be someone as screwed up as Westboro to come picketing on gay kids.

I seriously cannot stand by wait for such a thing to happen.

That just sounds ridiculous...

Handle. The law does not make anything more legal. It only restricts. Nowhere in the law does it say "NOW it's okay to discriminate by religion and moral codes." That was something that was already legal. The only significant thing about the amendment to the bill is the fact that those things are STILL legal, and they failed to cover all angles due to the Republican party's meddling.

People will abuse this, of course. That isn't anything new though - that has always been abused, and it will still be abused. The law did, however, manage to put a restriction on it, forcing the use of such an excuse. That means, if the defense cannot clearly dispute it with that argument, then there is no other way out of it.

All they did was change how the law is abused. It's actually for the better, if anything - just not as good as it could have been. The real argument is whether or not the Republicans needed to add that part of the bill, protecting religious beliefs. And again, as discussed, if they hadn't done so, all it would have done was stirred dissent among the "freedom of speech" activists.

Misuto, I have not intended to imply that they have made this whole harassment business legal whatsoever. Please be rest assured in that I mean it.

Despite many claims in that I have not read into this issue properly, I would appreciate it if people read MY comments properly, and not assume a conclusion that I had no motive to make.

I am only implying that, and only that, like you and so many others have claimed me to commit, people may not read the fine print of this new law properly, and MAY, I am not implying in any way that they WILL, use this as an excuse to commit such cruel acts upon the gay, lesbian and bisexual community. Like you have said, this MAY be inevitable.

The fact is that those who use this as an excuse MAY be placed in court, but the damage that MAY HAVE already been done will STILL NOT CHANGE.

The fact that this isn't new doesn't change anything. It's only going to bring about the same sort of things everyday. The same harassment, the same verbal abuse that is going to interfere with another's so-called "practices" in their own beliefs. The fact that this isn't new isn't going to change this situation. This law isn't going to help this situation, but only exacerbate it further, by creating hate towards parties, and eventually, yet I hope that it will not, lead to violence against many groups of people. The parties MAY or MAY NOT include innocent people. Just because they are MINIMISING the SITUATION, does not necessarily mean that they are going to limit the PROBLEM of intolerance within society.

Although the law is now different in HOW it is being abused, we cannot deny the fact that things MAY become worse. As you can see in this forum, the outcry of anger, including from myself, is just screaming a plea to reform the law. You MAY see it differently, but many like myself see this with heavy scepticism and doubt. Will this actually WORK? Is this some sort of desperate THEORY? Will this, in the LONG RUN, create benefit, or create more pain for many? These are SOME of the doubtful questions that run through our minds.

I sincerely hope that this has cleared any sort of confusion for you. As for the part about the whole Westboro thing (which I must say, must be outlandish for those who don't understand my point of view), can be easily IMAGINED to be a WORST CASE scenario. Those who use religion, and an interpretation of a religious text, as an excuse to commit such a vile act is unforgivable on my part, and I assure you that I'm not the only one on that has this sort of mentality.

However, despite you and many others trying again and again to change my views on this matter, I do thank you for your thoughtful and insightful input. I, though, do request that instead of trying to change the interpretation of others, that you, and many who try to do the same as you, to please stop. You may blame our opinions on ignorance if you like, but there is certainly no right or wrong in opinion. All of this is SPECULATION.

I do agree that the issue here is whether or not the Republicans should've added the part where it protects religious beliefs, but another issue here is if they are just using religion as a crutch in a time of desperation. So, I pose this question to you, what else could the government have done to this law, and what else would replace the cause of protecting religious beliefs?

Please take my words into account, so there's hopefully no more misinterpretations. I'd appreciate it if you read my prose properly this time, and understand my intention.

It's not a new law (thank goodness). It's just a bunch of bigots wanting to have the backing of the First Amendment when they call people names.

You people do realise that all this "law" actually changes is that now people can make fun of gay people and use christianity as an excuse even if they arnt religious in any way shape or form.

(read threads before you post threads)

>>193

Read sources before commenting. It must be a sincerely held religious belief, not "oh, I'm christian derp."

Christianity is not the only religion to persecute this, and even most of said christians dislike this bill and thus it cannot be counted as "sincerely held belief" in their case.

Sincerely believing something in your chosen religion, and just claiming you're part of it, are entirely separate deals.

Fair enough, and your argument is exactly what actually needs to be discussed in this thread. The way people are interpreting it in this thread is not subjective to opinion, but in fact wrong. Apologies if I interpreted your previous response as such by default; I don't agree with how this thread was worded in the first place, since it basically tunnel-visions and simplifies the issue at hand.

The problem with the way this article was written and the way this thread was posted was it only brought to light a single aspect of the new law, and made it sound worse than it really is. Yeah, it's ineffective - it's hard to make a law that stops harassment due to free speech that is sanctioned by a founding principle of this country. It would cause more trouble than it's worth, really.

But as you understand, it doesn't make harassment suddenly legal. This was what I was trying to clear up. Many people look at this thread and interpret it as such. And that is wrong.

The actual legislation states that it "prohibits bullying or harassment at school," defined as such:

20 (B) "BULLYING OR HARASSMENT" MEANS ABUSE OF A PUPIL BY 1 OR
21 MORE OTHER PUPILS IN ANY FORM. THE TERM INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT
22 LIMITED TO, CONDUCT THAT MEETS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
23 (i) SUBSTANTIALLY INTERFERES WITH EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES,
24 BENEFITS, OR PROGRAMS OF 1 OR MORE PUPILS.
25 (ii) ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE ABILITY OF A PUPIL TO PARTICIPATE IN
26 OR BENEFIT FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S OR PUBLIC SCHOOL'S
27 EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES BY PLACING THE PUPIL IN 3
00412'11 Final Page TAV
1 REASONABLE FEAR OF PHYSICAL HARM OR BY CAUSING EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.
2 (iii) IS REASONABLY PERCEIVED TO BE MOTIVATED BY ANIMUS OR BY AN
3 ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED CHARACTERISTIC.


And as stated earlier on, this is the actual wording of the amendment to the bill:

THIS SECTION DOES NOT ABRIDGE THE RIGHTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OR UNDER ARTICLE I OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION OF 1963 OF A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE, SCHOOL VOLUNTEER, PUPIL, OR A PUPIL’S PARENT OR GUARDIAN. THIS SECTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT A STATEMENT OF A SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF OR MORAL CONVICTION OF A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE, SCHOOL VOLUNTEER, PUPIL, OR A PUPIL’S PARENT OR GUARDIAN.

If anything, the way the law is being portrayed by media is more of a problem than the law itself, as is clearly shown here on this thread. Sure, it can be perceived as sanctioning, but all it did was poke holes in an otherwise airtight defense against harassment in schools. If I recall, you did in fact say that. The fact people will be encouraged to take the initiative to openly harass students just because the law failed to prevent them from doing so is not the fault of the law itself. The amendment served as a reminder, at most, of something they already had: freedom of expression.

However, what I do actually disagree with you on, is that there is no actual way that this law could be used as a leverage to harass students. The amendment to the law does not give more freedoms, it only protects the ones that were already in place. Essentially, the fact there are holes does not change the fact that there used to be a gaping opening to begin with.

This post addresses >>193 too. >>193 is an example of how the law has been misinterpreted en masse.

Ack. Formatting sucked when I copypasted, so here's the legislation itself: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billintroduced/Senate/pdf/2011-SIB-0137.pdf

Also my previous post was addressing >>191, if that wasn't clear.

Thank you for finally understanding my point, Misuto. But although the law may seem to be foolproof, there are actually many fools within this world who may misinterpret this law. I'm not saying that the law will give leverage, but, it may be used as an excuse by many who will deviate it away from its original purpose. Although you have pasted the actual words of a definition onto the BBS, there is obviously going to be a large amount of people who are not exposed to this information. They will consequentially not understand these particular restrictions of the law, and will abuse it. No, maybe not the actual law itself, but maybe their own misguided interpretation of it.

>>197 you do make several valid points and I agree with Misuto when he says that this sort of talk is what has been needed on this thread from the start. I would also like to apologize if i was jumping to conclusions on what you were saying, but as you can see, a lot of people commented with disgust based solely on the title of the thread rather than the conversations themselves. as I stated earlier in the thread, i think that the Michigan government was trying to avoid possible misinterpretations of constitutional wrongdoing by saying that they were protecting religious freedom, but in the process made it a worse situation than there would have been had they NOT included the religion part at the end.

>>198 thank you for the recognition of my points. What I really wish with this issue though, is that for many governments, not just the one within Michigan, is to stop using religion as a crutch for everything that seems to be a touchy subject for many. Religion is always going to be a sensitive topic, from people arguing its validity, to people claiming that they have been denied a freedom of speech. What kind of sense tells the government to use a sensitive issue such as religion, to fix an already controversial issue such as gay rights? It will just cause mayhem and panic among the people. However, what is there other than religion to rely on? Is that the question so many politicians have been asking each other?

Ah - I see what one of the points you were making was now. It took me a while to wrap my head around it, I was thinking purely from a legal standpoint.

You're saying that, regardless of the legality, people will still act under the guise of religious sanction due to the misinterpretation. The fact that they will be caught and tried for their actions is negligible against the fact that the damage they do has been done.

I see. That is a huge problem - but still, this is not the fault of the legislators. It's still largely the fault of the media's interpretation and propogation of the inaccurate definition of the law. It isn't up to the legislators to guard the law from fallacious non-loopholes, but to write the law as literally as possible. You can't blame them for incompetent and biased reiteration.

I don't believe they were trying to fix anything by adding the religion exception to the law. They were covering their own asses, preempting the inevitable fact that religious people would be among the first to speak out against a bill that apparently infringes on rights to free speech. Although, I have a feeling they meant religion and "moral convictions" to be synonymous. You will note that the latter was included as well, so they aren't just focusing on religion. Though the bill was initially proposed as a response to gay-bashing, the wording of the law itself covers way more ground than that - it could define any sort of harassment based off of a legitimate belief. This includes religion, as one is morally convicted to following its principles by definition. They were just making it clearer.

It was a relatively last-minute add-on to begin with, so perhaps they were rushed in patching their mistakes. In the legislative process, a bill has to be as polished as possible to avoid a lot of unnecessary, time-consuming bureaucracy. They likely viewed a potential infringement on the first amendment as a grievous error on their part, and patched it as widely as they could.

Just a theory though. It goes up there with the theory that politicians are absorbed in their own religious convictions and that this is the result of thinly-veiled bias, but who can say for sure? The results are synonymous, anyway.

>>200 So we can all agree that the only damage that can be "legally" done with this law in place is nothing that can actually harm the people getting bullied, but that the wording of the law itself leaves room for misinterpretation by people who feel that bullying is morally justifiable. But to say that it isn't their fault for this loophole? i agree when you said that they may have rushed through the law to cover their own asses, i'be said that in this thread before. but it "isn't their job" to make sure people understand? isn't it the job of legislators to do what is best for the people and their well-being? By making such an unclear part of the law they're causing more harm than good towards the very people that they are trying to protect in this law, sure it helped to lessen the problem of gay people being bullied by others, but by leaving any potential loophole in a law such as this is counter-productive.

Maybe it isn't their job to make sure that everyone understands every little detail of every law that is passed and what some things mean, but in the case of safety, there can be no room for error. either that or they need to make other people understand that their "freedom" consists of anything that does not hinder the freedom or well-being of others. If religion were always a legitimate excuse to do whatever the hell you wanted, then we'd have people going to extremes like human sacrifices. I can't remember if it was in this thread or some other post on the internet, but there is this thing called the "Muslim test" essentially stating that if you wouldn't allow a Muslim to do what he wanted to do in a situation that would call for blood or harsh punishment, then why allow people of any other religion, including Christianity, to do what they would like to do as punishment in a situation. this isn't to say that "christians are not allowed to come up with any punishments ever" but is more directed to situations where the law would not normally allow it. point is that laws including side notes such as this one are biased, because i assure you that legislators wouldn't and haven't allowed any Islamic "honor killings" in a situation that we culturally feel that it was uncalled for. if you're prepared to protect religious freedoms, then be prepared to defend even the most extreme interpretations of the religious call to action, or not at all. sorry if this didn't make too much sense, it's early over here and i haven't quite woken up yet.

The idiots who want to suspended a kid for sexual assault defending a choke from his bully with a kick to the balls, will find ways to make glorifyingly shitty decisions involving school rules, they will find ways to use this to make more failsoup. Not that the law means to its just it gives them an excuse

obviously you people are not understanding me, if this law was to pass it will not minimize the problem if anything, it is made worse because its used as an excuse

FUCKING READ THIS YOU FUCKING NEW FAGGS

>>203 WTF dude? we went over this extensively in all of our comments. all 6 long posts since you commented. we stated that although it's not "legeal" it does seem like it will invite people to try. also...

Who the hell are you calling a new faggot that has to read the posts? i'll assume that it was targeted at all the people who commented after you in >>193 ans everyone there read the all the posts and beyond that even read THE ARTICLE ITSELF AS WELL AS OTHER LESS BIASED ARTICLES in order to arrive to the conclusion that they did. i do not constitute this as being a "fag" and the majority of the people who commented after you were not new (i don't know how long Handle's been here, but it really doesn't matter in this case). perhaps it is you that should have read our posts?

bbs ate my long ass post..... along with two other posts that were here. god dammit, i don't feel like re-writing it so i'll TL;DR it...

TL;DR legislators are fucking up because stupid people think they have rights they in fact either do not have or to the extent that they feel they have, so the way to solve this overlying problem aside from this specific bill is to better educate people by teaching them their basic rights earlier than they do already.

>>205 Yeah, those disappearing posts ARE a problem. I want my post back, damnit. ;_;

But yeah, great idea. I agree that that would be an effective plan.

>>206 yeah, i don't know if you saw my original post, but i stated that i learned that information around 8th or 9th grade, which is way too late because a large number of people drop out by then and an even larger number just don't give a fuck.

Start a petition and get all of the dollars to sign it! That should help out the cause! Hell we might even get on the news! Make sure EVERYONE GIVES NO PASSWORDS OUT THOUGH. We must remain translucent :3!

>>208 ummmm. read the whole post

>>208 also, you're a c-c-c-combo breaker.

>>206 oh dear. :\

They REALLY need to change how they educate a person's basic rights. I mean, start out earlier. But it's not just learning early, it's repeating the same things over the years, because just once is apparently not enough.

>>208 that's a plausible idea, but we shouldn't think too far ahead, in that we, the Dollars, would be on the news for this. A petition on WHAT, though? We can't do anything too brash, or controversial. We need something easy for the government to agree with and consider, and something for the people to easily deal with. Something too drastic would just cause mayhem.

Now that's the dumbest law that I have ever heard in my entire life and one of the craziest,stupidest law in my list.

Ok, this is ridiculous! I'm a christian but I have so many GLBT friends and this is not fair! And how can the government do this? It is so coldhearted and cruel!

Every time this is bumped I'm feel bad for spreading ignorance -.-