Posts by Casey Mitchell72

restlesscrane152 said:Pop? Never. But man, I've definitely seen situations where someone else went after an LGBTQ+ guy.

Look, it's simple. Both gay and straight people should have the right to marry whoever they want, totally free and without anyone forcing their hand. If you choose to make it official, you should get all those legal rights that come with being in a committed union. Period.

And they have exactly the same rights under the law? Every single one?

Look, I've already told you—lately, I haven't heard of a single case in America where anyone was seriously targeted just because of their faith, no matter what they believe.

Look, that’s exactly why we see more incidents targeting people in the LGBTQ+ community. It’s clearly not just a bunch of "isolated incidents" when they're happening to one specific side of society.

Look, people are gonna get jumped for whatever random reason pops into some idiot's head. It happens.

Nowadays, attacks on LGBTQ+ folks are super rare. And honestly, you gotta wonder—does someone actually get hit because they're gay, or are they just a person getting unlucky with some random jerk, which then gets framed as an attack on sexual orientation? It reminds me a bit of how Stjepan Mason used to claim every single thing that happened to him was somehow a direct strike against anti-fascism. 😁

Things aren't exactly hitting the fan. But activists are constantly lying and twisting common sense, claiming there’s this huge collective call for hate and violence against them. A few incidents involving some lone nut—which happen all the time—get painted as a coordinated group attack on a minority. On top of that, they love using hate speech and insults against values that don't even touch them unless they want it to.

And they have the exact same rights under the law? Every single one?

They have all the rights that come from the community they legalized. So yeah, they have all the rights.

See, that's why there are more cases where someone gets hurt just for being part of the LGBTQ+ crowd. Clearly, these aren't just "isolated incidents" if they're splitting society apart.

The answer to that really comes down to the question I asked above.

restlesscrane152 said:I don't know, you tell me—when was the last time a bunch of hyped-up lesbians beat a priest to death?

What exactly is being forced on you? Someone forcing you into a same-sex marriage? Some guy ordering you to join a gay orgy a certain number of times a month?

No. You missed the point. If this is happening to everyone (meaning no specific group is being singled out), then it’s going to happen to Catholics too. So, where are all these beaten-up Catholics?

Yeah, when was the last time a couple of hot-headed priests beat a lesbian to death? 🤷

What exactly is being forced on you? Is someone forcing you into a same-sex marriage? Is someone ordering you to participate in a gay orgy a certain number of times a month?

Both homosexuals and heterosexuals should have the right to legally formalize their relationships through free will and enjoy all the legal rights that come with that union.

restlesscrane152 said:I don't know, you tell me—when was the last time a bunch of hyped-up lesbians beat a priest to death?

What exactly is being forced on you? Someone forcing you into a same-sex marriage? Some guy ordering you to join a gay orgy a certain number of times a month?

No. You missed the point. If this is happening to everyone (meaning no specific group is being singled out), then it’s going to happen to Catholics too. So, where are all these beaten-up Catholics?

Like I told you before, lately I haven't heard about a single case in America where someone was seriously harmed just because of their religion, regardless of what they believe.
I really hope we're long past the days when people were being hunted down for their faith.
Honestly, I don't know any group in America that's being physically targeted these days—I haven't heard anyone inciting violence against any specific group. Any physical attack, no matter the reason, gets condemned by the public and handled by the law.

restlesscrane152 said:The issue isn't the religion itself—it's specifically about Catholics. Why target them? Look, if these are just isolated incidents, then it means they're happening to everyone in society on an individual basis. And yeah, that includes Catholics too.

Because crazies don't pick and choose, right?

There have always been crazies around and there always will be. There's nothing we can do about it because mental instability is always gonna pop up in some percentage of the population, and it'll end in tragedy for someone over one thing or another.
But activists constantly trying to paint all lunatics as Catholic is just... well, 🙂 there are crazy Muslims, atheists, Mormons, or whatever else you want to throw in there. It’s totally insane to label an entire religion based on a few isolated cases of psychopathic behavior.

restlesscrane152 said:So you're telling me this initiative isn't targeting the LGBTQ+ community at all? Seriously?

Isolated cases happen, and they always will—that’s a total disgrace. But honestly? On a global scale, people stopped talking about actual discrimination a long time ago.

Give me some "isolated incidents," please—you know, times when someone actually got beaten up just for being Catholic. And I’m not talking about some random verbal insults or being heckled. I mean literal physical assaults where they ended up in the ER and had to file a police report.

Everyone’s had the right to live however they want for ages. Live by your own values. Period.

Can LGBTQ+ folks get married? Adopt kids? Look, I’m talking about LEGAL rights here—not what someone thinks marriage should be or if they think it's gross or whatever.

Nah, it really isn't.

Can you please give me some "isolated incidents" where someone actually got beaten up just because they're Catholic? And I don't mean just getting insulted—I mean literally ending up in the ER and filing a police report.

Honestly, I can't think of a single recent case like that involving a Catholic here in the States. I do remember a guy from a tiny town who got jumped over his faith, but he was drunk and everything, though religion was the spark, so I guess that counts as a hate crime too.
Look, tons of women end up in the emergency room because of violence from men, but they don't start a public war against all men or demand they be wiped out.

Can LGBTQ+ people marry? Adopt kids? Look, I'm talking about LEGAL rights here, not whether someone thinks marriage is gross or whatever.

LGBTQ+ folks can definitely make their unions legal. The current laws regarding same-sex unions are pretty flawed, but there's a new bill in the works. I'm really hoping it fixes all those lingering issues, especially the stuff involving adoption and kids.

restlesscrane152 said:Nah, they’re just forcing their own way of living as the only right way. Like, you're automatically a bad person if you aren't all about patriotism, faith in God, traditional values, and all that stuff.

So why don't they just set clear criteria for what actually counts as an endangered zone? Or is staying in that gray area just way more profitable?

Because, just like a lot of other stuff, it's honestly pretty hard to define.

Nobody is forcing anything on anyone except for those activist groups trying to shove their views down the throats of people who see the world differently. And they do it using exactly this kind of nonsense—lies, insults (calling people names like "clerical fascists"), and manipulation, pretending they aren't being pushy when they totally are. Meanwhile, those conservatives just want to be left alone and let everyone else live their lives too. 🙄

restlesscrane152 said:Look, their point is actually totally fine—just don't hit us, don't insult us, and don't discriminate against us. Honestly, that's just common sense stuff that shouldn't even be up for debate.

So what, you're saying millions of world-class intellectuals over the last 50 years haven't been able to define things that any uneducated guy in the sticks could figure out?

Sure they can. But then you'll just get another few million "intellectuals" finding loopholes in those definitions and exploiting them.

And that's the point—we shouldn't even have to bring it up! We reached a stage a long time ago where nobody should be hitting, insulting, or discriminating based on sexual orientation. Sure, there will always be isolated incidents, and those are always wrong, but overall, we haven't had to deal with widespread discrimination for ages. "Discrimination" is just another buzzword activists use when they run out of actual arguments during their public rants.

restlesscrane152 said:What exactly are you getting at?

So I’m supposed to just play nice while someone’s basically raping my brain? Force some behavior on me that isn't even who I am? What, I should just be "good," gentle, reasonable, and polite? Act all civilized? Give me a break!

Yeah.

What exactly are you forcing on gay people?
Don't just give me the "traditional values" line, because nobody is forcing that on them. People have had the right to live how they want and follow whatever values they choose for a long time now. Everyone lives their life without issues at work or on the street. Like I said before, let's not lump isolated incidents together; both gay and straight people deal with random outbursts from others now and then.

restlesscrane152 said:Already covered this, but I’ll say it one more time and that's it—the LGBTQ+ crowd told UIO to stop acting like they're the ones being victimized.

Politicians do it for votes—big shocker there. As for public opinion, it's way too complicated; probably a bunch of different factors at play. Speaking for myself, though, I'm way less annoyed by LGBTQ+ groups than I am by conservatives who try to shove their lifestyle down my throat 24/7.

Honestly, I didn't get the vibe that UIO is playing the victim card at all 🤷

Politicians just do this to chase votes (total shocker, right?). As for public opinion, it's way too messy to pin down and probably depends on a million things. For me personally, it's those LGBTQ+ groups and conservatives who try way too hard to push their lifestyle down my throat.

Wait, what "forces" are conservatives using to push their lifestyle on you? Like, are they forcing you to get married? Or telling you to start a family? Making you pray? 🤷

rowdytiger13 said:I don't see any of this in the activists' statements: "...with the intent to spread racial, religious, sexual, national, ethnic hatred, or skin color or sexual orientation-based hate, or to disparage, publicly express or convey notions of superiority or inferiority regarding race, ethnicity, religion, gender, nation, or notions of superiority or inferiority based on skin color, sexual orientation, or other traits..."
I think there's a real shot at a defamation lawsuit here, which is probably what she's aiming for.
The tricky part is that you actually have to prove defamation in court, and once that starts, all sorts of things can come to light—plus, there's always the chance it doesn't even qualify as defamation.
So, my gut says this isn't going to lead to anything.

So, how would you describe that statement?

The initiative is a group formed specifically to incite hatred against LGBTQ+ people.

And how would you label calling people clerical fascists or "cathotalibans"?

In everything those activists said, I found all of the bolded parts.

restlesscrane152 said:Are you guys actually trying this hard to be clueless, or is being this dense just your natural state?

Rules should be the same for everyone, period. If they don't apply equally, what's the point? And seriously, quit whining about how those wicked LGBTQ+ folks are out to get you or destroying traditional values. Claiming they’re eating toddlers or abusing puppies is just straight-up ridiculous. We all know that's total nonsense.

How can you say they aren't? They've been whining about the breakdown of the family unit this whole damn time!

I'm gonna repost what Jack Cook7 said—hey Jack Cook7, I need your take on the bolded part and an answer to what's underlined.

Jack Cook7 said:Alright, thanks for the lesson, clearly I've got some issues with reading comprehension and proofreading public statements. So, if "Željko Markić's initiative isn't an endangered minority," then it should actually be written like this:

- Željko Markić's "initiative" isn't an endangered minority.

Because nobody ever claimed that Željko Markić's organization—aka his "initiative"—is an endangered minority.

So, is this just a pointless statement that doesn't match reality? Fact manipulation? Or is it just pure amateur hour, where someone uses (maybe intentionally?) sloppy wording to equate:

- the organization (meaning its actual members), with
- the initiative (meaning everyone who signed the petition), with
- an endangered minority?

Is that manipulation, Mr. restlesscrane152?

Jerry Gonzalez65 said:We really need to start banning the blatant use of labels like fascist, neo-fascist, or any of those other extremist slurs...
They're basically just tools used to smear people and shut down anyone who happens to have a different opinion. I mean, look at how Zdravko Mamić gets dragged through the mud just for saying "a Mexican who hates everything American," yet these label-happy types get away with whatever they want. For instance, when Ante Tomić writes that Republicans should be lined up at a stadium and dealt with by machine gun fire, nobody even bats an eye.

brightwolf85 said:Let me get this straight: in America, you can call a Catholic a clerical fascist or a Catholic Taliban because they belong to the majority, but you can't call a gay man a slur because he belongs to a minority? Because of logic like yours, I am going to be voting YES in the referendum with absolute pleasure.

Honestly, the organizations that claim to fight for LGBTQ+ rights should be the first ones calling out this kind of hate speech. But instead, they’re out here using the exact same rhetoric themselves. It's wild—they turn around and accuse everyone else of being hateful when they're actually the ones spreading it more than anyone else. 😵

restlesscrane152 said:You totally missed the point. Let me break it down for you:

"Željka Markić's initiative isn't an endangered minority (like the LGBTQ+ community is)."

So yeah, they aren't a marginalized group, which means all that talk about them being "persecuted" as a minority? Total nonsense.

Honestly, I don't think you quite get it—neither the initiative itself nor Zeljko Markic have ever even used that kind of rhetoric. 😉

Marko Jurčić reporting for Index:

This whole initiative is just a massive scam designed to trick citizens by manipulating signatures.

What’s the poet trying to say here? What kind of scam and manipulation is this? 🤔
I mean, they didn't exactly hand over a phone book to Congress, did they? 🙄

Sanja Juras statement:

Željko Markić’s initiative isn't about protecting minorities; it's just a group formed to incite hatred against LGBT people.

That is a straight-up malicious lie and slander. They seriously need to sue and let the courts settle this.

Honestly, what these groups should be banned from doing is using the word "hate" altogether. All they ever do is weaponize that word—they’re the ones actually spreading hate and contempt. These organizations end up causing more harm than good to the very people they claim to represent.

Charles Fox10 said:If Viviane Reding says we're done, then we're done. I mean, she clearly knows what's up better than anyone else.

I reckon that's a closed case—Congress finally passed the law the Administration promised us. Once that law is actually on the books, we’ll pull the plug on the sanctions immediately."That's just how it is," Viviane Reding said.
[....]
She added it. So, how did all those different EU countries react to the whole situation with the US and that European arrest warrant? Any word on what they're saying? If it's up to the Commission, then that's how they're gonna roll. They'll keep doing exactly what they've been doing.

From what I can tell, even Reding is saying that the sanctions process will freeze once the law actually kicks in on January 1st, 2014, while the Commission keeps doing its thing. So basically, nothing changes. It’s not over until New Year's Day!

Just because she voiced her opinion doesn't mean it's official business yet. We aren't closing the book on this one just yet!
I mean, look, our own elected Administration and that powerhouse Prime Minister basically said Viviane Reding is a nobody. She’s just some random bureaucrat, so I don't see why anyone should even bother listening to her opinion. 🤷
Look, if her take actually carries any weight, then the bottom line is this: Viviane Reding made it clear that the sanctions process wasn't put on hold until January 1st, 2014. That means there’s zero reason to drop the subject—it's still very much alive and kicking.

This thread is locked per this link which makes things pretty clear:

When asked when the Commission would drop the case they started before America updated its laws, Viviane Reding replied they’ll shut it down as soon as the new law kicks in.

"Member states just give their input, but it's up to the Commission to take action, and they're staying the course—which is already paying off," said Reding.

Basically, the sanctions process isn't paused, nor will it be until January 1, 2014. Because of that, the topic "EU: Sanctions against America due to 'Lex Perković' - summary" shouldn't be locked. It's still totally relevant, at least until the start of 2014 while the sanctions stay active.

I mean, should we just ignore our own eyes and what Reding is saying about the sanctions continuing just because you guys say so? 🤷

Can you swap my 's' for an 'š' so I can be Casey Mitchell72?

Sadly no, that handle is already taken.