Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "South Carolina College Bans Homosexuality" video.

memnarch129 No the constitution applies to the government. It doesn't place restriction on private schools who receive $0 in tax money. I am not arguing against the constitution, people need to realize what is in it.
4
I hate that whole argument of people complaining about other's cherry picking what is in the bible. The bible was written with cherry picked scriptures to begin with so it doesn't bother me when other's cherry pick what is in the bible. You also don't have to go to that college. When I hear Kyle talk about this story I feel that he is being a bigot. Why does the university need to change? Because they are doing something you don't agree with. Wow. Talk about being a hypocrite.
3
Erskine College is private so they can do it
3
memnarch129 In a lot of cases yes. If you own a radio station and I wanted you to air a commercial you can refuse to do so. You have then stopped me from freedom of speech, that is your right as an individual. The government can't ban free speech but private companies can, same with other rights.
3
CA is at the bottom in education. My standards and reasoning? Look at literacy rates, they have the lowest. If you can't even read you are in no way going to get educated.
2
Mckenzie .Latham You can call people out for it, you have a first amendment right.
2
S Cin Marriage isn't a right. Now if you want to use the 14th amendment as an argument then fine, but marriage isn't listed anywhere in the constitution at all, not once, so it isn't a right.
2
loki2240 The 10th amendment gives the powers to the states when it is not directly listed in the constitution. That is not to say they don't have limitations. The 14th amendment prevents them from creating laws that are unequal or discriminate. Reading what you wrote I feel that we agree.
2
Have you ever been in a third world country?
2
This Is Sauce Any language, look up what literacy means. If you can't read or comprehend then you are going to have a hard time learning.
1
Kyle is Alex Jones just on the opposite spectrum. With all the yelling and cursing and cherry picking data and conspiracies, he is quite pathetic.
1
MrOttopants I do know what I am talking about. Also I am the most constant person on these boards. It if funny how you can rip on Alex Jones for his actions but not Kyle for constantly looking like a fool with his actions.
1
But it is getting to the point where people are hating on religion just as bad.
1
This is starting to become strong hate towards religion. So it is ok to hate religion but not gays? Both sides are being hypocritical now.
1
This Is Sauce Practicing being gay is a choice, you are responsible for your choices. That is not saying that one isn't born gay, what I am saying is that you choose to practice. Just like some people are born with an aggressive nature, that isn't an excuse to prevent them from being arrested when they murder someone though. You may hate gay people all you want, I have no problem with it. You may hate religion all you want, I have no problem with that either. It is a problem when people hate on group and feels the other should be protected.
1
***** I don't know. I can easily pick up a guy and have sex with them or pick up a girl and do it. I am responsible for my actions. I am straight but I don't go out and have sex with any girl I want every night, I don't flirt with every girl I see. I have control of what I can do. That is the overall point, you are responsible for your actions.
1
This Is Sauce Individuals are allowed to discriminate, the government isn't. You don't choose one group over another but instead choose to cover everyone equally.
1
This Is Sauce And the question is should discrimination be against the law. It sounds like a knee jerk, emotional reaction to make an excuse to use the government to oppress people, similar to the patriot act.
1
dffykvn You can hate whoever you like, just realize that by doing so you are being a bigot in some way.
1
This Is Sauce The problem here is that you are creating an arbitrary line in what we should have safety and when we should have protection. That line isn't arbitrary though, it is placed by the constitution. This is comparable to the patriot act in that it violates an actual amendment for "safety" and "protection" via the government. I bet you allowing the government to monitor every home 24/7 would have stopped the movie theater shooting, but people are not willing to give up that freedom.
1
Erskine College is a private college
1
Mckenzie .Latham And you have the choose of not attending that school or working there, simple.
1
Mckenzie .Latham What private school teaches 2+2=fish? Anyone who is willing to send their child to a private school is paying double and is looking for the best education option out there. Look at private schools' curriculum, they are the best. Now on the law states can force parents to send their child to some sort of school, but they can't force them what school. States do set a standard of what type of education a child must receive. If a private school wants to be connected to religion then that is their choice.
1
Siolfor80 I find it hypocritical for others to say what this university is doing is bigotry when people are going to refuse to apply to this university for their actions. They are being bigots as well in not supporting their actions. Kyle showed his bigotry by saying the university needs to change. The hypocrisy from the left is amazing.
1
Siolfor80 The university is a private entity just like you are private. It is independent from the government so it can set their own standards just like you set yours. Will you ever apply to that college? I doubt it. That is you discriminating against that college because you don't agree with their actions and that is your right as a private citizen. You are so quick to jump on this university for their decision, which they have the right to do as a private university, but you yourself, and Kyle are being hypocrites. It is ok for you to have nothing to do with that university and it is ok for you to criticize them and feel they need to change but it is wrong for the university, who is once again private, have nothing to do with gays and disagree with their actions. That isn't equal rights, Kyle has never supported equal rights. If he did then he would say that he doesn't agree with the college's decision but they have the right to establish it just like we have a right not to apply to that school. You are justifying your decision on emotions and not reason which is a big part of your problem.
1
Siolfor80 No it is you not applying there because you disagree with their actions. You do that in several cases, refuse to do something because you don't agree with their actions. I imagine you don't practice Christianity because you don't agree with it. You are then discriminating against it. I am not saying it is wrong, everyone does it including me. Here you feel you are right and they are wrong but fail to realize how hypocritical you are being. You are not promised happiness, you have the right to pursue it. You have other options for college and you don't have a right to anyone's service. So no, this isn't a violation of equal rights. Also how am I being a hypocrite? I am not religious. The constitution places restrictions on government. The government can't support any religion over another, private businesses, individuals and college can. They have the right to do this until they receive federal funds unless those funds are for a specific cause that doesn't promote religion. You need to understand that difference. Once again I am not religious, you on the other hand are fascist. You want to use the government to force people to act in a way you don't agree with even though they are not harming anyone. You want to deny other people's right to pursue happiness.
1
Siolfor80 You are fascist for wanting to force private businesses who receive $0 in tax money doors open. How would you feel if the government force you to keep your doors open to everybody? It is the exact same situation. This is a private college receiving $0 in tax money and is not using the government to establish their ways, so they are not being fascist. You on the other hand are in that you want the government to force a private college, who once again receives no tax dollars, to accept people they don't like. You need to read up on your definitions a little closer. How is the university being harmful? Those students can go someplace else. Based on what you said on your idea of pursuit of happiness every time a university turns away someone due low academics then they are violating that principle. What if a hungry/homeless man goes into a restaurant with no money and the restaurant denies them food, that is harming them based on what you said. What you are supporting is giving someone happiness at the expense of that private (once again not receiving tax dollars) college. You need to focus on what you are saying and realize how wrong you are.
1
Siolfor80 That is up to your if you want to reject someone or not from your business. I won't stop you either way. But I am not projecting fascism by allowing private businesses the ability to discriminate. That is their business and you have the freedom of speech to criticize them and the freedom not to go there. They are not a government ran business and thus are not servants to the people (as governments should be) and thus are not held to such standards. You are right, life is not fair. If someone doesn't like so kind then so be it. I don't agree with people who discriminate but I would rather have a million of those people existing then have the government oppress us to enforce what others think are "fair". The situation you are supporting is taking away other people's freedom. You are creating a government that has the ability to pick and choose who to oppress and how. While you may feel that you are doing something just in forcing that college in accepting gay people, that very same college could donate money to the government creating a law oppressing you somehow (for example promoting politicians to keep gay marriage illegal). You take away one of their rights and freedom and then they will take away one of yours. That is the system you are supporting. If a private college were to ban Christianity I will support their ability to do so. I won't change my stance. And tell me how am I being fascist? I support a system where the government isn't taking away people's freedom where you are. " democracy is putting the needs of the many over the wants of the few.", translation "a group of people and oppress another group of people against their will, otherwise known as slavery."
1
Siolfor80 If there is a product that many find useful then other businesses will offer it, that business will find success, that is how it always works. You have this mindset that the government is there to protect us, that is supporting oppression. That is supporting the government being the masters as opposed to it being the servant. There is a role for government, you need to do some more research into it.
1
Siolfor80 I will tell you how I will set up the government we need. There is nothing wrong with government, the challenge is what kind of government and how much? Everyone has their different ideas and for good reason. We need to make sure government remains our servant and not the masters. That is why you have to keep government as local as possible so you are able to see that it is actually working for you and you have more control over it. When you go from local to state and then state to federal you lose that control. There is a reason why the founding fathers wanted state rights and a limited federal government, they wanted a government that gave a strong representation to the people. Not everyone saw government the same way. Also consider how congress has a low approval rating but a high retention rating. You have little control at the federal level, thus it should have little power. You want to have a lot of control over the government. This also falls in line with what is government's role in society? I hear people make the same argument of "without government we won't have x, y and z". You did it. One common example are roads. Ok, let us go by the standards of roads of Hopkins, MO. A small town that I have been to a couple of times. Basically dirt roads with no stop signs. Let us see how long that lasts in NYC. You talk about worker safety, in rural areas they just ignore those laws. There is a reason why in rural areas they tend to vote republican who support less government, because they don't need the government. In urban areas I see why they vote democrats, who support more government. When you don't even know your own neighbor then you lack that personal connection with people to get help when you need it, or prevent from getting screwed where in rural areas you know everyone and won't screwed. The type of government depends, that is why we need to keep it as local as possible to see that it actually works.
1
Siolfor80 The state/local thing is being done in Europe right now and has success. When people compare us to Finland you have to realize that Finland has a population that is less then most of our states. They can create successful policies due to that. What is a "need"? I don't "need" roads in a lot of cities because I will never use them. Why should I pay for them? I actually don't in that the local governments pay for them so my tax dollars don't pay for their roads but for my roads I do use. So that is local government working. What you have to realize you idea of a "need" is different then from others. It goes back to your idea of the role of government is different than from others. We have "rules" for everyone to play by. It is the constitution. The role of the federal government is to deal with foreign affairs, deal with commerce between states and enforce the constitution on the states. The role of states were to deal with domestic policies and enforce the constitution on the federal government. It is a checks and balance system so not one entity becomes too powerful. If you allow the federal government to create regulations on domestic issues you have just then created a whole set of problems you can't run away from. You may feel that you are doing something just by letting the federal government create a law not allowing a business to ban gay people, but you have also given the federal government the ability to be changed to create some other form of "regulation" that is supported by people with money that is in their favor. That is a part of the golden rule, those with the gold makes the rules. You have almost no control over the federal government so that means those with the gold will influence it to make the rules if you allow the federal government to have the ability to change that easily. It will then be the wants of the few trumping the needs of the many. At the state and local level you have more control over the government. And if it still doesn't work for you then you can always move and remain a US citizen. But at the federal level you don't have control. You may not like how other states are ran but you have to consider few things. One, that is what those individuals wanted since they voted for those people, another, it is the cost of having freedom and keeping government from being the masters but instead being the servants.
1
Siolfor80 The fact is that you are thinking about yourself. Your idea of "needs" is completely different then that of someone else. Sticking with the roads example, my tax dollars shouldn't fund for roads in NYC, the majority do not live in NYC, so why should people outside of NYC pay for those roads? They don't "need" them and the many don't "need" them, only a few. The reality is that the local governments, thus the citizens do pay for the vast majority of them and should pay 100% of them. That is the idea of a local government. You have the idea of libertarians wrong. They are about communities and societies being strong. There is a role for government, but that role is different in every area and that role should be in the benefit of society. While the role of government in NYC or LA or other major cities is to provide roads with stop signs and a fire department with fire fighters or a police force, the role for Hopkins, MO government is to provide remedial roads with no stop signs, only a fire engine since all the fire fighters are volunteer, to rely on the sheriff for police. Thinking it is about one self is not the mindset of libertarians and more of the mindset of authoritarians who usually exist on the left of the political spectrum and enjoy using government to get their way in that is the one guaranteed way of getting what you want, using government force. All the federal government is doing is exercising the 14th amendment on the gay marriage issue. There are restrictions on governments and I said that, it is the constitution. States decide if they want to recognize marriage or not, if they do then they can't discriminate via the 14th amendment. At the local level you do have more control over the government. You can personally see if it is working and you can vote for every representative. How many congress members can you vote for? Congress has an approval rating of less than 10% but a high retention rate. That is because people feel their representative, and ultimately their idea of government is not the problem. You also have the ability to move out of a state or local area that is corrupt. Corruption is not a problem at the local level. If it becomes one it is easily fix. Your voice at the federal level is small. I disagree with Warren, Sanders and Pelosi along with several others in congress, I also have zero votes when it comes to how they are elected. They don't represent me so why should I follow their law? The more local government is the more it represents the people which is the type of government you want.
1
Siolfor80 The state will never be as corrupt as the federal level because you have actual control at the state level. Nothing is without flaw but you have to realize that at the state you level you have a more powerful voice and you also have the ability to move if you so desire. If you don't like how something is being ran then do something about it as in running, going public with it or just move. You have choices. At the federal level you choices become limited. You have this mindset that at the federal level they have unlimited knowledge and know everything. You are also thinking about yourself. You want your idea of government to be rammed down people's throats. If you want government run healthcare then you want to ram it down everyone's throats. If you want public education then you want everyone to follow the same standards. You want everyone to live under the same style of government. As I said before there is no one flawless government. What we have to establish is a government the represents the people the best and that is at the local level. Another big problem I have with the left is that they do exactly what you are doing, they are on the outside looking it at a situation and feel that something is being done wrong. You feel that certain states are being ran wrong so you feel you are doing justice by creating federal regulations to "help" them when all you are doing is evading into their person lives and are just fine. Also when you do that what happens is that those individuals elect the other side of the political spectrum to do to you what you just did to them. You may complain but what goes around comes around and can all be avoided with state rights. The problem with federal funding of roads is that the federal government has no money until it takes from someone as in taxes. So it takes tax dollars and tells states in order to receive it for roads they have to follow certain rules. So the federal government steals money that the state can use themselves either through locals investing in that state or a higher tax themselves, and then bribes the states with it by saying "play by our rules and you will get your money back", that is a corrupt system and is unconstitutional. Also you marriage isn't a right. Plus as of right now no government is denying anyone the ability to marry, they are just not recognizing certain ones.
1
Siolfor80 How are liberals more open minded? They are the most myopic group of people ever. They love to push their ideas down other people's throats and feel that other people living a different life style are ignorant. They are far from open minded. Nothing wrong with putting better looking flowers in the garden. That attracts people to come live in your state which means more workers and money. I wish my state would do that, invest in making the area look nicer. That isn't a waste of money. What is a waste is using federal money to build a dumb arch in St. Louis. Plus states do spend money to improve roads. I also never said states were infallible. They are easier to control and change though which is what you want in government. What state wants poor education standards? Poor education means lack of progress. You have this fear that states will go against their best interest which is false. Trickle down has never been attempted and isn't an idea recognized by economists. The federal government was to get money on a tax by the states depending on their population. There never was a federal income tax in the past and we also never had recessions that lasted over 5 years prior to that time. That is how the federal government got money, taxing the states, not the people. And the tax was equal. You can get married to whoever you like, it just depends on what the law recognizes. I can get married to my cat if I desire, the law won't recognize it though. I do have a real argument here. You want to force your form of government down other people's throats when I want others to enjoy life and freedom. Freedom comes at a cost but it is something we have to protect. You also feel other people are doing wrong and we must stop them when in reality you are on the outside looking in and those who are in are just fine. What you are doing is supporting fascism. You are the one that has a chip on your shoulder. You are the one mad at the system and feel that everyone should suffer the same way you do.
1
Siolfor80 The state should fund for something like the arch, not the federal government. Why doesn't Illinois get it, or Nebraska, or South Carolina? Why did Missouri get it? It was an unfair and unconstitutional waste of funds. A governor's mansion is funded by the state.If a governor does damage then people can move or vote them out. You have more power at the state level and can see if your local government is actually working. I am not willing to support federal law if it violates the constitution. Marriage is a state law and should remain that way. The only thing the federal government can do is that if a state recognizes marriage then they can't violate the 14th amendment and discriminate or violate the 5th amendment which deals with property rights. So you haven't gotten me on anything. You are not understanding what I am saying. You can get married anytime you want, it just depends on if the state recognizes it or not. I am also not contradicting how I view human rights. You don't have a right to marriage. I called you a fascist because you want to enforce your idea of government on others. You are on the outside looking in on a situation and feel people are being oppressed but don't realize how the system is set up and in reality they are not oppressed. You see something like this private college wanting to discriminate against gay people and feel that it is wrong when the people in that state feel otherwise, and the people attending feel otherwise. Gay people have other options for college, most cheaper then private and are public which means they can't discriminate. But instead you want to use the force of the federal government to make that college act in a way you feel is appropriate. That is no different then a state banning gay marriage, or what people did in the past with Jim Crow laws. They hated a group of people and how they acted and thus wanted to use government force to get rid of them. You are wanting to impose on the free will of others. It gets worse when you look at another state and think how bad they must have it with certain elected individuals when in reality they were the ones who voted them in and they have the ability to move. You have no idea what they are dealing with, Chances are they are fine, but you feel otherwise due to your authoritarian mindset and want to use the federal government to stop that. Instead of leaving people alone you want to force them to live a certain way simply due to your ego.Democrats are the most evil of the group because of that. They want to use federal government to change your way of life. To them if you don't like gay people then you must be evil and need to be change with force. If you don't like black people then it is the same way. If you are rich then you must be forced to give to others. If you didn't go to college then you must be stupid. It is as authoritarian as it gets. If I am pissed at anything it is that people are so quick to arbitrarily remove freedoms and rights for "safety". That is the scary part. The vast majority of our problems, especially economically stem from the failures of an overpowering federal government. Also in the end I am not piss. While I feel we are going the wrong direction as a whole I also possess a lot of skills. I will never have a hard time finding a job or doing well in life. I can just move on and be fine. There is any incentive for me to support a better system that actually works. In the end I do.Also by the way you talk you have no idea how the system was designed and actually works for the most part. The system was designed with strict limitations on the federal government.
1
Siolfor80 Slavery is banned by the constitution which both the federal government and state enforce on each other. So slavery argument has been quickly shot down.Why have the rich seen an increase in profits under Obama? Because they have bought out the federal government. We have no control over the federal government, the rich do. Looking at the minute details is important. I constantly hear from the left how they want to help the poor. How many poor people do they know? And how much do they know of their situation. Each person has a different situation. We can't create a one size fits all policy in this country. We have to allow the states and local governments to deal with domestic issues at a micro level.A private college doesn't have to abide by the same equality laws as everyone else. If a state creates such laws then yes, but until then they don't have to. You agreed to join that university and you agreed to abided by their rules. Just like I had to maintain a GPA over 2.00 and as a graduate student a GPA over 3.00. That is what I have agreed upon. No different then a private college enforcing a no gay policy.I agree that local communities can work in protesting against this college. That is a great example of state rights taking place. Also you idea of "decency" and "civil conduct" is different the from others. It is subjective like most other arguments you have brought up.There will never be consistency amongst the states, each one is different. I have lived in 2 different states, the differences are a lot but both states continue to move on, no different then two people being different and living life.
1
Siolfor80 If the locals are pissed off then they can either vote out the current politicians or move. If the state fails that is the option. If a local issue is "ignored" at the local level then it isn't and issue. Maybe to you but not to those living there.If my personal life ends up having me getting less than a 2.00 GPA then I violated my contracted and I get removed from college. No different then if a private college wants to ban gay people.Murder isn't a federal law. Trade isn't a federal law unless it is amongst foreign countries. I have traveled to several states and realized that we are a diverse country. We can't create a one size fits all policy. You may feel that one state is doing something wrong but in reality those citizens are enjoying what is going on. You don't live in that state so who cares? Don't oppress them just because you don't agree with their lifestyle.
1
Siolfor80 Most of those federal crimes are unconstitutional in that they violate the 10th amendment. So banning gay people from a private college is now a hate crime (a law that discriminates by the way which violates the 14 amendment)? So if you don't allow a black into your home is that a hate crime as well? This is a private college. They receive $0 in tax money. They can make their own set of rules. That is their right to their property via the 4th amendment. Just like you can with your home.Your idea on religious freedom is off. You can't use government force to make others follow your religion. This private college, who advertises as Christian, isn't forcing anyone to attend their college. You know what you are getting yourself into when you attend. No different then BYU and their set off rules. You break one you get suspended. You agreed upon those rules when you joined. Private colleges have that right because, once again, they receive $0 and thus can make their own rules. You are right, if you receive tax dollars then you don't have the ability to discriminate as a college because the government isn't allowed to discriminate. Private individuals can, not the government.
1
Siolfor80 My bad on citing the wrong amendment, I met to say the 5th amendment dealing with property rights. This story was aired on this channel because this channel is a radical, left wing channel that has been open on bashing religion and their beliefs. This was just another way for them to do it.
1
Siolfor80 If a college gets federal funds then it violates the 10th amendment. I agree, if a college receives tax dollars they have to abide by the rules the government does.
1
***** He is, he is being a bigot towards religion. He has stated he wants it removed. He has every right to feel that way, but the truth is that he is a bigot as well.
1
This Is Sauce The issue with allowing black people in is that public schools were not allowing it, that violates the 14th amendment where laws had to be equal. Separate was inherently unequal. Here we have a private university, they have every right to do this since they are not receiving public tax dollars. That is the difference.
1
tacos830 No, because local laws prevent that. You have put someone else's life in danger against their own will. That is similar to slavery which is unconstitutional.
1
tacos830 They can always go someplace else, you don't have a right to someone else's services. You also don't have a right to education.
1
This Is Sauce That is a different issue. You can then have a case of robbery.
1
S Cin Name one right straight people have and gay people don't have.
1
Andrew Held You don't have a right to a child. Now you could make an argument based on the 14th amendment but you could also make the counter argument of the privilege of adopting a child. You never said the female/female couple were married so in that case one is the biological mother and the other has to adopt for the privilege of caring for that child. You are making an emotional argument instead of using reason. You have really shown that with this "so I expect you to do the grown up thing and admit your previous ignorance". I can see why you are arbitrarily creating rights. If you were to really know my stance you would see that I would support a lot of what you say, I just want you to realize how you should approach this situation. Being immature and emotional about will not solve the issue and will just make things worse.
1
S Cin It is a time to argue technicalities because that is how we maintain freedom and prevent oppression. There are a lot of acts straight people can't do sexually. Do it behind close doors and no one will know, simple. You can love who you want and if you really don't want the government infringing on your freedom then you would support the government staying out of marriage. What natural rights are gays being denied? I have yet to hear one. Marriage isn't a right. Also there are a lot of people who are marginalized and lack respect. Religion is starting to become that group of people. Obese people as well.
1
loki2240 You are right, that is why marriage is a state issue. It is the same with education, education is listed no where in the constitution so it became a state issue via the 10th amendment. You can make a statement that I would support that any state who recognizes marriage must recognized gay marriage much like interracial based on the 14th amendment, but to say that marriage is a right is completely false and going against the system in place. That is how this issue has to be approach by using the constitution not with emotions.
1