And to make it clear, are you in agreement for gay marriage in the USA, on the federal level where every state CANNOT make it against the law?
slapd
slapd
hahahahahahh, just keep it going. We need idiots like you in the world to make sure we are sane.
I really dont know how many times people have to say this to you but being white, black, gay, trans, is NOT A CHOICE. Ive literally read like 4 replies to your comments explaining to you on how being gay is not a choice someone makes actively in their life. But yet, you havent addressed it once.
"despite his beliefs, he wants the secular organization he works for to be all inclusive"
"Murphy believes being gay is morally reprehensible. We've established that being gay is not a choice. So Murphy thinks certain people (gays) are morally reprehensible just because they are who they are. That's being bigoted. I disagree with pretty much all organized religion, but I know many many Christians who don't…
Are you fucking dumb?
There is active legislation out there that prevents gay people from doing all sorts of things but the most important is marriage. Some dude that "disagrees", whatever the fuck that means, with homosexuality can go out and literally oppress the gay community. A gay dude that disagrees with you being straight cant do…
wooooosh
yah sure lets keep treating them like people when we disagree with them but lets not treat them like people when they wanna get married.
so if it has no effect on him, why is he speaking out on it like it does?
if you hate something about someone that they cant change, IE homosexuality, then youre a bigot. In this case, a homophobe.
Sure, lets just dismiss his entire claim because of his tone aka derailing. A strategy well used by bigots in all shapes and forms.
Cut the victim shit too, no one accused you of hating gays. However you are projecting homophobia by being so defensive. And you are just proving his point now really. Sure you might not…
Okay, thats just as bad. If they spoke to them victims, which i assumed they did, they can find a way to start investigation or find a way to twist whatever they did do into an investigation. If they didnt speak to the victims, which is what you assumed, then they failed the student in properly investigating even when…
"Yes, I don't like the idea that someone was kicked off his team, probably lost his scholarship, without a hearing or due process."
THERE WAS/IS AN INVESTIGATION. I just wrote a whole fucking paragraph on how it was an investigation due to title IX regulations.
ummm, im not sure if youre creating a straw man here but if you read the article, it basically refutes your whole arguement about how a university can kick someone out with an investigation.
Wouldnt it benefit the program and/or everyone involved in this case if they gave a reason for his dismissal? Duke being quiet about why he was dismissed is the reason this story blowing up right now.
did you read the article? they heard something in 2013, they investigated by talking to the victims in 2014 and they kicked sulaimon off in 2015.
maybe do it 10 months earlier or at least clear the air about WHY you kicked him off the team?