New survey suggests decline has strong correlation between Christian nationalism and opposition to inclusive policies
Public support for same-sex marriage and nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ+ Americans has fallen, even as the overall share remains high, according to new findings by the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute.
Broad majorities of Americans, regardless of political party or faith, continue to support LGBTQ+ rights and protections, the analysis found. But after years of rising public support, the decline is notable, said Melissa Deckman, CEO of the PRRI.
The survey analyzed Americans’ attitudes toward LGBTQ+ rights across three policies: same-sex marriage, nondiscrimination protections and religion-based service refusals. It found support for all three measures had softened for the first time since the PRRI began tracking views of the issues nearly a decade ago.
While the “vast majority of Americans continue to endorse protections for LGBTQ Americans”, Deckman said the results may serve as a “warning sign” for those working to safeguard the rights of LGBTQ+ Americans amid a conservative legislative and legal effort to erode them.
Removed by mod
She would still very likely be overweight if she slimmed down and you could still make fun of her BMI.
Or is it only okay to make fun of people’s weight in specific circumstances? If so, what circumstances make it okay to mock other people’s traits?
Would any of those circumstances be “a discussion where I am expected to be taken seriously?”
Making such a prediction reveals that you don’t think highly of West. By contrast, I’ve expressed faith in her capacity for achievement. Who’s being ignorant and intolerant now?
You have yet to answer any of my questions. Again a sign that you are not here seriously.
You were never interested in “listening” to anything I had to say
That is a lie. I gave you many opportunities to give actual evidence, which you did not provide. You gave me a comedian whose weight you made fun of, showing you are neither serious nor tolerant.
And it doesn’t change the fact that you have not answered any of my questions.
I also just looked at your comment history and see that you’re right-wing, which explains a lot.
Easy to label everyone who’s thoughts aren’t carbon copies of your own as “right wing”. If folks such as yourself and every other devout Guardian reader are to be believed, Sydney Sweeney is “right wing” for not cutting off contact with that portion of her family who’s political leanings aren’t sufficiently Far Left, even though there’s no indication whatsoever that she’s particularly political
I’m labeling you as right wing because of the right-wing things you post:
This is you saying empathy is bad, a very right-wing position to take:
And that’s just on the first couple of pages.
If you don’t want people to call you right-wing, don’t praise capitalism, denigrate the poor and be against empathy.
You failed to quote what I wrote in it’s entirety regarding San Francisco. The final sentence read: “I say all of this as a proponent of repealing our drug laws, and treating addiction as the psychological ailment that it is”. Hardly a right-wing view. And had you followed the link in that third quote, you would be aware that Paul Bloom explicitly makes the case for Rational Compassion