[Jan_Sobieski]

Most people in Sodom and Gomorrah were not homosexuals. Lot’s wife, Lot’s Sons in Law, Grandmothers and Grandfathers, etc. However they received the same judgment because they “went along” with the Drag Queen Story Hours, Man Boy Love Associations, LGBTQI, etc. BTW…we now live in Sodom.

Moral of the Story: Don’t be a Sodomite

Luke 17: 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

[Stevenfo]

I remember when the gay line was “we just want to marry”. Now it is “in your face all time”.

[mjp]

The idea that "not wearing a "Pride" shirt is bigoted" is fallacious because it assumes that everyone who doesn't wear a Pride shirt is bigoted and that their beliefs or actions are motivated by prejudice. This is a false generalization and an unfair attribution of motive, as there may be various reasons why someone chooses not to wear a Pride shirt, including personal preference, comfort, or a lack of resources, rather than bigotry. Additionally, wearing a Pride shirt doesn't necessarily guarantee that someone is not bigoted or prejudiced, and conversely, not wearing one doesn't automatically make someone so. In order to assess someone's beliefs or actions, it's necessary to consider the context and their behavior, rather than relying on outward appearances.

Also:

Ad Hominem: Attacking the person, rather than the argument itself.

Straw Man: Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

False Dilemma: Presenting only two options as the only possible outcomes, when there are more options available.

Hasty Generalization: Reaching a conclusion based on insufficient evidence.

Slippery Slope: Assuming that one event will inevitably lead to another, without evidence to support the claim.

Circular Reasoning: Assuming the conclusion in the premise of an argument.

Begging the Question: Assuming the answer to the question being asked in the argument itself.

False Analogy: Comparing two things that are not similar enough to support the argument.

Non Sequitur: Drawing a conclusion that doesn't logically follow from the premise.

Ad Populum: Appealing to the emotions, prejudices, or desires of a group, rather than making a rational argument.

[faucetman]

“Though scheduled to wear LGBTQ “Pride” jerseys during pregame warmups, not one member of the team did so”

“not one member of the team did so”

Like I have been saying about trannies in sports. If the rest of the team members (or opposing team members) “REFUSED” to participate, then this crap would END!

[Salman]

... Sodom and Gomorrah ...

Two cities that (considering the time and place) could not have had more than a few thousand population.

What we have now is an international empire of Sodomy.

[Nea Wood]

Suppose Christians tried to force people to wear crosses or fish symbols and accused anyone who wouldn’t of anti-Christian hatred and bigotry, saying they should lose their jobs, their reputations, and be publicly scorned.

[teeman8r]

i am not an ABDEEFG+HIJKL, so how can i take pride in that...

i will wear a rainbow shirt showing God’s promise to man...

but then i might get kicked out of the place.

[GOPJ]

The only difference between the American left and communist totalitarianism is opportunity. All leftists want to control speech and eventually thought. Thus, if you treat gays in your daily life just as you treat heterosexuals, it is not enough. You must go much further. You must express "pride" in gays and lesbians – and not in just gays and lesbians, but in the bisexual, the transgender, the "queer" and the nonbinary. You must not only say, but think, "I am proud of people who consider themselves neither male nor female" – as if such mental illness is an achievement.

OMG - people are starting to understand what's happening... and starting to fight back.