# Should AZ Force Gay People To Promote Christian Ideals Against Homosexuality?



## Silhouette (Nov 1, 2017)

I offer the legal precedent here: Court: Phoenix wedding invitation designers must serve LGBT customers

Given: Gay is behavioral.  Google "Anne Heche" for details..  Or for more extensive arguments (with over 300 peer-reviewed corroborating studies referenced at the end) this: *"Conditioning and Sexual BEHAVIOR, a Review"  *
James G. Pfaus,Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montreal, Quebec, H3G 1M8 Canada
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.322.9763&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Now, should the State of Arizona which so recently announced Christians must promote the behaviors of homosexuals, also force homosexuals to promote the behaviors of Christians?  The question is one of fairness. Is it fair to force a Christian to abandon their 1st Amendment rights, while in the same state allowing gays to pick and choose when to promote values in direct opposition to their own?

Should for instance, a gay graphic designer be forced against his will and beliefs to print a billboard for a busy highway that reads: "Homosexuality is a sin unto God!" for Christian customers.  ?  If he provides a service to the general public?  Yes or no.  Vote in the poll.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2017)

False _a priori_ premise, so OP fails.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 1, 2017)

Well so far we've got a "yes", "no" and "maybe".  Quite the spread.  So you see, there is some confusion in how these PC laws apply across the board..


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 1, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> False _a priori_ premise, so OP fails.


No, it isn't.  Homosexuality is behavioral.  The burden is upon those seeking to eradicate other people's 1st Amendment rights to show otherwise.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2017)

Of course your premise is false. 

The burden of proof is on you to prove that it is behavioral, and that is an impossibility.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 1, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Of course your premise is false.
> 
> The burden of proof is on you to prove that it is behavioral, and that is an impossibility.


I just did.  I updated the OP.  Follow the link and the over 300 peer-reviewed scientific corroborations agreeing with my premise.

*"Conditioning and Sexual BEHAVIOR, a Review" *
James G. Pfaus,Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montreal, Quebec, H3G 1M8 Canada
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.322.9763&rep=rep1&type=pdf


----------



## mdk (Nov 1, 2017)

I would accept that graphic design job in a hot minute. When I got home I would spread the money all over the bed and then have gay sex on it.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 1, 2017)

No. Just stop with the forcing other people to accept the abnormal and deviant crap. It has all gone far enough.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 1, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > False _a priori_ premise, so OP fails.
> ...


Heterosexuality is behavioral too.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 1, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> No. Just stop with the forcing other people to accept the abnormal and deviant crap. It has all gone far enough.


Stop forcing your heterosexuality on me!


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 1, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> No. Just stop with the forcing other people to accept the abnormal and deviant crap. It has all gone far enough.


The question is one of fairness.  Is it legally-fair (equal rights) to force a Christian to abandon their 1st Amendment rights, while in the same state allowing gays to pick and choose when to promote values in direct opposition to their own?


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 1, 2017)

mdk said:


> I would accept that graphic design job in a hot minute. When I got home I would spread the money all over the bed and then have gay sex on it.


And there is nothing wrong with making your personal choice to do such and you should remain free to do it if that is what trips your trigger but it should not be forced on anyone else to do the same.



Silhouette said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > No. Just stop with the forcing other people to accept the abnormal and deviant crap. It has all gone far enough.
> ...


The idea that sick people have is not one of fairness so I cannot go with that premise. 



bodecea said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > No. Just stop with the forcing other people to accept the abnormal and deviant crap. It has all gone far enough.
> ...


 First you will have to define how that is happening as you are free to make the choice to be a deviant if you desire to go there and there is no force to make you be anything other than that. That does not give you a right of any kind to force or compel me to work for you though if I choose not to.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Nov 1, 2017)

mdk said:


> I would accept that graphic design job in a hot minute. When I got home I would spread the money all over the bed and then have gay sex on it.


In other words he would pound his toothpick until it erupted?


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 1, 2017)

Actually "sick" or not, the question really is one of legal-fairness (equal rights).  If one person is allowed to expunge the 1st Amendment rights of another, cannot that other also expunge the 1st Amendment rights of the first?  If AZ forces Christians to play along with "gay marriage" (whatever that is since the children involved don't have a guarantee anymore of both a mother and father: the reason marriage was created to benefit states) then AZ must also force gays to play along with repugnant ideals to their own dogma.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 1, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > I would accept that graphic design job in a hot minute. When I got home I would spread the money all over the bed and then have gay sex on it.
> ...


There you are trying to force your heterosexuality down my throat again!   Stop it!   Quit shoving your straightness in our faces!


----------



## mdk (Nov 1, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> And there is nothing wrong with making your personal choice to do such and you should remain free to do it if that is what trips your trigger but it should not be forced on anyone else to do the same.



My feelings concerning public accommodation laws are not a secret here. A business should be able to turn away any customer and for any reason. Sadly, we are not seeing a great push for that, though. We are only seeing a push to end public accommodation laws that cover homos.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 1, 2017)

bodecea said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...


Sorry you get no traction here as you are free to put anyone you desire on ignore and you are not compelled to be a member of this board or post or read any of what others post either. It is nice that you willingly show how ignorant you can be about your queerness and the defense of being a deviant though, thanks for that.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 1, 2017)

mdk said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > And there is nothing wrong with making your personal choice to do such and you should remain free to do it if that is what trips your trigger but it should not be forced on anyone else to do the same.
> ...


It is just another fascist push to attempt to take away more liberty and freedom of choice of the people. Judges that are pushing this type of crap need to be eliminated through the legal process of whatever state they are in. That same theory applies to any judge that denies, does not recognize or ignores the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. I have seen some awful judges and wondered how in the world were they allowed by the people to stay on the bench. One tried to badger me into signing a document once and I refused. He told me, "It does not mean anything". I told him, "If that is the case you sign it".


----------



## miketx (Nov 1, 2017)

bodecea said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > No. Just stop with the forcing other people to accept the abnormal and deviant crap. It has all gone far enough.
> ...


Stop being a homo.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2017)

Is homosexuality genetic?

Most likely, homosexuality is epigenetic.

And the gay sex crowd  have every right here to shove their stuff down the throat of the heteroes.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 1, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...


Do you not understand that the same applies to you?    You too are not compelled to be a member of this board.  You too are never compelled to be gay or hang out with gay people.  Do you not get that?  Do you not see that you are just as ignorant about your straightness and how you shove it down other people's throats all the time?


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 1, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Actually "sick" or not, the question really is one of legal-fairness (equal rights).  If one person is allowed to expunge the 1st Amendment rights of another, cannot that other also expunge the 1st Amendment rights of the first?  If AZ forces Christians to play along with "gay marriage" (whatever that is since the children involved don't have a guarantee anymore of both a mother and father: the reason marriage was created to benefit states) then AZ must also force gays to play along with repugnant ideals to their own dogma.


Equal rights is not on their agenda so why go there with them? Get organized enough to show the degradation of the whole when the people allow their rights to be co-opted by a few who believe erroneously that they should have the right to rule over other people, their children and the choices that those people make concerning their personal lives by legislative or regulatory force. When God's people are standing in the right place the holy spirit with them will help defend them and help defeat the enemies, when they are not standing in the right place that same spirit will allow the enemy to raise up against them until they turn away from evil themselves. Powers and principalities is where the battle is at.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 1, 2017)

bodecea said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


Like I said you are free to be a deviant. Far be it from me to stop you. You are not free to force me to work for you, find your behavior acceptable or let you have access to my (grand)children to teach them that it is all fine and dandy to be a deviant. I am also free to lobby on behalf of that freedom to deny you access to what I am in charge of and over. You are not free to trespass on my property any more than I am free to trespass on yours.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 1, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> *Equal rights is not on their agenda so why go there with them? Get organized enough to show the degradation of the whole *when the people allow their rights to be co-opted by a few who believe erroneously that they should have the right to rule over other people



So you prefer a pseudo-show watered-down approach to the stinging legal teeth of a lawsuit forcing the flawed decision to the higher courts where real, actual resolution in favor of your cause could be had?

Au contraire.  I think we should "go there" with them.  And right away too.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 1, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...


You talk about blaming judges for upholding  clearly written PA laws......how about, instead of whining and blaming judges for upholding the law, you actively work to get PA laws in your state repealed?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2017)

Nothing of the sort will occur, Sil.

You need to work against PA laws through your lege.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 1, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Nothing of the sort will occur, Sil.
> 
> You need to work against PA laws through your lege.


IMO, they don't like to hear that because they KNOW they would be in the minority....they KNOW that if they started a petition drive to have PA laws repealed, they'd get no where.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2017)

You are right.

The want Big Progressive Courts to interpret laws their way.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 1, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> You are right.
> 
> The want Big Progressive Courts to interpret laws their way.


Ironically, they don't even know what the PA laws do.    They think they only protect gays.....


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 1, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > *Equal rights is not on their agenda so why go there with them? Get organized enough to show the degradation of the whole *when the people allow their rights to be co-opted by a few who believe erroneously that they should have the right to rule over other people
> ...


Not that your point is not a good one but the deviants of that nature are merely one sphere of the realm of the flood of evil upon the land.

I think the people gathered and getting rid of political enablers in the legislator crowd and dismissing of these corrupt judges needs to be done asap. If they can all blacklist people like me for refusing to allow them to abuse me that table can be turned on them just as quick.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 1, 2017)

bodecea said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...


The crooked judges, banksters and thugs here were very effective in putting me into a position where I do not have the resources or the physical capability to do what you are suggesting but who knows that may very well change in the future.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 1, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Nothing of the sort will occur, Sil.
> 
> You need to work against PA laws through your lege.





bodecea said:


> IMO, they don't like to hear that because they KNOW they would be in the minority....*they KNOW that if they started a petition drive to have PA laws repealed, they'd get no where*.


You mean PA laws requiring a gay graphic designer to print a billboard for a Christian client that says "homosexuality is a sin unto God!"?  If he serves the public, must he not accommodate them also, regardless of his belief system?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2017)

Your interp is silly, Sil, so you better get to work on your lege.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 1, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > False _a priori_ premise, so OP fails.
> ...



YOU claim it is behavioral.   But experts do not.  So yes, your premise fails.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 1, 2017)

bodecea said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...


BTW, not all judges "uphold the law", many of them have determine that the law is not applicable in "their courtrooms" and some ignore the law and make up their own new rules as they go for they can claim a precedent was already set.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 1, 2017)

WinterBorn said:


> YOU claim it is behavioral.   But experts do not.  So yes, your premise fails.


Well over three hundred studies cited in the link in the OP, with many more scientists involved than that all agree that sexual behavior is tied to conditioning.  Social conditioning at that.  So all this normalizing of deviant sexual behaviors can be predicted to see a rise in recruits in coming years.  And in related news, there has been an "inexplicable" spike in young boys coming down with HIV from experimenting with gay sex with each other.  So the evidence comes down heavy and hard on the side of behavioral.  Monkey see, monkey do:

https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/sexualbehaviors/pdf/hiv_factsheet_ymsm.pdf
Fast Facts
HIV disproportionately affects young men who have sex with men (YMSM).
YMSM:

In 2011, among adolescent males aged 13–19 years, approximately 93% of all
diagnosed HIV infections were from male-to-male sexual contact.
2

From 2008–2011, YMSM aged 13–24 years had the greatest percentage increase
(26%) in diagnosed HIV infections.
3
(Figure 1)


----------



## OnePercenter (Nov 1, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> No. Just stop with the forcing other people to accept the abnormal and deviant crap. It has all gone far enough.



Religion is abnormal and deviant crap.


----------



## flewism (Nov 1, 2017)

Bottom line is  Phoenix has a law on the books naming LGBT members are a  "protected class" in their anti-discrimination laws  and Christians are not included.
Members of the LGBT community need laws like this for their mental well-being and have convinced segments of society that it is warranted thereby it was adopted.
The validity of the law is irrelevant, if Christians feel they need such a law in  Phoenix  AZ they need to petition and lobby to have one passes.


----------



## flewism (Nov 1, 2017)

OnePercenter said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > No. Just stop with the forcing other people to accept the abnormal and deviant crap. It has all gone far enough.
> ...



If you look up the definition of abnormal you will find this statement totally false, but everybody's opinion differ.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 1, 2017)

OnePercenter said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > No. Just stop with the forcing other people to accept the abnormal and deviant crap. It has all gone far enough.
> ...


Only in your eyes and no one is forcing you to participate in their religious services in the United States unless you start counted a few Islamic terrorist that believe and willingly act out blowing up or slaughtering people that do not or are not willing to convert to Islam.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2017)

And no one is forcing anyone to LGBTQ.

Back off, freeks.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Nov 1, 2017)

flewism said:


> Bottom line is  Phoenix has a law on the books naming LGBT members are a  "protected class" in their anti-discrimination laws  and Christians are not included.




"Discrimination in places of public accommodation against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or disability is contrary to the policy of the City of Phoenix and shall be deemed unlawful."

Psst. - Christians are included under the "religion" portion.

https://www.phoenix.gov/eodsite/Documents/094166.pdf


>>>>


----------



## bodecea (Nov 1, 2017)

flewism said:


> Bottom line is  Phoenix has a law on the books naming LGBT members are a  "protected class" in their anti-discrimination laws  and Christians are not included.
> Members of the LGBT community need laws like this for their mental well-being and have convinced segments of society that it is warranted thereby it was adopted.
> The validity of the law is irrelevant, if Christians feel they need such a law in  Phoenix  AZ they need to petition and lobby to have one passes.


How sad....you don't even know what the law says.........Christians and all religions are covered in all 50 states.....sexual orientation in only 31 states.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 1, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...


ORLY?    In a bad place?   Blaming others?   You must be a RWr.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Nov 1, 2017)

Decent people respect other people's religion and they would not force people to violate their faith, but Left Wingers are vicious bigots who hate Christians.
One of the biggest myths is that Liberals are open minded and tolerant people.


----------



## deanrd (Nov 1, 2017)

Jesus, how Republicans hate gays.

They hate so many, but gays most of all.


----------



## OnePercenter (Nov 1, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...



I stated: Religion is abnormal and deviant crap. That would cover everything you wrote.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2017)

Anyone who hates gays so badly they won't sell to them in a public service offering its wares to the public must then be not allowed to serve in that business.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 1, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Anyone who hates gays so badly they won't sell to them in a public service offering its wares to the public must then be not allowed to serve in that business.


Jakey I wouldn't serve you even if you were not a sexual deviant supporter.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 1, 2017)

OnePercenter said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...


No one religion that claims sovereign rights over and above anyone's personal rights and is willing to take it by violence and force and teaches its followers to do so is abnormal and deviant and that religion is Islam.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 1, 2017)

flewism said:


> *Bottom line is  Phoenix has a law on the books naming LGBT members are a  "protected class" in their anti-discrimination laws  and Christians are not included.*
> Members of the LGBT community need laws like this for their mental well-being and have convinced segments of society that it is warranted thereby it was adopted.
> The validity of the law is irrelevant, if Christians feel they need such a law in  Phoenix  AZ they need to petition and lobby to have one passes.


Um, Christians are a protected class by dominant law: the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.  Therefore, a gay graphic designer must print a billboard for them that says "homosexuality is a sin unto God" or he is in violation of federal and AZ state PA laws.


----------



## OnePercenter (Nov 2, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...


.

Sounds like the Hillsborough Baptist Church


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 2, 2017)

OnePercenter said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...


Peddle your crap with someone else as I ain't buying. You are comparing some lawyers who operate as a non-profit in the the guise of being a church under an assumed name other than Christ's name that puts out a lot of propaganda with a whole class of people whose religious book and actions actually calls for complete control and submission plus kills other people for not complying with their belief systems. That is why you really can't be taken serious to anyone with half a brain that is able to think. The violent take it by force and that is not what Christianity or Judaism is all about but it fits Islam to a tee.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 2, 2017)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Decent people respect other people's religion and they would not force people to violate their faith, but Left Wingers are vicious bigots who hate Christians.
> One of the biggest myths is that Liberals are open minded and tolerant people.


Of course....to you, to keep it simple...there are no Left Wing Christians.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 2, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who hates gays so badly they won't sell to them in a public service offering its wares to the public must then be not allowed to serve in that business.
> ...


^ example of a religious deviant.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 2, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> flewism said:
> 
> 
> > *Bottom line is  Phoenix has a law on the books naming LGBT members are a  "protected class" in their anti-discrimination laws  and Christians are not included.*
> ...


Unless he's too busy to take their business.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2017)

Oh, there is no doubt RodISHI would serve me, none at all.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 2, 2017)

bodecea said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Why you talking about Jakey like that?


----------



## hadit (Nov 2, 2017)

deanrd said:


> Jesus, how Republicans hate gays.
> 
> They hate so many, but gays most of all.



What an ignorant post.


----------



## Peach (Nov 2, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> flewism said:
> 
> 
> > *Bottom line is  Phoenix has a law on the books naming LGBT members are a  "protected class" in their anti-discrimination laws  and Christians are not included.*
> ...



Any law to cite? You have yet to indicate the Co. prints billboards concerning sexuality, *in the normal course of business. *Thus, the analogy is not on point.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Oh, there is no doubt RodISHI would serve me, none at all.


I heard years ago you would be one bowing down Jakey.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 2, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...


   More deviant behavior.....pushing their own behavior onto others.....


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 2, 2017)

bodecea said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


Just taking hints from the leftist on the board isn't that how you do it?


----------



## bodecea (Nov 2, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...


No.   Maybe if you weren't so deviant you would notice that that is simply not true.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, there is no doubt RodISHI would serve me, none at all.
> ...


Go get some coffee.  You are confused this morning.  The deviant side of Far Right Christianity has been failing for some years, and it is only increasing, as it should.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 2, 2017)

bodecea said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


I suppose some could consider me a deviant depending on their personal leanings. That is where freedom of choice comes in. Again if you desire to be whatever as long as you are not forcing another to join in with you I don't take issue with that.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


No confusing on this end Jakey. I believe in prophecy that the Spirit speaks.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2017)

The kooky far right religionists, whether Christian evangelicals or Jewish Orthodox or Islamic traditionalists, simply must accept they will not be allowed to stone people.  They cannot force their beliefs on others.  They can believe in stoning others if they want.

Religious freedom does not include the right to harm others, take away others' rights, or force their religious beliefs on others, Rodi.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> The kooky far right religionists, whether Christian evangelicals or Jewish Orthodox or Islamic traditionalists, simply must accept they will not be allowed to stone people.  They cannot force their beliefs on others.  They can believe in stoning others if they want.
> 
> *Religious freedom does not include the right to harm others, take away others' rights, or force their religious beliefs on others, Rodi.*


That means that you do not have the right to take away my rights to practice my religion as I see fit or take away my ability to support myself with the talents God gave as long as it isn't hurting anyone else. Hurting your delicate feewings doesn't count. No one is forcing or compelling you to believe anything but the queerdon's seem to think they have a right to flaunt their nasty shit in other peoples personal space and make others accept it. You are free to go into that hell's angels camp Jakey and join in with them but you should never be free to force other to join you when you go there.

The only ones I see literally stoning people in this age are not Christians.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2017)

Rodi, you have no right to prevent me from living my life iaw the law in the public.

If you offer a service to the public in general, you have no right legally or morally or religiously to deny me that service.

Tough to be you, but your feelings have nothing to do with my civil rights, and I don't allow religious deviants to interfere with them in the public square.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Rodi, you have no right to prevent me from living my life iaw the law in the public.
> 
> If you offer a service to the public in general, you have no right legally or morally or religiously to deny me that service.
> 
> Tough to be you, but your feelings have nothing to do with my civil rights, and I don't allow religious deviants to interfere with them in the public square.


Your rights end at my property line. Simple don't trespass.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Rodi, you have no right to prevent me from living my life iaw the law in the public.
> ...


Not when your property is engaged in providing services to the public in general.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


I choose whom I will work for and you have no say in that whatsoever and you never will.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 2, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...


That is correct....you choose who you work FOR.....but your employer gets to pick who works for him/her and your employer has to follow the business laws of the state they have received a business license for.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...


I don't care where you work, but if you serve public accomodation, you will serve me.

One way, I have heard, is to buy up the business notes and tell the borrower to pay up.


----------



## hadit (Nov 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> The kooky far right religionists, whether Christian evangelicals or Jewish Orthodox or Islamic traditionalists, simply must accept they will not be allowed to stone people.  They cannot force their beliefs on others.  They can believe in stoning others if they want.
> 
> Religious freedom does not include the right to harm others, take away others' rights, or force their religious beliefs on others, Rodi.



Christian evangelists don't advocate stoning people, at least not the ones I know.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2017)

Have you lived in East Texas, northern Louisiana, or Alabama?


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> I don't care where you work, but if you serve public accomodation, you will serve me.
> 
> One way, I have heard, is to buy up the business notes and tell the borrower to pay up.



So you're a Christian, walking into a graphic design shop run by a gay guy.  You order a billboard that says "homosexuality is a sin unto God".  The gay guy says "no way hater!".  Is he legally within his rights to do so?   You can just answer "yes" or "no".  And remember, no state shall establish an official dogma or religion...it's in the US Constitution.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2017)

I don't think he is within his rights to deny the customer if the PA law says so.

And far as the far right haters are concerned:


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> I don't think he is within his rights to deny the customer if the PA law says so.



So then for you it's one and the same as if a KKK guy walked into a black man's bakery and ordered a cake that says "I hate nig gers!"?  Remember, a black person is born that way.  Gays adopt their behaviors.  BEHAVIORS.  This root premise is going to come out sooner or later so we might as well start talking about it right now..


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2017)

Remember, Sil, that it is the law that controls this, not your feewings.  Also you have always been the mistress of the fallacy of false equivalency.


----------



## sakinago (Nov 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> False _a priori_ premise, so OP fails.



Based on what? And no the question doesn’t fail, if a gay Baker was asked to make a cake for defense of marriage activist group, should they be forced to make that cake? Should a pro-choice baker be forced to make a cake depicting abortion is murder?


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 2, 2017)

sakinago said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > False _a priori_ premise, so OP fails.
> ...


See, he ^^ gets it.  He gets "equal application in law"...  BEHAVIORS.  This premise will be discussed eventually on the question.  So might as well get to talking about it right now...  

To give dominant legal status to one group of behavioral edicts over another is one and the same as the state establishing an official religion over another.  That's legally problematic Jakey and you know it is.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2017)

sakinago said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > False _a priori_ premise, so OP fails.
> ...


Of course it is fail.  The law controls the answer to those questions, sak, no your feewings.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 2, 2017)

hadit said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The kooky far right religionists, whether Christian evangelicals or Jewish Orthodox or Islamic traditionalists, simply must accept they will not be allowed to stone people.  They cannot force their beliefs on others.  They can believe in stoning others if they want.
> ...


Yet Evangelicals are now the target they are focusing on. Evidently the Catholic Church has lost a lot of their members to Evangelicals in Mexico too and they are not very happy about that. 



JakeStarkey said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Nothing for sale here to you either.



bodecea said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Yeah you tried that business license bs once before and as I told you then not all businesses require licenses and the licenses required are not for PA laws, those are to insure that the person doing business can actually provide services that they are selling, licenses also to insure food safety, etc. but not for making sure that queers are served. You do too much brain damaged California dreaming.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2017)

Rodi and Sil hate PA laws.

Oh, yes they do!


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Rodi and Sil hate PA laws.
> 
> Oh, yes they do!


To give dominant legal status to one group of behavioral edicts over another is one and the same as the state establishing an official religion over another.  That's legally problematic Jakey and you know it is. 

Should pro-choice bakers be forced to make cakes that say "abortion is murder!".  Or gay graphic designers be forced to print signs that say "Homosexuals are sinful deviants!"?  Which side will the State take and can they?


----------



## hadit (Nov 2, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think he is within his rights to deny the customer if the PA law says so.
> ...



And that's where we end up when the government tries to force people to be nice instead of protecting us from actual harm.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Rodi and Sil hate PA laws.
> ...


Take it up with the legislature, sil, because your behavioral edicts has failed for years here.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 2, 2017)

hadit said:


> And that's where we end up when the government tries to force people to be nice instead of protecting us from actual harm.


The government is expressly disallowed to favor one group of edicts over another.  Since gay is behavioral and Christianity is behavioral and both claim sets of dogma/beliefs that directly conflict with each other, either both cults/religions are forced to promote each other, or neither is.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Rodi and Sil hate PA laws.
> 
> Oh, yes they do!





Silhouette said:


> To give dominant legal status to one group of behavioral edicts over another is one and the same as the state establishing an official religion over another.  That's legally problematic Jakey and you know it is.
> 
> Should pro-choice bakers be forced to make cakes that say "abortion is murder!".  Or gay graphic designers be forced to print signs that say "Homosexuals are sinful deviants!"?  Which side will the State take and can they?





JakeStarkey said:


> Take it up with the legislature, sil, because your behavioral edicts has failed for years here.


The government is expressly disallowed to favor one group of edicts over another.  Since gay is behavioral and Christianity is behavioral and both claim sets of dogma/beliefs that directly conflict with each other, either both cults/religions are forced to promote each other, or neither is.

Two words for you Jakey: "Hobby Lobby"..  The LGBT better get its shit together soon because when the core premise of these legal conflicts surfaces (gay being an adopted behavior), your cult had better have applied for tax-exempt status.   Right now Christians are recognized and have been protected since day one of the old USA.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 2, 2017)

sakinago said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > False _a priori_ premise, so OP fails.
> ...


If a gay baker who makes cakes for a living is asked by a religious group to make a cake.....yes.   Because religion is listed in PA laws.   Is that "Defense of Marriage" activist group a political group?  Then they don't have to because political leaning isn't protected under PA laws anywhere.   Get to know your PA laws in your state if you want to start a business and get a business license.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 2, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Rodi and Sil hate PA laws.
> ...


Hobby Lobby?   Is that an issue of PA laws?


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 2, 2017)

bodecea said:


> If a gay baker who makes cakes for a living is asked by a religious group to make a cake.....yes.   Because *religion is listed in PA laws*.   Is that "Defense of Marriage" activist group a political group?  Then they don't have to because *political leaning isn't protected under PA laws anywhere*.   Get to know your PA laws in your state if you want to start a business and get a business license.



So there you've said it!  LGBT is a religion, not a political leaning.



bodecea said:


> Hobby Lobby?   Is that an issue of PA laws?



Its text will be cited in arguments defending Christian bakers, yes.


----------



## Lysistrata (Nov 2, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Rodi and Sil hate PA laws.
> ...



There is no evidence to support the assertion that sexual orientation is an "adopted" behavior, and more evidence to the contrary. While the subset of Christians who are so against having to interact with LGBTs have chosen to adhere to certain dogma/beliefs, that being an actual choice on their part, it cannot be said that LGBTs claim any set of dogma/beliefs, they are just being who they are. The two cannot be compared.


----------



## sakinago (Nov 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Is homosexuality genetic?
> 
> Most likely, homosexuality is epigenetic.
> 
> And the gay sex crowd  have every right here to shove their stuff down the throat of the heteroes.



I could see epigenetic, that’s what I’ve been saying for years. But if that’s the case then what does that mean for sexual fluidity? Can the “gene” be turned on and off? That doesn’t sound right, which is why I lean more on the side that it is behavioral. I’m sure it does not at all feel like a choice, as a compulsion wouldn’t feel like much of a choice either, but that doesn’t mean behavioral should be ruled out. And if sexuality/gender is some gene able to be activated, what does that mean for pedophilia? Should we reduce sentences for pedophilia, since it is genetic? Maybe do away with statutory rape? Again this is why I lean to the side of it being behavioral. We’ve already seen cases of identical twins raised together having different sexualities. 

There hasn’t been a lot of science done in this area since it’s seen as taboo in the community. But the PC crowd took it upon themselves to pretty much champion all this gender fluidity as settled science, (which it isn’t) and demonize anyone who suggests otherwise. Which is why it is so rash, irresponsible, and damaging to be offering sex changes to kids (I feel like I should never have had to form that sentence). especially since we do have studies that say some 90% of youth going through gender crisis during puberty, find the crisis is resolved at the end of puberty and revert to their original gender assignment...And now some of the most prominent sex change plastic surgeons are finding out that there’s a stark increase in regret after a gender reassignment surgery...that’s a big deal that everybody seems to be ignoring.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2017)

"sexual fluidity" and "behavioral editcs" are for the courts.  The Hobby Lobby argument will be laughed out of court.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 2, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think he is within his rights to deny the customer if the PA law says so.
> ...


That reminds me of a lesbian couple that lived down the road from us about the time my daughter was born. They were cordial people as far as everyone knew and they didn't push their weird relationship off on anyone. They were just there. About twelve years later one was seen and a chat ensued. She had gotten out of that relationship and started describing how it was a very sick relationship and how happy she was that she was now living a normal life. She had gotten married to a really nice guy and they were both very happy. She describe that same sex relationship as a dark period in her life.


----------



## mdk (Nov 2, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> So there you've said it! LGBT is a religion, not a political leaning.



I know you like to claim that being gay is a religion, but you're not intelligent enough to realize that would mean gays would be covered by public accomdation laws in all 50 states under the Civil Right Act. You wouldn't be able to turn them away on the basis of your religious beliefs anymore then you would be able to turn away a Jew for your religious beliefs.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2017)

Rodi, I have heard LGBTQ say that about their relationships and heteroes about their relationships.

Some sick is just some sick.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 2, 2017)

bodecea said:


> *There is no evidence to support the assertion that sexual orientation is an "adopted" behavio*r, and more evidence to the contrary. While the subset of Christians who are so against having to interact with LGBTs have chosen to adhere to certain dogma/beliefs, that being an actual choice on their part, it cannot be said that LGBTs claim any set of dogma/beliefs, they are just being who they are. The two cannot be compared.



Hmmm...have you read the over 300 peer-reviewed corroborating citations at the end of the paper linked in the OP.  That review being named "Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review", done at the university in Montreal Canada?


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> "sexual fluidity" and "behavioral editcs" are for the courts.  The Hobby Lobby argument will be laughed out of court.


Well it wasn't laughed out of the courts when they decided it.  You've heard of legal precedent I presume?  Yes, of course you have..   And as to sexual fluidity, have you read the over 300 peer-reviewed corroborated citations from the "Conditioning and Sexual Behavior" link in the OP?  Scroll the PDF to its end and read the citation list.  Pretty damned impressive to be "laughed out of court"..  You know the question of behavior is coming up.  Best be prepared when it does.


----------



## sakinago (Nov 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 What a terribly weak position, and huge deflection.  So if the law is the sole determinant of morality, then in your own words, we should be  deporting any and all illegal Aliens as quickly as possible,  because we should just defer to the law. That’s the law. It was at one point right to have slavery, as well as Jim Crow,  and DOMA, just because the law says so


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 2, 2017)

sakinago said:


> What a terribly weak position, and huge deflection.  So if the law is the sole determinant of morality, then in your own words, we should be  deporting any and all illegal Aliens as quickly as possible,  because we should just defer to the law. That’s the law. It was at one point right to have slavery, as well as Jim Crow,  and DOMA, just because the law says so


Well put sir   And , no law may promote one set of behavioral edicts over another because that would be a State formally recognizing one religion over another.  Yes, you noticed Jake's glaringly weak legal position and penchant for deflection when he knows he's losing an argument.  In fact, I often use it as a litmus test to determine how well I'm doing landing my points.  Directly proportional is the abuse and deflection to how threatened he feels.


----------



## sakinago (Nov 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Can Palestinians deny customized service/products customized specifically for a Zionist function?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2017)

sakinago said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > sakinago said:
> ...


Not in the slightest.  You want your feelings to dominate the law, which won't happen.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 2, 2017)

Can a male victim of child molestation be forced to bake a cake for a NAMBLA event?



JakeStarkey said:


> Not in the slightest.  You want your feelings to dominate the law, which won't happen.



Actually it's the exact opposite.  You FEEL you want me to back off making the point about no State may make laws promoting one set of edicts over another.  Meanwhile the Constitution says that can't happen at all.  Should a male victim of child molestation be forced "legally" to bake a cake for a NAMBLA event that says "Man/boy love" on the icing?  Yes or no?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2017)

sakinago said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > sakinago said:
> ...


Depends on how the law is written, sak.  Advice: don't rely on Sil's understanding of the issue.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Depends on how the law is written, sak.  Advice: don't rely on Sil's understanding of the issue.



You forgot to add "...please!...please don't listen to Sil!!... *fingers crossed* ..."  The man is making excellent points.  And your willfully-vague reply _"depends on how the law is written"_ is a dodge.  Answer him directly and reference the law you're defending and its specific language when you do.  Just like in court how you have to.  No feelings, just the facts.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2017)

Sil, you have embarrassed yourself for yours on the Board with this topic.

Please continue.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Not in the slightest.  You want your feelings to dominate the law, which won't happen.



  Should a male victim of child molestation be forced "legally" to bake a cake for a NAMBLA event that says "Man/boy love" on the icing?  Yes or no?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Not in the slightest.  You want your feelings to dominate the law, which won't happen.
> ...


Consult the law, Sil, not your feelings.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Not in the slightest.  You want your feelings to dominate the law, which won't happen.





Silhouette said:


> *Should a male victim of child molestation be forced "legally" to bake a cake for a NAMBLA event that says "Man/boy love" on the icing?  Yes or no?*





JakeStarkey said:


> Consult the law, Sil, not your feelings.


Answer the question and reference the law.  Stop dodging.  You are here defending the AZ law so reference it and answer the questions about it or admit defeat in this debate.


----------



## sakinago (Nov 2, 2017)

bodecea said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


I’m not talking about what the current law is, I can name you probably 50 laws off the top of my head, I’m arguing about what the laws should be. Slavery was never right just because it was legal. That’s a stupid stance to take. What’s the point of electing people if laws are the be all end all? What’s the point of this discussion?


----------



## sakinago (Nov 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 No that’s what you wish, and need to tell yourself, because you don’t have a consistent point. I don’t want anybody’s feelings to determine law, Which they clearly have and do it now. It wasn’t a  constitutionally legal decision to install Doma, And either it was wrong to repeal Delmar on the fact that it should be states rights, or it was wrong to say that states have no say in the matter two years later. Clearly there’s definite feelings coming into play there if the Supreme Court is going against its own decision two years after the fact.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Not in the slightest.  You want your feelings to dominate the law, which won't happen.
> ...


I don't have to.  You asked a question, and I told you to consult the law.  That you may not like the law means nothing.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2017)

sakinago said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > sakinago said:
> ...


You are not a Judge, sak, not in the least.  DOMA is the law of the land, and you are going to have to live with it.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 2, 2017)

sakinago said:


> No that’s what you wish, and need to tell yourself, because you don’t have a consistent point. I don’t want anybody’s feelings to determine law, Which they clearly have and do it now. It wasn’t a  constitutionally legal decision to install Doma, *And either it was wrong to repeal Delmar on the fact that it should be states rights, or it was wrong to say that states have no say in the matter two years later*. Clearly there’s definite feelings coming into play there if the Supreme Court is going against its own decision two years after the fact.



I brought up that little snag before.  They repealed DOMA 2013 in Windsor based on it being state's rights and then said states have no say in the marriage definition as you say, just two years later 2015 in Obergefell.  That is complete bullshit and in fact the fed telling states how their moral structure should be tailored.  That is the fed defining a set of moral edicts for the governed; which is completely disallowed in the Constitution.  This is about behaviors that people find either supported or objectionable.  That decision rests with the many, not five drippingly-in-the-pocket-of-LGBT Justices in DC.  The CA Constitution in fact still says that marriage is between a man and a woman only.  That is because in order to repeal that, the legislators there need the permission of their constituents WHICH THEY STILL DO NOT HAVE. 

Here's what it says, acknowledging the decision was made not legally according to CA state law, but instead judicially:

Article I, Sec. 7.5:  Codes Display Text



> Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
> 
> _(Sec. 7.5 added Nov. 4, 2008, by Prop. 8. Initiative measure. Note: Ruled unconstitutional per Perry v. Schwarzenegger (N.D.Cal. 2010) 704 F.Supp.2d 921.) _



Prop 8 defines marriage in CA.  Period, according to Windsor 2013.  And if not, then Windsor is de facto overturned.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 2, 2017)

Which they did in Windsor..^^


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> 1.  No, the court did not repeat Winsdor on that basis.  That's a lie.
> 
> 2.  Obergefell two years later cleared up the misconceptions of the Sils and Saks of the world.
> 
> SCOTUS has every right to tell their states to comport with constitutional law.


And they did, in Windsor.  Read this OP for direct quotes about who defines state marriage laws:  Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Here's what the CA Constitution says to this very minute, acknowledging the decision was made not legally according to CA state law, but instead judicially:

Article I, Sec. 7.5:  Codes Display Text



> Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
> 
> _(Sec. 7.5 added Nov. 4, 2008, by Prop. 8. Initiative measure. Note: Ruled unconstitutional per Perry v. Schwarzenegger (N.D.Cal. 2010) 704 F.Supp.2d 921.) _



Prop 8 defines marriage in CA.  Period, according to Windsor 2013.  And if not, then Windsor is de facto overturned.


----------



## sakinago (Nov 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


It means that I disagree with it, and you are apparently indifferent to it (I doubt this very much). I’m guessing your indifferent when it doesn’t hurt your side, but will be very vocal when you don’t like the law yourself. And that’s the whole point of the OP, not what is the current law, but why is this law ok applied to this case but not this case, and we think the law is not being practiced as it should be, or straight up skewed against one side vs the other. 

...and DOMA is law of the land???? Since when, it was struck down a while ago...do you need to look up DOMA again? I thought it was common knowledge.


----------



## sakinago (Nov 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


I’m for gay marriage, and polygamy. Government should have no say in the matter of marriage, never should have to begin with. especially when a church had no problem marrying a gay couple, that’s their free exercise of religion. I believe store owners should absolutely have the right to deny service for whatever reason, even if I don’t like it or agree with their reason (it’s also bad business practice). But if a gay baker wants to kick jerry Falwell out or members of the west-boro Baptist church, I think he’sshould have every right to do so. Or a Jewish democratic DJ/caterer should be able to decline preforming/catering a pig roast fundraiser for trump.


----------



## sakinago (Nov 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil and sak, neither of you are an authority on it.  Sil has been corrected dozens of times in the past by lawyers on the Board here of her misreading of _Windsor_.  Her take is not supported by case law.


I’m not talking about what the freaking law says. I’m talking about what is fair, equal and free, I’ve stated this many times. You keep running to the law because you don’t have a consistent point on the matter. 

Again Jim Crow wasn’t right just because it was law, same with slavery, same with whatever other horrible law you can think of. I’m not talking about what the law says.


----------



## sakinago (Nov 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil and sak, neither of you are an authority on it.  Sil has been corrected dozens of times in the past by lawyers on the Board here of her misreading of _Windsor_.  Her take is not supported by case law.


And case law is always changing haha. You could find 5 cases where a judge ruled this way, and another 5 they ruled against. Does it help you if you’ve found a case to go in your favor, yes, but the reason there is so much case law out there is because it keeps changing, different circumstances arise, are applied, or ignored. New laws pass, upheld, or repealed. It’s all shifting. So if one judge rules one way in this certain case...that doesn’t mean that judge got it right, or that every judge after has to rule in that same exact way. Might as well call it fad law, because that’s what it’s become recently.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2017)

sakinago said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Sil and sak, neither of you are an authority on it.  Sil has been corrected dozens of times in the past by lawyers on the Board here of her misreading of _Windsor_.  Her take is not supported by case law.
> ...


What you are suggesting here is not the equivalent of slavery: you are not a slave.  That is certainly consistent with the facts of the matter.  If you are in business holding out service or goods to the public, then you can be governed by PA laws.  Your thinking is unethical to think that you should not treat customers equally.

That you don't understand the principle of law is your problem.


----------



## hadit (Nov 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The problem with PA laws arises when they are unequally applied. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sakinago (Nov 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


I’m not comparing this too slavery, I used it as an expample of why I’m not arguing on what the law is because it’s useless. Stop throwing out red herrings. 

And no I think it’s unethical to treat employees different based on color or creed or whatever...but if say Weinstein walked into my store, I should have a right to refuse service. Basically government should not be in the business of picking one group over the other, and especially not in the business of forcing people to do something they are ethically against themselves.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2017)

sakinago said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > sakinago said:
> ...


You brought up slavery, so you will own the remark, sak.  You do not have a singular right to not serve Weinstein if the law says you should serve him.  You need to stop putting yourself above the law, or the law may end up putting you under it.


----------



## sakinago (Nov 3, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Oh god you can’t even have a remotely honest conversation, “YOU brought up slavery, so YOU have to own it.” Hahaha give me a break. Yes I did bring it up, and I said just because slavery was legal didn’t make it right, it’s an easy point to understand...UNLESS, the only response your capable of making to that is a strawman argument, “are you comparing this to slavery.” Puhlease. 

And riddle me this Batman, if people need to stop putting themselves above the law...then do you not agree that we have to deport any and all illegal aliens, no excuses, no exceptions, the law is the law. So we SHOULD be finding and deporting them, and Donald trump is RIGHT about the matter. No more of this turning a blind eye to it???? Hmm???


----------



## sakinago (Nov 3, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> sak, you inconsistent chattering is not a narrative.  You make statements, I will make you own them.  Just the way it is.
> 
> You have trouble with fallacies as well.  You not being above the law has nothing to do with anyone else's deportation: that simply is not your worry.
> 
> Now please own your comments.  When you ad hom, you admit you have lost control of the discussion.


I missing the ad hominem. I don’t think you know what that is. E.G. “you shouldn’t smoke, its bad for your health.” AD HOM response: “you’re not a doctor, you don’t know what you’re talking about, you’re wrong, smoking is fine.” 

Here’s an example of starkey using an ad hom in this thread...multiple times. “Sak and sil are not the authorities on the matter.” “You are not above the law.”

And once again my position isn’t on what the law is, it’s my disagreement with the law, and how he law can be applied. In other words policy. Attack the facts of a case, if you can’t attack facts, attack the law, if you can’t attack the law, attack the policy. And yea I own what I say, and what I say and the points I’m making are obvious. It’s even more obvious that you have to make a strawman out of that point to avoid it. 

And what’s even more obvious is you keep ignoring this question. If no one is above the law, then jake, then obviously you must be for deportation as stated by the law of all illegal aliens. Do you agree with this yes or no?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 3, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> I offer the legal precedent here: Court: Phoenix wedding invitation designers must serve LGBT customers
> 
> Given: Gay is behavioral.  Google "Anne Heche" for details..  Or for more extensive arguments (with over 300 peer-reviewed corroborating studies referenced at the end) this: *"Conditioning and Sexual BEHAVIOR, a Review"  *
> James G. Pfaus,Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
> ...


Practicing Christianity is a learned, conditioned behavior


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 3, 2017)

sak, being smarmy and denying that your _ad homming_ only reflects badly on you.  I understand you are disappointed with the law, but that is immaterial to what we are discussing.  If you want the law change, just like I told Sil, lobby the lege.

I don't care that you oppose it, because, in fact, I support the law.

Your fallacy of false equivalency as it pertains to deportation has been noted, overruled, and discarded.

Please be original and in harmony with the OP.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 3, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Practicing Christianity is a learned, conditioned behavior



That happens to be enumerated and protected in the US Constitution.  If you belong to the cult of deviant butt sex, start petitioning your representative for the 2/3rds majority vote to amend the constitution to include your cult.  Or, failing that, at least go through the motions of obtaining official recognition for your particular set of learned conditioned behaviors "as religion".

You'll never get the 1st Amendment repealed, so the only thing you can do to try to make local PA laws dominant to the Constitutional protections is to officially declare LGBT-whatever... a religion.  I was saying this long ago if you recall.

What I know your cult CANNOT do is use law to elevate one set of learned conditioned behaviors (as religion or unrecognized cult) over the other "as preferred".  Es ist verboten.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 3, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Only you, in your deluded hatred of homosexuality, Sil, thinks LGBTQ is a religion.


What else would make people suspend facts and use the lower intestinal tract as an artificial vagina, rife with rapidly absorbing cells that allow large particles directly into the bloodstream, to be the best vector for HIV transmission (death)?  Who but a zealot would risk death on a regular basis and teach other youngsters that "risking death is OK, venerated, noble!" for his set of beliefs and habitual behaviors?


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 3, 2017)

I agree.  Any culture that teaches, via socially-sanctioned example or outright tutoring, it's youngsters to practice a deviant sexual behavior that results in increase of their predictable death IS insane.

And, should Christians be forced to promote such a dogma utterly repugnant to their own?


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 3, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Your hatred of homosexuality, Sil, is insane.


You could prove I hated homosexuality and that wouldn't affect the topic of the thread here one iota.  *The topic of the thread is *_*"should it be OK to force people to promote another sect's value system which is wholly repugnant to their own?"* _And_, *"can local PA laws eradicate Christians' enjoyment of their 1st Amendment rights?* _And_, *"can local PA laws act as a de facto state-promoted set of edicts (religion) dominant to others?"*
_
Please try to stay on topic and avoid ad hominems.  You are familiar with the rules here?


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 3, 2017)

*You need to DO this discussion without making it personal. Nobody wants to read through that garbage. 
Don't argue the validity of alternative facts. They ACTUALLY EXIST in science all the time. And don't make it about how YOU think some other poster "feels". *


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 3, 2017)

The facts are clear.  I support the law.  I support Windsor.  I support SCOTUS's findings.

No, AZ should not force anyone to promote religious ideals against sexuality.  Those who are religiously opposed to LGBTQ cannot force their ideals on everyone else.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 3, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> The facts are clear.  I support the law.  I support Windsor.  I support SCOTUS's findings.
> 
> *No, AZ should not force anyone to promote religious ideals against sexuality*.  Those who are religiously opposed to LGBTQ cannot force their ideals on everyone else.



Nor should AZ force anyone to promote sexuality ideals against religion.  Equal application of law.  Anything less would be the state favoring one set of ideals over the other in law.  Which ist verboten.

So if you support Windsor, then you also support that decision finding no less than 56 times that it's up to the states to define marriage.  Obergefell overturned that decision just two years later...  Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 3, 2017)

That makes no sense.  The law is clear, your logic is not.

Your misreading of Windsor is not my concern, but it certainly is yours.  Obergefell is the law, and that is not going to change anytime soon.


----------



## OnePercenter (Nov 3, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...



Both practice hate.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 3, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> The facts are clear.  I support the law.  I support Windsor.  I support SCOTUS's findings.
> 
> *No, AZ should not force anyone to promote religious ideals against sexuality*.  Those who are religiously opposed to LGBTQ cannot force their ideals on everyone else.





Silhouette said:


> Nor should AZ force anyone to promote sexuality ideals against religion.  Equal application of law.  Anything less would be the state favoring one set of ideals over the other in law.  Which ist verboten.
> 
> So if you support Windsor, then you also support that decision finding no less than 56 times that it's up to the states to define marriage.  Obergefell overturned that decision just two years later...  Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?





JakeStarkey said:


> That makes no sense.  The law is clear, your logic is not.
> 
> Your misreading of Windsor is not my concern, but it certainly is yours.  *Obergefell is the law, and that is not going to change anytime soon*.



Why not?  Windsor was fundamentally overruled in two years by Obergefell.  Windsor said _"states decide which is why we award Windsor her win.  New York decided so federal limitations/definitions of marriage DOMA are overruled."_  Then Obergefell said just two years later _"the fed decides marriage now, states are overruled."
_
The two cannot exist in the same legal universe_.  _Either Windsor or Obergefell is defunct.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 3, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> I offer the legal precedent here: Court: Phoenix wedding invitation designers must serve LGBT customers
> 
> Given: Gay is behavioral. .



Given: Silhouette obsesses over homosexuality and will say anything to promote intolerance.

Given: Silhouette never knows what the law ever means but simply makes things up to suit her agenda

Given: Silhouette is a sad sick little person.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 3, 2017)

hadit said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > sakinago said:
> ...



From what I have observed- 'unequally applied' normally is code for "Christians being asked to follow PA laws also"


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 3, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The facts are clear.  I support the law.  I support Windsor.  I support SCOTUS's findings.
> ...


Windsor was not overturned as you see it.  On that, you are simply wrong.  Windsor is right within the compass of Obergefell.

Certain Christian groups think having to follow the law for all is somehow unequal application to them.

Sillies.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 3, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The facts are clear.  I support the law.  I support Windsor.  I support SCOTUS's findings.
> ...



Once again- Silhouette just displays both her ignorance of the law- and her profound faculty for lying to promote her own anti-gay agenda.

Here is what Windsor said:
_The Court held that the Constitution prevented the federal government from treating state-sanctioned heterosexual marriages differently from state-sanctioned same-sex marriages, and that such differentiation "demean[ed] the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects."[_
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor#cite_note-62
And Obergefell referred Windsor 14 times- such as:
in _United States _v. _Windsor_, 570 U. S. ___ (2013), this Court invalidated DOMA to the extent it barred the Federal Government from treating same-sex marriages as valid even when they were lawful in the State where they were licensed. DOMA, the Court held, impermissibly disparaged those same-sex couples “who wanted to affirm their commitment to one another before their children, their family, their friends, and their community.” _Id.,_ at ___ (slip op., at 14).

Not only does Obergefell not contradict Windsor- Obergefell cites the arguments in Windsor in support of the very correct decision to treat same gender couples equally with opposite gender couples.

No matter how much you stomp your feet- you are still just a bigot.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 3, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The facts are clear.  I support the law.  I support Windsor.  I support SCOTUS's findings.
> ...



Nor does Arizona promote any 'sexuality ideals'- Arizona has laws that prevent discrimination against Christians(for their faith) and gays(for their sexual orientation)

Why do you have a problem with that?


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 3, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Well so far we've got a "yes", "no" and "maybe".  Quite the spread.  So you see, there is some confusion in how these PC laws apply across the board..



I see Sil's court ordered sensitivity training didn't take hold.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 3, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Arizona has laws that prevent discrimination against Christians(for their faith) and gays(for their sexual orientation)
> 
> Why do you have a problem with that?



If you require someone to defy their faith in order to accommodate another person's behaviors, then you have set one set of edicts above another in law.  That isn't allowed in American law.  And yes, I do have a problem with that.

Sexual orientation.  Heroin orientation.  Bulimia orientation, whatever.  You cannot compel other people to support those behaviors against the edicts of their faith.  As to homosexual habit, consult Jude 1 of the New Testament of Jesus Christ.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 3, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Arizona has laws that prevent discrimination against Christians(for their faith) and gays(for their sexual orientation)
> ...



So you have a problem with Arizona's law that prevent discrimination against Christians for their faith. 

Fascinating.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 3, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Arizona has laws that prevent discrimination against Christians(for their faith) and gays(for their sexual orientation)
> 
> Why do you have a problem with that?





Silhouette said:


> If you require someone to defy their faith in order to accommodate another person's behaviors, then you have set one set of edicts above another in law.  That isn't allowed in American law.  And yes, I do have a problem with that.
> 
> Sexual orientation. Heroin orientation. Bulimia orientation, whatever. You cannot compel other people to support those behaviors against the edicts of their faith. As to homosexual habit, consult Jude 1 of the New Testament of Jesus Christ.





Syriusly said:


> So you have a problem with Arizona's law that prevent discrimination against Christians for their faith.
> 
> Fascinating.



I have a problem with a state enacting a law that sets one set of behavioral edicts as dominant to another set.  It's not allowed.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 3, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Arizona has laws that prevent discrimination against Christians(for their faith) and gays(for their sexual orientation)
> ...



Great- so you don't have a problem with Arizona's law then.


----------



## sakinago (Nov 3, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


So do you have a problem with deportation laws?


----------



## Montrovant (Nov 3, 2017)

mdk said:


> I would accept that graphic design job in a hot minute. When I got home I would spread the money all over the bed and then have gay sex on it.



This may be my favorite post of 2017.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 4, 2017)

OnePercenter said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...


No they don't. Your sins are your own in both Christianity and Judaism but you take that as hate when another wants no part of you and your personal demons. A big difference there that you and the others refuse to recognize..


----------



## jillian (Nov 4, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> I offer the legal precedent here: Court: Phoenix wedding invitation designers must serve LGBT customers
> 
> Given: Gay is behavioral.  Google "Anne Heche" for details..  Or for more extensive arguments (with over 300 peer-reviewed corroborating studies referenced at the end) this: *"Conditioning and Sexual BEHAVIOR, a Review"  *
> James G. Pfaus,Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
> ...



who says so-called christians have to "promote"?

you don't get to run a business open to the public and exclude a group because of your bigotry.

this has been determined already.

bur you can simmer in your own hate-filled insanity as long as you like... just leave normal people alone while you do it.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 4, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Arizona has laws that prevent discrimination against Christians(for their faith) and gays(for their sexual orientation)
> 
> Why do you have a problem with that?





Silhouette said:


> If you require someone to defy their faith in order to accommodate another person's behaviors, then you have set one set of edicts above another in law.  That isn't allowed in American law.  And yes, I do have a problem with that.





Syriusly said:


> So you have a problem with Arizona's law that prevent discrimination against Christians for their faith.
> 
> Fascinating.





sakinago said:


> So do you have a problem with deportation laws?



^^ Notices Syriusly didn't answer sakinago's question...


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 4, 2017)

jillian said:


> who says so-called christians have to "promote"?
> 
> you don't get to run a business open to the public and exclude a group because of your bigotry.
> 
> this has been determined already...



When Christians are told they must not participate in expanding or enabling the spread of homosexuality as a social value (see Jude 1 New Testament) under pain of eternal damnation for failure to adhere....forcing them to participate in any way in a "gay wedding" (marriage = the epitome of the network of social values), then they are de facto promoting that value against their will and faith.

So how did you vote in the poll above if you feel no one can exclude another group in their business sales?  Did you vote "yes" or "no" on whether gays should be legally forced to print a billboard that says "homosexuality is a sin unto God" for a Christian who walked through their door?  Just curious.

You understand that no state may pass a law that elevates one set of moral edicts over another, yes?  That's legally forbidden.


----------



## hadit (Nov 4, 2017)

jillian said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > I offer the legal precedent here: Court: Phoenix wedding invitation designers must serve LGBT customers
> ...



That sounds like one vote for forcing a gay billboard owner to post Bible verses that condemn homosexuality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jillian (Nov 4, 2017)

hadit said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



 interesting  argument.  Show a clear lack of understanding of the law but whatever.


----------



## jillian (Nov 4, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > who says so-called christians have to "promote"?
> ...



Well muslims and Orthodox Jews aren't allowed to handle pork. Guess what. They can't go work for a butcher and demand the butcher stop selling pork. That's life.

If their beliefs prohibit them from doing a job they shouldn't do it.

Although I'm still not sure how writing Congratulations Steve and Andrew on a cake is doing anything more than writing Congratulations Steve and Andrew on the cake.

But feel free to find another line of work.

You do realize this has been fully litigated already and now it's time for the religious zealots to stop throwing temper tantrums.


----------



## hadit (Nov 4, 2017)

jillian said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Consider what you said. "You don't get to run a business open to the public and exclude a group because of your bigotry". That can only mean that you are in favor of forcing a gay billboard owner to put up Bible verses condemning homosexuality if someone wants to rent the space to say it.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 4, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Arizona has laws that prevent discrimination against Christians(for their faith) and gays(for their sexual orientation)
> ...


Notices I hadn't read sakinago's post. 

LOL


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 4, 2017)

sakinago said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Great straw man! 

a) What does that have to do with laws that prevent discrimination against Christians?
b) What deportation laws- specifically?


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 4, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...



You have a GOP candidate for Senate who wants to make homosexuality illegal- because of his Christians faith.

There is a big difference- gays in America are not advocating making Christianity illegal.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 4, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > who says so-called christians have to "promote"?
> ...



Except Christians are not told any such thing in Jude 1- you are just lying again.

Christians are told that they are to obey the law- which you always conveniently forget.

Hell according to Jesus, Donald Trump is an adulterer- and yet Christians have no problem with his marriage.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 4, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...


That depends on which gays and atheist you are talking to. Homosexuality used to be illegal and if people realize a threat against their children, grandchildren, great grands, etc. and if this big push keeps going to take out small business who refuse to cater to a few gays the people will eventually lash out demanding retribution.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 4, 2017)

The law of God is more important to many people these days verses the fascist laws that a few have pressed on the people but hey its your choice to keep pushing if that is what y'all want.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 4, 2017)

hadit said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



That would be an interesting legal question. 

Would the bill board operator(doesn't matter whether he is gay or straight- Christian or atheist) be refusing to do business because of the religious content? That would be just as illegal as a  bill board operator refusing to post quotes from the Koran because of their religious content?

Or is it because the bill board operator disagrees with the actual content of the message for non-religious reason?
Some examples:
_As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise."
Or
If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."_

Rejected for because of religion? Or rejected because of the advocacy of violence? 

Feel free to go find that gay bill board operator and test the law.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 4, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...



Feel free to show me any gay or atheist candidate for Senate who is telling people that Christian conduct should be illegal- like the darling of the Radical Right- Roy Moore- has done.

Yes- homosexuality did use to be illegal - which makes your pathetic narrative of the gays being the ones promoting hate so stupid- you Christians passed laws to put gays in jail.

And you are stupid enough to believe that if Christians have to follow the same laws as everyone else- 'the people will eventually lash out demanding retribution'.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 4, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> The law of God is more important to many people these days verses the fascist laws that a few have pressed on the people but hey its your choice to keep pushing if that is what y'all want.



Yeah- those Islamic Terrorists do keep telling us that the law of God is more important to them than the law. of man. 

Fascinating that you believe in the same narrative.


----------



## hadit (Nov 4, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



It doesn't have to be anything about violence. There are Bible verses that simply condemn homosexuality. In this case the customer would want to put them up. Does the billboard operator have the right to refuse?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 4, 2017)

hadit said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Feel free to post that quote and I will tell you.


----------



## xotoxi (Nov 4, 2017)

No one who owns a company open to the public should be forced to provide services to those with whom they disagree.

At the same time, the government should not be forced to give these people business licenses.

If these people do not want to provide services to gays, then they have the option to close their business.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 4, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Feel free to show me any gay or atheist candidate for Senate who is telling people that Christian conduct should be illegal- like the darling of the Radical Right- Roy Moore- has done.
> 
> Yes- homosexuality did use to be illegal - which makes your pathetic narrative of the gays being the ones promoting hate so stupid- you Christians passed laws to put gays in jail.
> 
> And you are stupid enough to believe that if Christians have to follow the same laws as everyone else- 'the people will eventually lash out demanding retribution'.


I go by a legislators actions not by what they do not say. Your equating hatred with refusal to partake is something you will have to overcome as the majority are ultimately not going to partake in what you are pushing. Gays that break the law just like anyone else who breaks the law. I could go back through post on this board where gays or their supporters have said all sorts of crazy crap about me or have made false claims against me. Your labeling days and propaganda pushing for everyone being force to accept your personal problems as their own are about to come to an end.



Syriusly said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah- those Islamic Terrorists do keep telling us that the law of God is more important to them than the law. of man.
> ...


Yes and Islam is not Christianity so you crap as usual is moot


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 4, 2017)

xotoxi said:


> No one who owns a company open to the public should be forced to provide services to those with whom they disagree.
> 
> At the same time, the government should not be forced to give these people business licenses.
> 
> If these people do not want to provide services to gays, then they have the option to close their business.


So you want to use that same hammer on gays who refuse to print billboards for Christians that say "Homosexuality is a sin unto God!" ?

Because if you want an exception in that case, that means you want the state to prefer one set of values (faith edicts) over another. And that is Constitutionally-disallowed.


----------



## jillian (Nov 4, 2017)

hadit said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



You were already answered. I'm not going to belabor your absurd point.


----------



## Montrovant (Nov 4, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > No one who owns a company open to the public should be forced to provide services to those with whom they disagree.
> ...



Are you still trying to argue that homosexuality is a religion, Silly?


----------



## xotoxi (Nov 5, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > No one who owns a company open to the public should be forced to provide services to those with whom they disagree.
> ...



Your example is poor. 

If one said to a baker: "is it personally objectionable for you to bake a cake?" the answer would be "NO"  There is no difference between baking a cake for straights, gays, blacks, whites, or to be launched by a catapult at a wall. 

If one said to a graphic designer:  "is it personally objectionable to make a sign saying 'Homosexuality is a sin'?" the answer may be yet, regardless of who is asking them to do it.


----------



## sakinago (Nov 5, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


You’re arguing on what the law states. My position is not in what it states but whether or not the law is a good law, and even the policy of executing the law. That’s not a strawman, how can asking what your views are of a different law, to illustrate my point that I disagree with the law (so stop hiding behind it), be a strawman? It’s not a strawman, I’m not mistating your point to make it a weaker position, I didn’t even bring up your point...if anything you could argue that it’s a red herring, it’s not, maybe false equivalency, it’s also not that since my point is not arguing what is the law, but whether or not I agree with it (and if you don’t like deportation laws, any of them) then I have you where I want you. 

And we’ll say deporting a family that came here illegally, as if it matters, Im sure you have some objection to the law/policy.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 5, 2017)

hadit said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


If that some one is a religious group or person which is protected by PA laws.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 5, 2017)

sakinago said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > sakinago said:
> ...


If you believe a law is wrong...you should be working to get it repealed.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 5, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Feel free to show me any gay or atheist candidate for Senate who is telling people that Christian conduct should be illegal- like the darling of the Radical Right- Roy Moore- has done.
> ...


They are both religions.


----------



## sakinago (Nov 5, 2017)

xotoxi said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...


It’s not just any cake, it’s a specially customized cake for a wedding ceremony, that’s WAY different than saying hey I want a chocolate ice cream cake, or a muffin, or whatever. If the KKK had a ceremony where they pay a homeless black guy a couple hundred if he lets them pie him in the face, and they went to a black baker who knew about this ceremony, and asked for a run of the mill pie, shouldn’t that Baker have a right to say hell no. 

It’s not whether or not the purchaser finds if objectionable, it’s the seller. I don’t find pork objectionable, but there could be a Muslim or Jewish butcher who does, and doesn’t want to slaughter a pig, shouldnt they be able to say no, I have a religious problem with this, even though I’m not eating it, you’re still asking me to slaughter a pig which goes against my religious teachings.


----------



## sakinago (Nov 5, 2017)

bodecea said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


So you should also shut up about whatever law you disagree and instead work to get it repealed?? That’s pretty much what I heard you say to me. You didn’t say shut up about it, but there is nothing else outside of “stop debating the law” to be inferred from your last post. Which is why I’m saying it’s such a weak posistion to hide behind the law (if that’s all you can do) which has been pretty much everyone. It’s never been well it’s right in this case but wrong in this case. It’s been it’s right when applied this way in this case, but even though there’s discrimination when not applied the same way in this case, it’s still right because the law says so.


----------



## hadit (Nov 5, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Romans 1:26,27.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.


----------



## hadit (Nov 5, 2017)

jillian said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



I'm just working with what you gave me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hadit (Nov 5, 2017)

bodecea said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Not talking about the legal aspects, I'm talking about the moral and ethical aspects. If a Christian business owner can be forced to write celebratory messages about homosexuality on a cake, should a gay business owner be forced to post Bible verses condemning homosexuality? It's an easy yes or no question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## xotoxi (Nov 5, 2017)

sakinago said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Since when are wedding cakes personally customized?

I don't really think that the KKK would have a pie specially baked by a baker for the event you are proposing.  They would buy one off the shelf.  Or they would have one of their bitches bake it.

When would a Muslim or Jewish butcher have pork products in their establishment?  And when would a butcher allow meat from outside their establishment be brought in to be butchered?

Your examples are weak and unrealistic.


----------



## xotoxi (Nov 5, 2017)

hadit said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Are people being asked to write pro-homosexual messages on the cake, or are they just being asked to bake the cake?


----------



## deanrd (Nov 5, 2017)

hadit said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB)
_If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
_
According to you, if a man rapes a woman, he has to marry her and they can never be divorced.
Do you realize how many women Donald Trump would have to marry if he married all the women he assaulted?
Besides, the fact you think a rape victim should be forced to marry the man who raped her means you are one sick fu............


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 5, 2017)

hadit said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Why would anyone object to a wholesome story of how God drove people to lust after others?

But to answer your question directly- again- it depends. 

If the Billboard operator refused to put up anything that refers to sex or sex acts on their billboard- then there is no foul- no violation of the PA laws if he refuses this post from the New Testament.

If the Billboard operator refuses it because he objects to the religious content of the message- then he runs afoul of the PA laws.

By the way- lets look at more of that verse- shall we?

_*21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
*_
[so some people didn't glorify god, and looked at images of birds and animals and people}

*24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.*

[So in punishment, God had them filled full of lust}
*

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.*

[So God punished  men by inflaming them with lust for other men- and committing shameful acts with other men]

_*28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.*_
*
.....They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;*_*.....*_
*
Yes-  so God punished those who didn't worship him by leading them to gay sex- and disobeying their parents- and gossiping. *

*Because- God- and I supposed Christians by extension- know that those who do such things deserve death*_*.*_

*Do you believe that gossipers deserve death? What about those who disobey their parents?*

*As it calls for here in Romans?*_*


*_


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 5, 2017)

hadit said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



I thought you were going to post a quote from the Bible that condemns homosexuality?


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 5, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Feel free to show me any gay or atheist candidate for Senate who is telling people that Christian conduct should be illegal- like the darling of the Radical Right- Roy Moore- has done.
> ...



LOL- so you don't care if a Christian is advocating putting homosexuals in jail. Just so long as he doesn't actually take action.

Like you don't care if anyone were to say that Christian Church's should have to pay taxes if they discriminate against gays.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 5, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> [Q
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> ...



Yet you and ISIS find common ground on both homosexuals and that the law of God is more important than the law of man.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 5, 2017)

Montrovant said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...



LOL- the funny thing is that if homosexuality was a religion- gays in America would be as protected from discrimination by the law as Christians are. 

But of course neither is true.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 5, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > [Q
> ...


And which one has commandments from God that says thou shalt not kill? Islam doesn't have that. It is not my problem you cannot read or understand that the Bible does not promote murder but in fact commands that it shall not be done. Islamist on the other hand promotes murder. The law of God is fulfilled within the spirit but yet you deny that too as you push to force people to accept and join you in your personal aberrations which they want no part of. You are free to eat your own dung but you are not free to make me sit down and eat it with you and like it.


----------



## sakinago (Nov 5, 2017)

xotoxi said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...


And they’re also hypos, there is still a principle at play that (since you cannot answer the hypo), I have to assume you want to apply the principle differently when it does not fit your world view....which would mean you lack principle, you operate on interests. A hypo is supposed to be a hypothetical situation (for lack of a better term). It’s there to make you think. 

And if I killed a pig, it is not at all uncommon that someone would take it to a butcher...happens ALL THE TIME.


----------



## jillian (Nov 5, 2017)

hadit said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



No. You aren't.


----------



## hadit (Nov 5, 2017)

xotoxi said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



The two are not exclusive.


----------



## hadit (Nov 5, 2017)

deanrd said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Your mind reading is incredibly weak. Here's a hint. I'm not Jewish.  A little presumptuous to assume I am, wouldn't you think?


----------



## xotoxi (Nov 5, 2017)

sakinago said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > sakinago said:
> ...



Okay.  Let's address your "hypos".

The gay billboard designer can refuse to print the words "Homosexuality is a sin" if he chooses, but he cannot completely refuse service and instead should offer an alternative to the customer.

The homophobic baker can refuse to print words on the cake which he is against, and can even refuse to put a cake topper with two men, but he cannot completely refuse service, and should make a nice cake.

That's my opinion on the matter.


----------



## hadit (Nov 5, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Note, of course, that nowhere are Christians called to kill disbelievers. But hey, don't let that slow you down.


----------



## xotoxi (Nov 5, 2017)

hadit said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Do these bakers realize that when they bake a cake for a heterosexual wedding, there is a better chance than not that their cake is going to be consumed by several gays?


----------



## hadit (Nov 5, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I did. Do you take from that passage that God celebrates it?


----------



## hadit (Nov 5, 2017)

jillian said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



I quoted from your post. Perhaps you didn't mean what you wrote.


----------



## hadit (Nov 5, 2017)

xotoxi said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...



Why ask me? I'm not a baker.


----------



## xotoxi (Nov 5, 2017)

hadit said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Then how do you know that writing message on a cake and baking a cake are not exclusive.

Are you a baker or not?


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 5, 2017)

sakinago said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > sakinago said:
> ...



Definition Straw man argument

A *straw man* is a common form of *argument* and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's *argument*, while refuting an *argument* that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a *straw man*".

Yep- you want to derail the topic by bringing up something I haven't discussed- and am not discussing.

You disagree with public accommodation laws? Fine- then push to have them changed. You can start with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

But meantime the law applies to Christians just as it applies to everyone else. 

And yes- there are laws i disagree with. Which has nothing to do with public accommodation laws.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 5, 2017)

sakinago said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



A baker that sells wedding cakes can't refuse to sell them to Jews just because he has a religious problem with Jews.
A baker that doesn't sell wedding cakes can absolutely refuse to sell wedding cakes to anyone. 
A butcher that doesn't butcher pigs- doesn't have any obligation to butcher pigs.

Really stupid argument has been made over and over- and its just as stupid today as it was the first time.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 5, 2017)

hadit said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Still waiting for a verse that condemns homosexuality.

You have given us a verse that has God 'gave them over to shameful lusts'- not actually condemning homosexuality at all.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 5, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...



Wow- I guess Christians never kill then. 

Here is the thing- i compared you with ISIS- not with Muslims. 

Because like ISIS- you find common ground on both homosexuals and that the law of God is more important than the law of man.

Even though the New Testament says very clearly that Christians are to obey the laws of man.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 5, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...



The Bible doesn't 'promote murder' any more than the Koran does- the Bible calls for the death of gossips- and those who disobey their parents.

_*28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
*_


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 5, 2017)

sakinago said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > sakinago said:
> ...



And then you find a butcher that butchers hogs- or advertises that he will butcher all animals.

But if the butcher doesn't butcher hogs- or dogs- or bunnies- he is under no obligation to butcher them just because you bring it to him.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 6, 2017)

hadit said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Note of course that Christians are called to execute gossipers and thoee who disobey their parents.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 6, 2017)

hadit said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



I see a passage that condemns Christians who don't worship God enough- and look at graven images of humans and animals.


----------



## hadit (Nov 6, 2017)

xotoxi said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...



That's just common sense.


----------



## hadit (Nov 6, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



What else do you take from it, that He approves of something He calls shameful?


----------



## hadit (Nov 6, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



No, they are not. Do you need an exhaustive dissertation on Christians and the Mosaic Law?


----------



## hadit (Nov 6, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Those are not Christians that God is condemning.


----------



## jillian (Nov 6, 2017)

hadit said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



there is no where in the NT where Jesus says anything about homosexuality.

and there is no mandate that anyone be a bigoted creep. and no one has to tolerate that type of bigotry.

but please let us know where christians in this country are prohibited from following their religion.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 6, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Nazi's, Communist and Marxist made what was illegal legal for they could slaughter millions, abuse the poor and steal wealth from decent people, so, FY&YL.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 6, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


That is describing you to a T. Deserving death and murdering you are not one in the same. Not only that but Christians and Jewish folks that follow the tenants of the written word knowing that "thou shall not kill [murder]" and God's laws are fulfilled by the spirit. That is why you are given over to your own depravity which puts your personal issues back on you.


----------



## hadit (Nov 6, 2017)

jillian said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



That's not what I've been saying, and you know that. I've been saying that it's neither ethical nor moral to force a Christian business owner to operate against his moral code, but not a homosexual business owner.


----------



## Dragonlady (Nov 6, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Of course your premise is false.
> ...



No you didn’t. There is much evidence that it is in the DNA. 

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/homosexuality-may-be-caused-chemical-modifications-dna

Cross-Cultural Evidence for the Genetics of Homosexuality

Researchers Find Link Between DNA Marks And Sexual Orientation


----------



## Crixus (Nov 6, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> I offer the legal precedent here: Court: Phoenix wedding invitation designers must serve LGBT customers
> 
> Given: Gay is behavioral.  Google "Anne Heche" for details..  Or for more extensive arguments (with over 300 peer-reviewed corroborating studies referenced at the end) this: *"Conditioning and Sexual BEHAVIOR, a Review"  *
> James G. Pfaus,Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
> ...





Na, Nature itself declairs that homosexuality is literally dead end. Use natural law not gods law.


----------



## Dragonlady (Nov 6, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Actually "sick" or not, the question really is one of legal-fairness (equal rights).  If one person is allowed to expunge the 1st Amendment rights of another, cannot that other also expunge the 1st Amendment rights of the first?  If AZ forces Christians to play along with "gay marriage" (whatever that is since the children involved don't have a guarantee anymore of both a mother and father: the reason marriage was created to benefit states) then AZ must also force gays to play along with repugnant ideals to their own dogma.



Marriage is not just for the raising of children. It is for the aid and comfort of the spouses. There is no evidence needed of fertility to marry.

There is also no guarantee that any child will have two parents.  Half of all marriages end in divorce. Some non-custodial parents don’t bother with the children thereafter. My father died when I was 11. 

This notion that Christian rights are violated because they have to serve gays is bullshit. Unless they are also refusing to serve liars, murderers, blasphemers, and adulterers as well.

Jesus said “Love one another as I have loved you”. He said nothing against homosexuals.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 6, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Actually "sick" or not, the question really is one of legal-fairness (equal rights).  If one person is allowed to expunge the 1st Amendment rights of another, cannot that other also expunge the 1st Amendment rights of the first?  If AZ forces Christians to play along with "gay marriage" (whatever that is since the children involved don't have a guarantee anymore of both a mother and father: the reason marriage was created to benefit states) then AZ must also force gays to play along with repugnant ideals to their own dogma.
> ...


Jesus in no way was implying that anyone should love other peoples sinful nature or join themselves to such behaviors at any time. The word (Jehovah's salvation with us) actually says flee from such and reprove evil.


Ephesians 5: King James Version (KJV)


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 6, 2017)

And you may do so in private association.

In a secular society, you cannot do that in public commerce and other public association.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 6, 2017)

Private businesses and personal services are not public domain.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 6, 2017)

Businesses offering service and goods to the public generally are indeed public domain.

The PA laws in many states make that legal fact even more clear.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 6, 2017)

No they are not in a society with protected rights of individuals. You have the right to be a deviant if that trips your trigger and you do not harm anyone else but you do not have the right to dictate others must find that acceptable. Only a fascist government would claim that private enterprises are public domain.


----------



## Dragonlady (Nov 6, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> No they are not in a society with protected rights of individuals. You have the right to be a deviant if that trips your trigger and you do not harm anyone else but you do not have the right to dictate others must find that acceptable. Only a fascist government would claim that private enterprises are public domain.



The so-called Christians are free to believe whatever they want, but they cannot use their beliefs to deprive others of THEIR rights. 

No one is forcing these people to give up their beliefs. But if they want to do business with the public, they must treat all members of the public with the same respect they would give a straight couple. 

Unless of course they are also refusing to serve other classes of sinners.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 6, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > No they are not in a society with protected rights of individuals. You have the right to be a deviant if that trips your trigger and you do not harm anyone else but you do not have the right to dictate others must find that acceptable. Only a fascist government would claim that private enterprises are public domain.
> ...


Your rights end where my begin. You would be trespassing if you attempt to force me to do something against my beliefs in my own business owned by me. Again private enterprise is not publicly owned. If you desire to force people to accept your personal issues and desires go to a publicly own company like Walmart that pays their employees to serve you not a privately owned enterprise


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 6, 2017)

That others who disagree with you are some how deviant actually reveals your own deviancy.

You do not have the right to make the secular, public world conform to your private concept of it.

That you would reveals your fascist thinking.

I am tired of dealing with Rodishi's used up nonsense: on Ignore.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 6, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > No they are not in a society with protected rights of individuals. You have the right to be a deviant if that trips your trigger and you do not harm anyone else but you do not have the right to dictate others must find that acceptable. Only a fascist government would claim that private enterprises are public domain.
> ...


Damn good deal! Keep me on ignore I appreciate that.

Only a fascist would proclaim that they have the right to overtop another person's religious faith and beliefs.


----------



## hadit (Nov 6, 2017)

It is becoming more and more abundantly clear that the moral and ethical position is to force a gay bill board owner to post anti-homosexual messages if the customer wants it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 6, 2017)

hadit said:


> It is becoming more and more abundantly clear that the moral and ethical position is to force a gay bill board owner to post anti-homosexual messages if the customer wants it.  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If the PA laws allow it; otherwise, nope.


----------



## xotoxi (Nov 6, 2017)

hadit said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



How many wedding cakes have you seen have messages written on them?


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 6, 2017)

hadit said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



How about we ask them all to follow the law.

You know- like the bible tells Christians to do.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 6, 2017)

hadit said:


> It is becoming more and more abundantly clear that the moral and ethical position is to force a gay bill board owner to post anti-homosexual messages if the customer wants it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



In the same way it is being more and more abundently clear that you have no idea what a moral or ethical position is.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 6, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...



Must piss you off that the government tells you that you have to serve African Americans even though they are black.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 6, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Private businesses and personal services are not public domain.



They are public accommodations- and covered by the law.

For the same reason why you can't legally refuse to serve a Jew just because you find their religion offensive- in the few states which have laws against discrimination based upon sexual orientation, you can't refuse to serve homosexuals just because you don't like them.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 6, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Tell us how you have fled Trump's adultery- and 'reproved' Trump's continuing adulterous marriage- please do. 

_ For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.a]">[a] 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7 Therefore do not be partners with them.
_
Don't be partners with a greedy person- or an immoral person.  Great advise. Yet millions of Christians 'partnered' with Donald Trump- the immoral- and greedy person- by voting for him. Personally I think voting for someone is certainly more of a celebration of the persons values than baking a wedding cake. 

But the New Testament does say that Christians are to follow the law- so why are Christians refusing to obey the law- when the Bible doesn't say anywhere that they can't bake a cake for a gay wedding- but the Bible does say to obey the law?

* Romans 13New Century Version (NCV)*
*Christians Should Obey the Law*
13 All of you must yield to the government rulers. No one rules unless God has given him the power to rule, and no one rules now without that power from God.  2 So those who are against the government are really against what God has commanded. And they will bring punishment on themselves. 3 Those who do right do not have to fear the rulers; only those who do wrong fear them. Do you want to be unafraid of the rulers? Then do what is right, and they will praise you. 4 The ruler is God’s servant to help you. But if you do wrong, then be afraid. He has the power to punish; he is God’s servant to punish those who do wrong. 5 So you must yield to the government, not only because you might be punished, but because you know it is right.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 6, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...



You are right- not murder- instead the Bible tells us that God says such people should be executed. 
*God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death,
*
*What is "God's righteous decree"?*

*Paul was referencing the Law out of the Old Testament- here are God's righteous decrees from the OT on these issues:*
*Deuteronomy 21:18–21*
_*If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother*, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his home town. And they shall say to the elders of his city, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.” *Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death;* so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear of it and fear.
_


----------



## Dragonlady (Nov 6, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...



In order to get a business license, you have to agree to abide by the law. It’s a condition of your business license. That means you must abide by public accommodations laws. You cannot bar people you don’t like from using your services. You have to serve people of every race, religion or sexual orientation without discrimination. 

You are not being forced to open a business. That’s a choice you make. The Bible is very clear that citizens must obey the laws of the land. 

You can’t even make a reasonable religious argument for these people. They aren’t discriminating against people who disobey the 10 Commandments which are the ONLY laws that God Himself laid down. Only people who violate one or two Biblical passages written by men. 

There is much in the Bible which is no longer used. Blood sacrifice is now illegal and yet the Bible says to make blood sacrifices. Adulterers aren’t stoned to death. 

Using religion as a basis for one specific type of discrimination is a very dodgy excuse, at best. Especially when the passages used don’t relate to anything that Jesus said or that God laid down in His Commandments. 

Paul, who is the only New Testament writer to eschew homosexuality was not one of the Apostles and never even met or spoke to Jesus so his words carry less weight on the topic than others.


----------



## jillian (Nov 6, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



that would be good. again, Jesus never said a word about gays.


----------



## jillian (Nov 6, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



they also stoned people to death for mixing fibers.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 6, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



You have Syriusly. The two of you can get together and give each other your personal opinions about which Bible verses mean what since you both seem to be claiming expertise on the good book but you cannot over ride another person's religious beliefs and convictions or opinions, nor can you force me or anyone else to work for you, agree with you or like you. Both of you are blinded fascist living in your own sins and you both appear to think that you can over rule the Word of God and what the Lord put into the hearts of that which he created to be pure through your own erroneous interpretations and precepts. If you two believe on Jesus Christ as your savior you will be saved but that is not to say you will not be given over to your own sinful natures nor does it say you will not pay a price in the flesh for your sins.



Syriusly said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Obviously you are hanging on tight to that which is evil that you birthed in your spirit and unwilling to "execute" the evil within yourself. Again that is a personal issue you will have to take up within yourself as the law of God remains whether you know it or not, even if you can't see it or can't perceive how that works. That is what happens when you are spiritually dead, blinded in your own sin and asleep in the dust of the earth. You may want to get with dragonlady and take it up with her as she seems to think that the word is not wholly applicable.



Syriusly said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > Private businesses and personal services are not public domain.
> ...


I refused to do business with anyone I do not care to do business with and never have continued to work with assholes. Liberty gave me that right and I do not foresee you or anyone else being able to force me to do something against my will if I have any say about at all. Others can cave in to you and your bullish ways but I won't.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 6, 2017)

So let me get this straight.

Gays that are real people and are this way because of genetics have to attack themselves with ideas that are based on a myth? lol

This is insane.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 6, 2017)

Ignore the far right evangelicals; the great majority of America does.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 6, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...



I don't claim to have 'expertise' on the Bible- I just am quoting from the Bible. 

It is pretty straightforward- the Bible tells Christians to obey the law. You reject that part of the Bible. You are blinded by your fascist obsession with Homosexuals, to the word of God which tells you to obey the law.

You ignore the Word of God in order to promote your own personal agenda. 

Luckily for you- since God doesn't actually exist- you will not be held accountable for your contempt for the actual language of the Bible.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 6, 2017)

Obey the Wood of the Lord, evangelicals and fundies and Pentecostals: obey the law.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 6, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...



Again- I am just quoting the words of the Bible- rather than cherry picking like those of you with evil in your spirit who abuse the teachings of Jesus in order to promote your own hateful agenda. Thank God(sarcasm intended) you bigots no longer can put homosexuals in jail just because of your evil fascist interpretations of the Bible.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 6, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> [E]I refused to do business with anyone I do not care to do business with and never have continued to work with assholes. Liberty gave me that right and I do not foresee you or anyone else being able to force me to do something against my will if I have any say about at all. Others can cave in to you and your bullish ways but I won't.



Yeah- that was what those good Christian coffee shop owners said when they refused to serve to African Americans. 

But hey- can't expect people like you to obey the Bible and follow the law.


----------



## Dragonlady (Nov 6, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...



Jesus also warned about judging people lest you be judged. And he warned against false religion and false teachers. And those who would claim to be righteous while doing evil. 

It’s not hard to see how you are twisting His teachings as an excuse for hate. 

Many people chastised Jesus for befriending sinners and lepers - the unclean, and Jesus rebuked them for doing so. He exhorted people to “Love one another as I have loved you”. He stopped people from stoning the adulterer by saying “Let you who is without sin among you cast the first stone”. 

I don’t see a lot of love in refusing service. I don’t see Christians obeying Jesus words to obey the laws of the land in refusing service. I don’t see how you can treat other people so badly and then claim you are doing so in Jesus’ name.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 7, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


You have no legal authority over me or any other believer by law or by attempting to put a slant what you clearly state you do not believe in Word of God. I reject you and your ignorant precepts as you undoubtedly carry an antichrist spirit within you.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 7, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


A spiritual Man judges all things. Apparently you cannot get that part. Psalms one gives me the authority to not be seated with you and the likes of Syriusly for you two are lost, deaf, dumb and blinded in your own sins. Your own demons make you feel unloved. You are free to remain living outside of the gates with the dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie but again you are not free to force me or mine into being there with you as there is no law or commandment to compel me to do so in the name of what you call love. You hate yourselves I have no reason to go there with you.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 7, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


You are using hyperbole to try to push your own agenda. There is no reason to imprison you as you have imprisoned your own mind and put yourself into condemnation.


----------



## hadit (Nov 7, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



There are two facets to this argument. On the side of loving those around you, absolutely Christians should serve everyone. It's good business too.  

On the legal, moral, and ethical side, though, it would be patently unfair to force Christian business owners to go against their consciences while allowing gay business owners to refuse service to someone because of what they want to say or who they are.

Is that clear?


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 7, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Yeah- that was what those good Christian coffee shop owners said when they refused to serve to African Americans.
> 
> But hey- can't expect people like you to obey the Bible and follow the law.


What does race have to do with deviant sex behaviors?  The two distinctions aren't even moderately close in superior law.  This issue will come up in future USSC hearings on Christians' 1st Amendment rights vs PA laws.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 7, 2017)

hadit said:


> There are two facets to this argument. On the side of loving those around you, absolutely Christians should serve everyone. It's good business too.
> 
> On the legal, moral, and ethical side, though, it would be patently unfair to force Christian business owners to go against their consciences while allowing gay business owners to refuse service to someone because of what they want to say or who they are.
> 
> Is that clear?



Christians aren't not serving people because they practice gay sex habits.  Nowhere have I heard of a Christian baker refusing to sell a cupcake or a scone to a gay person (whatever that is, just heard yesterday about yet another lesbian giving up and marrying a man with the real dildo attached to him).  It's when a "gay wedding" order comes in.  That's where Christians are told to draw the line or else risk eternity in hell.  (Jude 1 New Testament).  They are not permitted to promote gay sex addictions into the fabric of normal society.  That's where they must draw the line.  And marriage is the epitome of that line.

As to your second comment, correct.  I notice from the poll that a full 64% of voters to date believe that the state should de facto declare one set of behavioral edicts as superior to another in law.  That is one and the same as the state declaring an official religion over others; which is expressly forbidden in the US Constitution.  If a Christian baker must bake a "gay wedding" cake, then a gay graphic designer must print a billboard for a Christian that reads: "Homosexuality is a sin unto God!".  Or else face the exact same consequences as the Christian baker.  One set of values cannot get a superior status in law over another set.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah- that was what those good Christian coffee shop owners said when they refused to serve to African Americans.
> ...



Why do you care what kind of sex people are having in private- when you refuse to serve them coffee?


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...



I don't- but the state has legal authority over how you do business. Which is why you are required to have a business license, and have to follow all of the pertinent business regulations.

And the New Testament tells Christians to obey those laws. 

Lucky for you- since God doesn't actually exist- you will not be held accountable for your contempt of God.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...



Don't project your own feelings of inadequacy on me. 

I am happy and loved. 

Meanwhile, I approve of the Christians who follow the law- and don't think that Christians should be above the law.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 7, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


My business enterprise that provides a specialty service requires no license. You are free to worship big government and your own perversions but again you are not free to make me accept them.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 7, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Why do you care what kind of sex people are having in private- when you refuse to serve them coffee?


You ignored my last post, obviously.  Nowhere have either of us heard of someone refusing to serve a gay-sex addict coffee.  It's the word "marriage" attached to a requested service a gay sex addict is asking for that is the issue here for Christians.  They're forbidden by Jude 1 under pain of eternal damnation to forward any social norm that includes gay sex addict behaviors.  Marriage the epitome of that.  So, coffee to consume randomly, Christians have no problem.  Gay wedding cake, photos, catering etc. etc. etc.  PROBLEM.  And that problem is allowed a remedy in Christians' 1st Amendment rights.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 7, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


It is still a country with free speech and telling you that you as an atheist and an obvious perverter has no legal authority over me or my beliefs and my mind is perfectly legal.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...



Nope- I am using the words from your Bible to show your contempt for your own God.

Lets look at Romans again:

_No one rules unless God has given him the power to rule, and no one rules now without that power from God. 2 So those who are against the government are really against what God has commanded. And they will bring punishment on themselves. 3

 So you must yield to the government, not only because you might be punished, but because you know it is right._

Can't be much clearer than that- when you decide not to obey the law of man- you are going against what your God has commanded.

Now of course you can try to have the law changed- so that 'good Christians' can choose to discriminate against gays or blacks or Jews- but when you argue that Christians shouldn't have to obey the law- you are just demonstrating your contempt for your own God.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 7, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Key word you yourself made a note of "using". You are "using" your erroneous interpretations and precepts as a self proclaimed atheist in an attempt to justify your own sickness.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 7, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> It is still a country with free speech and telling you that you as an atheist and an obvious perverter has no legal authority over me or my beliefs and my mind is perfectly legal.



What Syriusly and her cult are trying to do is to push various states to create a superior set of (a)moral edicts over established religious ones (PA laws that require people to worship gay sex values over Judeo/Christian ones specifically, though on muslims they've remained quite restrained on the legal kabuki theater..  )

The Constitution forbids this.  And so the issue of inborn vs behaviors will be the final focus on this ruse and outright attempt at sedition of one of the basic building blocks of American freedoms (freedom of religion and separation of church and state).  They use the separation laws to force people to remove crosses etc.   And on the other hand they ignore it when it serves their purpose of forcing Christians to adopt their perverse sex lifestyle values.  

It's a very transparent and weak legal position and they're going to lose it.  People have had enough.  It's like Germany in the 1930s, no lie.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 7, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah- that was what those good Christian coffee shop owners said when they refused to serve to African Americans.
> ...


Christians are already protected by PA laws and the USSC has already declared PA laws Constitutional....so your only route is to get them repealed at the state level.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

hadit said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...



The law doesn't care who the  business owner is. 

A business owner can't refuse to do business with Jews- because of their religion.

But he can refuse to do business with the KKK- or the NRA- or the 
ACLU- for whatever reasons he wants.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 7, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > It is still a country with free speech and telling you that you as an atheist and an obvious perverter has no legal authority over me or my beliefs and my mind is perfectly legal.
> ...


A lot of people see the writing on the wall but the blind still walk in their own darkened shadows.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 7, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > It is still a country with free speech and telling you that you as an atheist and an obvious perverter has no legal authority over me or my beliefs and my mind is perfectly legal.
> ...


If PA laws require people to worship gay sex values....they also require people to worship straight sex values.   What you don't seem to know is that PA laws don't protect people just because they are gay....they protect people based on their sexual orientation.....either gay OR straight....just like they protect people based on their religio...no matter what religion that is...just like they protect people based on their race...no matter what race they are.  You are JUST AS protected as a straight person.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 7, 2017)

Since we are talking about behaviors when we say "orientation", do drug addicts have special protection for their orientation?  Eating disorders?  Cleptomaniacs?  Why do just weird sex addictions have a special class in law while other compulsive behaviors do not?  





bodecea said:


> Christians are already protected by PA laws and the USSC has already declared PA laws Constitutional....so your only route is to get them repealed at the state level.



Well we've seen the lightening speed with which the USSC reverses its own decisions.  Case in point, Windsor 2013 said 56 times that the right to set marriage constructs rests with the states; and on that premise, Windsor was awarded her money. Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?  Then just two years later, in Obergefell they said "oh, now, we changed our mind, now that power rests with the fed".


----------



## bodecea (Nov 7, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


Exactly....political reasons are not protected.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 7, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Christians are already protected by PA laws and the USSC has already declared PA laws Constitutional....so your only route is to get them repealed at the state level.
> ...


There was no mind-changing between those two ruling.


----------



## Dragonlady (Nov 7, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > It is still a country with free speech and telling you that you as an atheist and an obvious perverter has no legal authority over me or my beliefs and my mind is perfectly legal.
> ...



Except that everything you just posted is a lie. No one is asking that you “worship sex values”. They’re saying that you cannot refuse gays service because they are gay.

You keep lying as to what this is about because you can’t justify your bigotry any other way. Providing services to a gay wedding does not require participating in the wedding. Nor does it even require attendance at the wedding.

Printing invitations and baking a wedding cake don’t even require attendance at the wedding so stop pretending the merchants are the victims here because they're not.

Follow Jesus’ words and obey the law.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 7, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...


So...both of you threaten us with a NAZI-like regime.    Fascinating.   We don't go down so easily anymore.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 7, 2017)

bodecea said:


> Christians are already protected by PA laws and the USSC has already declared PA laws Constitutional....so your only route is to get them repealed at the state level.





Silhouette said:


> Well we've seen the lightening speed with which the USSC reverses its own decisions.  Case in point, Windsor 2013 said 56 times that the right to set marriage constructs rests with the states; and on that premise, Windsor was awarded her money. Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?  Then just two years later, in Obergefell they said "oh, now, we changed our mind, now that power rests with the fed".





bodecea said:


> There was no mind-changing between those two ruling.



Well there was a fundamental change in law however in that five lawyers in the USSC said _"we no longer believe as we did with Windsor that states have the right to set marriage parameters.  We now believe that just we five have that exclusive right now when it comes to stripping children in the marriage institution of both a mother and father."_

They used states' rights to set parameters for marriage AS THE REASON they awarded Windsor her money.  Then they turned on their heel and said two years later _"well we said the fed had no business in telling states who may or may not marry, (the logic they used to strike DOMA) but now we're saying the fed DOES have the right to tell states who may or may not marry"_.  That is EXACTLY what the five rogue lawyers on the USSC said.

Essentially they said _"when Christian values at the fed level want to ban gay marriage, it isn't allowed, it's up to the states.  But when gay values at the fed level want to force gay marriage on the states who don't want it, then the states have no rights."_ Thereby Obergefell established de facto an official position on moral values by the fed, one over the other.  The Windsor/Obergefell forced-cult-values situation can be overturned on the 1st Amendment banning the government using preference in moral values over another.  The same logic that struck DOMA can be used to strike Obergefell.

Windsor/Obergefell was a COMPLETE FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL REVERSAL in just two years time that was justified by a government sponsoring one set of moral values over another.  No wonder Scalia lost his shit and died just months after Obergefell.  His body just shut down after his mind was completely blown.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > There are two facets to this argument. On the side of loving those around you, absolutely Christians should serve everyone. It's good business too.
> ...



Sexual orientation doesn't mean 'sex habits'- sexual orientation means attraction to the same gender.

A few isolated Christians are choosing to ignore the clear guidance of the New Testament and refusing to obey the law in the cases of same gender marriage. 

Just as against the law(in the states where the law is in effect) as when some Christians objected to mixed race marriages.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 7, 2017)

bodecea said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


Hyperbole but I'd expect nothing less from you. You are free to be a sexual deviant and remain that away as long as you follow the law and I am still free to call you one.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you care what kind of sex people are having in private- when you refuse to serve them coffee?
> ...



I responded to your post in the same manner your responded to my post.

Again- why do you care what kind of sex people are having in private?


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > There are two facets to this argument. On the side of loving those around you, absolutely Christians should serve everyone. It's good business too.
> ...



Jude 1 says no such thing- as you well know- but you find your lies more compelling than the truth.

Romans 13 tells Christians to follow the law- which you and the other faux Christians ignore- because it is inconvenient to your bigotry


_13 All of you must yield to the government rulers. No one rules unless God has given him the power to rule, and no one rules now without that power from God.  2 So those who are against the government are really against what God has commanded. And they will bring punishment on themselves. 3 Those who do right do not have to fear the rulers; only those who do wrong fear them. Do you want to be unafraid of the rulers? Then do what is right, and they will praise you. 4 The ruler is God’s servant to help you. But if you do wrong, then be afraid. He has the power to punish; he is God’s servant to punish those who do wrong. 5 So you must yield _


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > It is still a country with free speech and telling you that you as an atheist and an obvious perverter has no legal authority over me or my beliefs and my mind is perfectly legal.
> ...



Poor little baby. 

When Christians used to have the legal authority to throw homosexuals in jail- that was like Germany in the 1930's.

Telling business owners that they have to do business with Jews and homosexuals is the antithesis of Nazi Germany. 

Isn't it telling that you are taking the side of Nazi Germany in this argument?


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 7, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> _13 All of you must yield to the government rulers. No one rules unless God has given him the power to rule, and no one rules now without that power from God.  2 So those who are against the government are really against what God has commanded. And they will bring punishment on themselves. 3 Those who do right do not have to fear the rulers; only those who do wrong fear them. Do you want to be unafraid of the rulers? Then do what is right, and they will praise you. 4 The ruler is God’s servant to help you. But if you do wrong, then be afraid. He has the power to punish; he is God’s servant to punish those who do wrong. 5 So you must yield _


God said also that his own law was superior to any government.  Consult Jude 1 for details on homosexual Law. If there is ever a question, a Christian is to find God's Law superior to mens laws.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Since we are talking about behaviors when we say "orientation",.



I don't know why you are talking about behaviors when you say 'orientation'.

But no one else is.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 7, 2017)

I see the low level comprehension perverts with demons use their own special version of the Bible to read from. That is a first for me..... lol

Satan targeting the children with one last hooray trying to steer them away from a pure gospel of Jesus Christ. Power and Principalities and authority of God are not the almighty "government" that the NWO folks with fascist mindsets desire to push everyone and their brother into.


*New Century Version*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*New Century Version
Full name* New Century Version
*Other names* The Youth Bible; The Everyday Bible
*Abbreviation* NCV
*Complete Bible
published* 1987
*Textual basis* *NT:* United Bible Societies' Arabic text, third edition. *OT:* Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, with Septuagint influence.[1]
*Translation type* Free translation
*Reading level* Fifth grade
*Publisher* Thomas Nelson
Genesis 1:1–3 [show]
John 3:16 [show]
The *New Century Version* of the Bible is a revision of the International Children's Bible. The ICB was aimed at young readers and those with low reading skills/limited vocabulary in English. It is written at a 3rd grade level (from the introduction) and is both conservative and evangelical in tone. The New Testament was first published in 1978 and the Old Testament followed in 1986.[1] The ICB was revised somewhat to be a bit more sophisticated (reading level grade 5) and was dubbed the New Century Version, released in 1987. *A gender-neutral edition* was first published in 1991, *supplanting the original*.[2]

Grudem and Poythress wrote*, "The earliest complete translations of the Bible to adopt a gender-neutral translation policy were apparently the New Century Version (NCV) and the International Children’s Bible (ICB), both published by Word Publishing Company*. The ICB, a simplified edition of the NCV, appeared first, in 1986. The NCV has a copyright date in the following year (1987). (The latest edition, which we cite, has a copyright in 1991.) The simplified ICB says nothing in its preface about its gender-neutral translation policy. But the NCV gives some explanation. The goal of the NCV was to make a Bible that was clear and easily understood, and the translators based their vocabulary choice on a list of words used by the editors of The World Book Encyclopedia to determine appropriate vocabulary ('Preface,' p. xiii). Based on the concern for clarity and simplicity of expression, the NCV translates with considerable recourse to paraphrase. With regard to gender language, the NCV is strongly gender-neutral."[3]

The *New Century Version text was paired with notes containing advice on teenage issues* to form* "The Youth Bible,"* and was updated in 2007. The NCV has been available as a stand-alone version since 1991.

Also available as a New Testament, Psalms and Proverbs version known as "Clean: A Recovery Companion".

This edition is published by Thomas Nelson, a subsidiary of News Corp.

*References*
Bibles: Buy Discount Bibles, Bible covers and more at AllBibles.com
The New Century Version
Wayne Grudem and Vern Poythress, _The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy: Muting the Masculinity of God's Words_ (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman and Holman, 2000), 29.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 7, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...


Not hyperbole at all.   It's exactly what Silly threatens and you agree with...the "writing on the wall".  You won't find us so easy to round up this time.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 7, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...


More telling that you believe you have the right to alter the word and push your NWO agendas on innocent children. You are free to remain as the dead and you can keep your own demons but you will never overtop what God created and already put into the hearts of those who love him. What is telling that you and the others following that beast whose head rising again are promoting your filth that government is the authority of the word of God.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 7, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > _13 All of you must yield to the government rulers. No one rules unless God has given him the power to rule, and no one rules now without that power from God.  2 So those who are against the government are really against what God has commanded. And they will bring punishment on themselves. 3 Those who do right do not have to fear the rulers; only those who do wrong fear them. Do you want to be unafraid of the rulers? Then do what is right, and they will praise you. 4 The ruler is God’s servant to help you. But if you do wrong, then be afraid. He has the power to punish; he is God’s servant to punish those who do wrong. 5 So you must yield _
> ...


Which god?   You know this is the United States, right?  We don't have to follow your imaginary laws for your god as our secular laws.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 7, 2017)

bodecea said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


You can keep your demons to yourself as you won't get loose from them to put them off on any of those whom God protects and defends.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 7, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> More telling that you believe you have the right to alter the word and push your NWO agendas on innocent children. You are free to remain as the dead and you can keep your own demons but you will never overtop what God created and already put into the hearts of those who love him. What is telling that you and the others following that beast whose head rising again *are promoting your filth that government is the authority of the word of God*.


Not just promoting their deviant value system but instead FORCING it on other faiths where those values are strictly forbidden (Jude 1 of the New Testament) under pain of eternal damnation.  They are in fact using the government's judicial system and activists from/sympathetic to their cult to establish their moral values as a de facto state-supported religion we all must adhere to and blaspheme our own in subjugation to.

And yet we know from gradeschool poli-sci that no state may establish an official religion to the detriment of others.  So this little ruse is near its end.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 7, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


Again...this is the United States.  Here you have no right to force your religion on our secular laws.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 7, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Not just promoting their deviant value system but instead FORCING it on other faiths where those values are strictly forbidden (Jude 1 of the New Testament) under pain of eternal damnation.  They are in fact using the government's judicial system and activists from/sympathetic to their cult to establish their moral values as a de facto state-supported religion we all must adhere to and blaspheme our own in subjugation to.


Yes the violent take it by force and these are some vile creatures turned loose.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 7, 2017)

bodecea said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


You can practice your perversion all you like in your own little sick world but again my rights to my faith you cannot overcome or subjugate.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 7, 2017)

bodecea said:


> Again...this is the United States.  Here you have no right to force your religion on our secular laws.


And, your cult has no right to force (PA laws) its religion on our secular laws protecting freedom of religious practice in Christians (Jude 1 NT).  Just look at the number of folks in the poll above who believe your cult does have a right to force its moral edicts on others but that others don't have that same right in reverse. What else is that but the (gravely mistaken) belief that the state can establish an official (a)morality?

*Syriusly, what does race have to do with deviant sex behaviors?
VV*


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Since we are talking about behaviors when we say "orientation", do drug addicts have special protection for their orientation?  Eating disorders?  Cleptomaniacs?  Why do just weird sex addictions have a special class in law while other compulsive behaviors do not?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOL- note how you don't quote Windsor?

Here is a relevant quote from Windsor:

*Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. 
Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area
that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the 
States,” *

The USSC didn't reverse anything with Obergefell- the USSC cited Windsor repeatedly in the Obergefell decision- because the USSC decided  based on those 'certain constitutional guarantees that State governments are subject to.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...



A few bigots hide behind their religion in order to justify their bigotry.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 7, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Again...this is the United States.  Here you have no right to force your religion on our secular laws.
> ...


State? These creeps think they will be the ones rule the world just like the others before them who were crushed underfoot but this time they will be crushed by the true Word of God not some bogus 'government' loving propaganda crap dreamed up.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > _13 All of you must yield to the government rulers. No one rules unless God has given him the power to rule, and no one rules now without that power from God.  2 So those who are against the government are really against what God has commanded. And they will bring punishment on themselves. 3 Those who do right do not have to fear the rulers; only those who do wrong fear them. Do you want to be unafraid of the rulers? Then do what is right, and they will praise you. 4 The ruler is God’s servant to help you. But if you do wrong, then be afraid. He has the power to punish; he is God’s servant to punish those who do wrong. 5 So you must yield _
> ...



Jude 1 doesn't say anything about 'homosexual law'- again- you are just lying. Which of course is a sin.

Romans 13 says that Christians are to follow the law because 'those who are against the government are really against what God has commanded'

Why are you against what God has commanded.

And what is God's law? Well Roman's addresses that too. 

_Do not owe people anything, except always owe love to each other, because the person who loves others has obeyed all the law. 9 The law says, “You must not be guilty of adultery. You must not murder anyone. You must not steal. You must not want to take your neighbor’s things.”a]">[a] *All these commands and all others are really only one rule: “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.”b]">[b] 10 Love never hurts a neighbor, so loving is obeying all the law.
*_
Notice how Romans doesn't say "Refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple is the la_w*? *_
*
If that bakery wants to follow God's law- Romans tells them exactly how. *_*
*_


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 7, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


Yes I am a total bigot when it comes to demons and those who choose to carry that antichrist spirit who desires are to take control of the minds of God's people and their children by force.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 7, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


So called religious people like Silly seem to spend a lot of time imagining what gay people do in bed.    It must be a christer thing....because when I see straight people....I don't immediately imagine their sexual antics.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Christians are already protected by PA laws and the USSC has already declared PA laws Constitutional....so your only route is to get them repealed at the state level.
> ...



I could point out once again how everything that you said is incorrect- but its just easier to point out that you are lying about what the court said. 

Just flat out lying


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...




And you are free to be a bigot and remain that way as long as you follow the law- and I am still free to call you one.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 7, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Again...this is the United States.  Here you have no right to force your religion on our secular laws.
> ...





RodISHI said:


> State? These creeps think they will be the ones rule the world just like the others before them who were crushed underfoot but this time they will be crushed by the true Word of God not some bogus 'government' loving propaganda crap dreamed up.


Well I assume that you're interested in stopping them, correct?

And the best way to do that is to come to this thread and state the legal reasons they can be defeated in court. But for a more specific focus on that argument you can visit this thread and cite legal reasons to shut them down.  Was The Windsor/Obergefell Reversal A De Facto Fed Established Religion Move? 

*Just complaining and hurling insults is their bread and butter.  It sometimes even helps them gain sympathies against Christians* if the Christian seems to out there, citing demons and such, in their defense of preserving 1st Amendment protections for Christians vs the gay (neo state established) religion.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...



And by force- you of course mean expecting that Christians will follow the law everyone else is expected to follow- as the Bible tells Christians to do.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 7, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...


So you admit that you would discriminate against people of a different religion or no religion in your day to day dealings.....don't get a business license in any state then.   It's illegal to discriminate like that in business.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 7, 2017)

complete hypocrite ^^


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 7, 2017)

bodecea said:


> So you admit that you would discriminate against people of a different religion or no religion in your day to day dealings.....don't get a business license in any state then.   It's illegal to discriminate like that in business.



When the gay cult can discriminate against Christians you seem to have no problem with that.  But when it's reversed on issues of marriage and baking cakes, you fly into a righteous frenzy.  Care to explain the reason one set of moral values is legally dominant to the other?


----------



## bodecea (Nov 7, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


"These creeps".....your bigotry is showing there, christer.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 7, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


Obviously one of your demon filled atheist buds did not consider that a whole group included babies and children were free to enjoy their Christian lives as they saw fit the other day and the law meant nothing to him as he slaughtered them.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 7, 2017)

bodecea said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


I don't like your demons and you will have to live with that as that won't be changing.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> I see the low level comprehension perverts with demons use their own special version of the Bible to read from. That is a first for me..... lol



Shame your version of the Bible doesn't include Romans. Of course Paul is a bit of a prude- maybe you use Thomas Jefferson's version of the Bible?

You don't like the New Century Version? What perverted version of the Bible do you use? 

Here is the best selling version of the Bible- which of course says fundamentally the same thing that you choose to ignore before.

* Romans 13New International Version (NIV)*
*Submission to Governing Authorities*
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.* The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. *3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



What word have i 'altered'? 

Why do you ignore the clear instructions of Romans 13? 

What other parts of the Bible ignore as you cherry pick to rationalize your bigotry?


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > More telling that you believe you have the right to alter the word and push your NWO agendas on innocent children. You are free to remain as the dead and you can keep your own demons but you will never overtop what God created and already put into the hearts of those who love him. What is telling that you and the others following that beast whose head rising again *are promoting your filth that government is the authority of the word of God*.
> ...



No one is forcing any value system on anyone. 

Business owners are being told to follow the law. 

You know- like the Bible tells Christians to do.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Apparently you find the 'true Word of God' from some place other than the Bible.

Since you ignore Romans 13.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Because of course- posting an opinion in your thread will of course be used by the courts.......lol


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 7, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


You need to get a real Bible if you are going to read one instead of an altered Communist one written expressly to indoctrinate children into believing "government" should be their authorities of God.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...



It is a tragedy  that one of your Christian raised gun loving buds decided to kill a bunch people in Texas. 

Not sure how you think that a murderer disobeying the law justifies why you think you get to disobey Romans 13.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...



What version of the Bible do you have that doesn't have Romans 13?

Do you ignore all of Romans- or just the parts you don't like?


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 7, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


I do not go by your altered version of the Bible written to indoctrinate people to believe like you that "government" is their god. You are free to practice Communism and believe 'the government is your god' but you will have to do so in a Communist country. Run quickly to the nearest airport and get to one of those Communist regimes if you are not already in one.


Your killer was a self proclaimed denier of God. That makes him an atheist. He should have moved to a Communist country also instead of killing innocent people.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 7, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > So you admit that you would discriminate against people of a different religion or no religion in your day to day dealings.....don't get a business license in any state then.   It's illegal to discriminate like that in business.
> ...


You are lying again....no pesky 10 Commandments is gonna stop you from lying, is it?    Gays in business can no more discriminate against people based on their religion or their sexuality than anyone else can.  It's against PA laws and should be.

Let me ask you.....what have you ACTIVELY done to get rid of the PA laws in your state?   What state ARE you in?


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 7, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> What version of the Bible do you have that doesn't have Romans 13?
> 
> Do you ignore all of Romans- or just the parts you don't like?



Please cite in the Bible where God commands that mens' laws are superior to His Law?  Jude 1 pitted against Romans 13 = Jude 1 wins.  Now that we've established that Christians must resist "gay marriage" by command of their God (unless you can find a NT quote that says mens laws are superior to God's commandment against mortal sin in Jude 1), what right does the gay cult value system has to command the state to force Christians to blaspheme Jude 1?


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...



How odd that your Bible doesn't include Romans. 

What other parts of the New Testament does your Bible cut out?


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...



Your gun loving killer was a hater raised by Christians r- he shouldn't have killed anyone. 

Not sure how you think that your murderer disobeying the laws justifies why you get to disobey the word of your God in Romans.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 7, 2017)

Syriusly is injecting vitriol to divert the untrained eye from the points I'm landing about one value system taking over government to force another value system to its knees.  Either you believe DOMA should've been struck down because the fed can't force states to ratify or not to ratify marriage based on their constituents or you don't.  Can the fed adopt a certain preference for this set of values over another and then use that preference to force states to ratify certain types of marriage against their Will?  Yes or no?

In Windsor the USSC said that because New York chose on its own to adopt gay value systems as qualifying for a new type of motherless/fatherless "marriage", then Windsor is "legally married". ie, the fed can't tell states what marriage is or isn't.

Then in Obergefell the USSC said "no matter what a state chooses on its own, the gay value system of motherless/fatherless (gay) marriage must be allowed against that state's will".  ie the fed CAN tell states what marriage is or isn't.

This fundamental reversal (of ancient collective human culture) happened in just two years' time, thanks to just five rogue un-elected lawyers, two of which expressed overt bias pro-gay marriage before the Hearing even happened.  And this earth-shattering fundamental change in human culture (legally depriving children involved of either a mother or father for life "in marriage") happened not legislated by elected representatives of the People.

And before Syriusly erroneously cites Loving again, I'll remind readers that race is not equal to behaviors.  And where race is expressly protected as to discrimination in the Constitution, random, vaguely-defined, shifting values of deviant sex practices are NOT expressly protected therein.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > What version of the Bible do you have that doesn't have Romans 13?
> ...



Romans 13 says that Man's law is God's law.

_*Submission to Governing Authorities*
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience._

And what is God's law? Romans tells you that also:

_9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,”a]">[a] and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”b]">[b] 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor.* Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.*_

Nowhere in the Bible does it say 'don't bake cakes for gay weddings'


----------



## Lysistrata (Nov 7, 2017)

In the end, why does any person have any valid interest in whom another person is married to under civil law? Religious factions may fight among themselves all they wish, but what does this have to do with the general population? If you don't want to marry someone of your own sex, then don't. Nobody is forcing you to get married or to marry someone or your own sex. If you want to marry someone of the other sex, then go for it. Nobody's stopping you.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> And before Syriusly erroneously cites Loving again,.



I cited Windsor-which cited Loving- as an example of how State's control of marriage law is limited. 

And Obergefell- cited both Windsor and Loving- was like Loving- an example of how State's control of marriage law is limited by the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 7, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> And before Syriusly erroneously cites Loving again,.





Syriusly said:


> I cited Windsor-which cited Loving- as an example of how State's control of marriage law is limited.
> 
> And Obergefell- cited both Windsor and Loving- was like *Loving- an example of how State's control of marriage law is limited by the U.S. Constitution*.


Limited as to race, not behaviors.  You're going to see this come up so you'd better get your cult's lawyers sharpened up on the argument now.  Loving never anticipate butt-sex addicts.  Sorry to put it so bluntly but blunt is how it's going to be parsed out in the end to put a stop to gays forcing Christians to bend to the new state-sanctioned cult values.  Butt sex addiction isn't mentioned at all in the 14th Amendment.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 7, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...





Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > And before Syriusly erroneously cites Loving again,.
> ...


Where in the ruling of Loving v. Virginia does it limit the ruling to by race?   If, as you want, marriage can be limited by behaviors....even LEGAL behaviors by law-abiding, tax-paying citizens....how long will it be before christers like you try to keep divorced people from remarrying?   After all, divorce is a behavior.   How about preventing people of other religions or of mixed religions from marrying?   After all, religion is also a behavior.

(Again, I see that christers like to think and talk about gay sex way more than even gays do)


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > What version of the Bible do you have that doesn't have Romans 13?
> ...



Feel free to quote where Jude 1 says that Christians are to break the law and not bake wedding cake for a gay couple.

The difference between you and I is that I quote the actual bible- not the bible the voices in your head tell you about.

Romans 13 is very clear and precise in instructing Christians to follow the law.

Jude 1 doesn't once say not to obey the law.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 7, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


You are definitely a liar. You quoted a communist propaganda bible trying to usurp God's authority.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > And before Syriusly erroneously cites Loving again,.
> ...



Again- stop pretending like the voices in your head are real.

Windsor cited Loving as an example of when State's control over marriage law was not absolute. Not because of race- but because Loving violated the constitutional rights of the Loving's to marry each other.

And then Obergefell cited both Windsor and Loving, when Obergefell ruled that the States were violating the constitutional rights of Obergefell and his partner.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



How can I be lying when I am using the exact words of the Bible?

What kind of bastardized Bible do you use that doesn't have Romans 13 in it?


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

bodecea said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



She is certainly obsessing about butt sex....which is not mentioned in Loving, Windsor or Obergefell.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 7, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...


I haven't said a word about your butt sex you nasty little communist but I will definitely point out that you are a demon filled liar from hell attempting to overcome my constitutional rights, breakdown the society here in the United States and you are trying to claim that a bogus rendition of the bible gives your government as god authority to rights over and above the top of my rights. Get back into hell where you belong.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Are you a 'she'? I was commenting about Silhouette- not about your butt sex.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



I will point out that you keep calling me a liar- because I am quoting the Bible.

When I ask you why you don't follow Romans 13- you just call me names.

What a faux Christian- cherry picking all the hate to obsess over in the Bible- ignoring what the Bible actually says.

Hell you are sinning every time you call me a liar- sinning right out of the 10 commandments.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 7, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Nope, the moment the Word was altered trying to usurp God's authority you and your people committed a grievous sin against God. You are a liar and a thief that has been exposed. Chew on that and swallow hard as it won't go down easily.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...



And by 'liar and thief'- you mean I have pointed out how you reject the word of your God in Romans 13.

Good thing your God doesn't exist or you would have brimstone in your future.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 7, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


My God did not make government the authority of anything that is rule by his spirit but communist filled with the spirit of satan and his demons would sure like to believe that and surely keep telling themselves that. Thankfully we have a Constitution that was written for the people by the people under God's direction so your crap won't get very far once the people see it and hear it with their own eyes.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...



I wonder what God inspired Romans 13.

Maybe you worship Mithra?


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 7, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


The first one you posted from your New Century Version that you quoted was created for/by the false prophet of propaganda. 

To the question you pose. No


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...



And yet you have yet to have the balls to step up and answer:
a) What version of the Bible you read and
b) Whether or not you actually believe and follow Romans.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 7, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


My lord loaned me his (s)word to speak with people who have that antichrist spirit claiming outright they are government worshiping atheist trying to quote from their communist bibles like you do.


----------



## hadit (Nov 7, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > There are two facets to this argument. On the side of loving those around you, absolutely Christians should serve everyone. It's good business too.
> ...



That is a good point. It is a flat out lie to say that Christian businesses are refusing to serve gay customers. They don't ask.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hadit (Nov 7, 2017)

bodecea said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



But religious ones are.  Thus, fairness would dictate that a billboard owner could not refuse a customer who wanted to post anti homosexual messages.


----------



## hadit (Nov 7, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



The argument has not been that some should not follow the law, but that the law is not being applied fairly. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...



Your lord called- he would like his sword back since you keep stabbing yourself with it while dancing away from the truth.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 7, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


You are lying again because you definitely don't have his voice.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

hadit said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Most Christians don't care whether someone is gay or not, or whether a couple getting married is straight or gay.

Most Christians follow the law and serve their customers in accordance with the law.

A very, very few- a handful- have refused to provide their wedding services to gay couples. Some places that is legal- some places it is not. 

However it is always illegal to refuse to provide wedding services to Christians because of their faith.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

hadit said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



And again- it depends on the message. Not that 'fairness' really enters into it. 

Is it fair that someone cannot refuse to do business with someone because he is a Jew- but can refuse to do business with someone because he is fat?


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

hadit said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Actually Silly and others have been arguing exactly that. 

Let me put it quite another way.

Is it fair that the law in most states says that it is okay to refuse to do business with someone because he is gay- but illegal to refuse to do business with someone because he is a Christian?


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...



No- he just called me on the phone, pointing out how you don't have the cojones to stand up for your Bible.


----------



## RodISHI (Nov 7, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Why would I stand up for your bogus revisionist version you initially posted. Actually the spirit stands on its own and the true Word confirms that but then again a demon filled lying devil atheist such as you claim to be wouldn't know that would you? 

Be gone I have had enough of you wasting time.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 7, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...



Of course- why would you actually what your beliefs are based upon? 

How can anyone expect you to have the balls to answer questions honestly about your faith?

Clearly it is far beyond your testicular ability to do.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 7, 2017)

Syriusly is spamming again..


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 7, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Is it fair that someone cannot refuse to do business with someone because he is a Jew- but can refuse to do business with someone because he is fat?



The question of this thread is: _"Is it fair to refuse to do business with someone whose belief system doesn't square with yours."_  ie: is it fair for a gay graphic designer to refuse to print a billboard for a Christian customer that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"?

And your answer is?


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 8, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Is it fair that someone cannot refuse to do business with someone because he is a Jew- but can refuse to do business with someone because he is fat?
> ...



It isn't fair to deny someone equal rights- which is what you want to deny gay couples- and continue to try to deny gay couples. 

What isn't fair is that in all 50 states that a business cannot refuse to do business with a customer because the customer whose belief system happens to be Christian- while in the majority of the states- a business can refuse to do business with a customer because the customer happens to be gay.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 8, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly is spamming again..



Pot meet Kettle- her name is Silhouette.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 8, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Is it fair that someone cannot refuse to do business with someone because he is a Jew- but can refuse to do business with someone because he is fat?



The question of this thread is: _"Is it fair to refuse to do business with someone whose belief system doesn't square with yours."_  ie: is it fair for a gay graphic designer to refuse to print a billboard for a Christian customer that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"?

And your answer is?

Syriusly, please answer the question DIRECTLY with a "yes" or "no".  You can provide an explanation after your answer.  "SHOULD A GAY GRAPHIC DESIGNER BE FORCED BY PA LAWS TO PRINT A BILLBOARD FOR A CHRISTIAN CUSTOMER THAT READS: "HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN UNTO GOD"?

YES OR NO?


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 9, 2017)

Answer the question from a legal standpoint. In the interest of fairness/equality. Yes or no?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> I offer the legal precedent here: Court: Phoenix wedding invitation designers must serve LGBT customers
> 
> Given: Gay is behavioral.  Google "Anne Heche" for details..  Or for more extensive arguments (with over 300 peer-reviewed corroborating studies referenced at the end) this: *"Conditioning and Sexual BEHAVIOR, a Review"  *
> James G. Pfaus,Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
> ...


Because, Christians could not obey, Ten simple Commandments; see how that works.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 9, 2017)

Answer the question in post 364


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Is it fair that someone cannot refuse to do business with someone because he is a Jew- but can refuse to do business with someone because he is fat?
> ...


The Answer is, not on a for-the-profit-of-lucre-over-morals.  

Not for profit is the business model for Persons of morals.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 9, 2017)

So you're assisting Syriusly in not answering the question by not answering the question also and introducing gibberish as a strawman.  Time to report you again.


----------



## mdk (Nov 9, 2017)

Should anyone be forced to do business with one another? The answer is no.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 9, 2017)

mdk said:


> Should anyone be forced to do business with one another? The answer is no.


So you are against the law in AZ that forces the print shop to make "gay wedding" invitations against their beliefs?  Why haven't you spoken out more vocally about that?


----------



## mdk (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Should anyone be forced to do business with one another? The answer is no.
> ...



I've been against public accommodation laws for many years now. We've had this discussion on numerous occasions in the past. Hell, I said as much on the first page of this thread. Do you oppose PA laws? Or only when they cover fags?


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Should anyone be forced to do business with one another? The answer is no.
> ...





mdk said:


> I've been against public accommodation laws for many years now. We've had this discussion on numerous occasions in the past. Hell, I said as much on the first page of this thread. Do you oppose PA laws? Or only when they cover fags?


Not sure exactly.  I think they apply when they violate ACTUAL, REAL constitutional protections such as race, religion or country of origin, or gender (not what one does with one's private parts, but the actual private parts & DNA denoting "male" or "female").  I don't think it should be legal to say _"I'm not serving you because you are black, or a woman, or from Lithuania originally or you're a Christian"._  If you're open to the public, you serve protected people.  But deviant sex behaviors-as-identities are NOT protected Constitutionally.  I don't give a rat's ass how many activist judges say they are, there is NO LANGUAGE that even vaguely implies protection for such behaviors calling themselves "an identity".  Otherwise we'd have protections for bulimic-Americans and cleoptomaniac-Americans and drug-addict-Americans....etc. etc. in the interest of fairness.

If a compulsive addictive behavior gets to call itself "an identity" and get special protections from the Constitution (without that being actually legally done: ie legislated), then ALL compulsive addictive behaviors can have that umbrella without having to apply.  We cannot express a discriminatory preference for one set of majority-rejected deviant behaviors to the disadvantage of any other majority-rejected deviant behaviors.  Equality.  And you know I can cite precedent on equality.

If people doing deviant sex want specific protection for themselves as a waffling, vauge, amorphic "identity" (a new class) they need to petition their representatives to LEGISLATE new protection under the Constitution for that brand spanking new class.  Otherwise the judges are doing nothing but a power grab from the Legislature which is a violation of the separation of powers.

The founding fathers went to great pains to be specific in written law precisely to keep this type of bullshit from happening.  They meant what they said when they wanted separation of powers.  Judicial activism stealing power from the legislature is nothing but sedition.  The fact that it's being done to forward a deviant sex cult's agenda on decent people who object to those values is a chunk of rock salt in that wound.  That this agenda (for the first time in human history) legally separates children from either a father or mother for life as a new (illegal) institution is monstrosity beyond the pale.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...


So, you want special privileges based on your religion.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> So you're assisting Syriusly in not answering the question by not answering the question also and introducing gibberish as a strawman.  Time to report you again.


The Answer is, not on a for-the-profit-of-_lucre_-over-_morals_. 

Not for profit is the business model for Persons of morals.


----------



## mdk (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



A simple: "Yes, I support public accommodation laws, but not for gays." would have been sufficient. You want to have it both ways and that is another glaring example of your hypocrisy.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 9, 2017)

You asked a question that wasn't simple.  So I answered it thoroughly.  I'm sure you didn't want/expect such a comprehensive argument in reply...



bodecea said:


> So, you want special privileges based on your religion.


fuck you.  Re read my post.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> You asked a question that wasn't simple.  So I answered it thoroughly.  I'm sure you didn't want/expect such a comprehensive argument in reply...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


dear, you really just need a full body massage with happy ending and g-spot focus work. 

then, you really will be, a honey bunches of O's.

Why should Persons of morals, advance their morals on a for-profit basis, if they cannot purchase a "stairway to Heaven"?


----------



## mdk (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> You asked a question that wasn't simple.  So I answered it thoroughly.  I'm sure you didn't want/expect such a comprehensive argument in reply...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You support the government forcing people to do business with people against their wishes, unless they are gay. "Bake the fucking cake already, unless you're gay!" Hypocritical twat!


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 9, 2017)

I answered your question.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 9, 2017)

mdk said:


> I've been against public accommodation laws for many years now. We've had this discussion on numerous occasions in the past. Hell, I said as much on the first page of this thread. Do you oppose PA laws? Or only when they cover fags?


Not sure exactly.  I think they apply when they violate ACTUAL, REAL constitutional protections such as race, religion or country of origin, or gender (not what one does with one's private parts, but the actual private parts & DNA denoting "male" or "female").  I don't think it should be legal to say _"I'm not serving you because you are black, or a woman, or from Lithuania originally or you're a Christian"._  If you're open to the public, you serve protected people.  But deviant sex behaviors-as-identities are NOT protected Constitutionally.  I don't give a rat's ass how many activist judges say they are, there is NO LANGUAGE that even vaguely implies protection for such behaviors calling themselves "an identity".  Otherwise we'd have protections for bulimic-Americans and cleoptomaniac-Americans and drug-addict-Americans....etc. etc. in the interest of fairness.

*If a compulsive addictive behavior gets to call itself "an identity" and get special protections from the Constitution (without that being actually legally done: ie legislated), then ALL compulsive addictive behaviors can have that umbrella without having to apply.  We cannot express a discriminatory preference for one set of majority-rejected deviant behaviors to the disadvantage of any other majority-rejected deviant behaviors.  Equality.  And you know I can cite precedent on equality.*

If people doing deviant sex want specific protection for themselves as a waffling, vauge, amorphic "identity" (a new class) they need to petition their representatives to LEGISLATE new protection under the Constitution for that brand spanking new class.  Otherwise the judges are doing nothing but a power grab from the Legislature which is a violation of the separation of powers.

The founding fathers went to great pains to be specific in written law precisely to keep this type of bullshit from happening.  They meant what they said when they wanted separation of powers.  Judicial activism stealing power from the legislature is nothing but sedition.  The fact that it's being done to forward a deviant sex cult's agenda on decent people who object to those values is a chunk of rock salt in that wound.  That this agenda (for the first time in human history) legally separates children from either a father or mother for life as a new (illegal) institution is monstrosity beyond the pale.




mdk said:


> *You support the government forcing people to do business with people against their wishes, unless they are gay*. "Bake the fucking cake already, unless you're gay!" Hypocritical twat!



No, I support protected people from discrimination.  I would also not be in favor of forcing a Christian to bake a cake that says "heroin is the best!" or print postcards that say "throw up after you eat, stay slim!".  Deviant addictive behaviors HAVE NO PROTECTION under the US Constitution. 

A man and a man do not make a mother and father for children we anticipate (and always have) in marriage.  A woman and a woman do not make a mother and father for children we anticipate in marriage.  Poll.  Please Vote.  Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?  85% of the Governed responding to that poll said they think that having both is important.  So unless they are apathic monsters, they would extend that same regard for other children not just themselves.

I highlighted the mis-quoted paragraph above to illustrate your deceptive nature.  Yes, I think you are a liar.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Not sure exactly.  I think they apply when they violate ACTUAL, REAL constitutional protections such as race, religion or country of origin, or gender (not what one does with one's private parts, but the actual private parts & DNA denoting "male" or "female").  I don't think it should be legal to say _"I'm not serving you because you are black, or a woman, or from Lithuania originally or you're a Christian"._  If you're open to the public, you serve protected people.  But deviant sex behaviors-as-identities are NOT protected Constitutionally.  I don't give a rat's ass how many activist judges say they are, there is NO LANGUAGE that even vaguely implies protection for such behaviors calling themselves "an identity".  Otherwise we'd have protections for bulimic-Americans and cleoptomaniac-Americans and drug-addict-Americans....etc. etc. in the interest of fairness.
> 
> If a compulsive addictive behavior gets to call itself "an identity" and get special protections from the Constitution (without that being actually legally done: ie legislated), then ALL compulsive addictive behaviors can have that umbrella without having to apply.  We cannot express a discriminatory preference for one set of majority-rejected deviant behaviors to the disadvantage of any other majority-rejected deviant behaviors.  Equality.  And you know I can cite precedent on equality.
> 
> ...



Awful lot of words to say, "Yes I support Public Accommodations laws for things I agree with but not for queers."


(My apologies for the use of an offensive word to those who are romantically attracted to those of the same sex.)


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 9, 2017)

WorldWatcher said:


> Awful lot of words to say, "Yes I support Public Accommodations laws for things I agree with *but not for queers*."
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>



It's OK.  I know you just "forgot" to include bulimics & drug addicts etc..  

And I know you didn't want such a comprehensive answer that directly addressed how the Judiciary is attempting to add language to the US Constitution that in no way shape or form exists or even alludes to exist, outside their limited power.  It's just that a complete explanation of what's going on is LONG overdue..  It is nothing but sedition on behalf of a deviant sex cult using its proxies and sympathists placed in the Judiciary, seeking to overthrow the ability of decent people to fight back using our Rule of Law from the Legislative Branch.

In American law, behaviors don't get to dominate other behaviors unless expressly protected by the Constitution to do so.  Anything else is the State or Fed establishing an official set of (a)moral edicts, which is forbidden.  Outside religion, we VOTE on what behaviors we allow to be tolerated and which we don't in this or that institution or format.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> It's OK.  I know you just "forgot" to include bulimics & drug addicts etc..
> 
> And I know you didn't want such a comprehensive answer that directly addressed how the Judiciary is attempting to add language to the US Constitution that in no way shape or form exists or even alludes to exist, outside their limited power.  It's just that a complete explanation of what's going on is LONG overdue..  It is nothing but sedition on behalf of a deviant sex cult using its proxies and sympathists placed in the Judiciary, seeking to overthrow the ability of decent people to fight back using our Rule of Law from the Legislative Branch.
> 
> In American law, behaviors don't get to dominate other behaviors unless expressly protected by the Constitution to do so.  Anything else is the State or Fed establishing an official set of (a)moral edicts, which is forbidden.  Outside religion, we VOTE on what behaviors we allow to be tolerated and which we don't in this or that institution or format.




The Judiciary hasn't added jack.  The PA law cases have all been under State Public Accommodation laws under the states power to regulate intrastate commerce.  These laws were passed by State legislatures, not the Judiciary (which can't pass laws anyway).  PA laws have been upheld repeatedly by the SCOTUS.  

We'll just have to await and see (since Masterpiece Cakeshop oral arguments are next months) if States can limited discrimination against queers in their PA laws.

As I've noted in many of your threads, I'm for the repeal of Public Accommodation laws.  If a shop owner can refuse full and equal service because someone is queer, then queer shop owners should be able to refuse service based on a person religious behavior.


(My apologies for the use of an offensive word to those who are romantically attracted to those of the same sex.)

>>>>


----------



## bodecea (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> You asked a question that wasn't simple.  So I answered it thoroughly.  I'm sure you didn't want/expect such a comprehensive argument in reply...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I read your post...you want people forced to "bake the cake" for you based on religion...but you don't want the same rules to apply for your fellow law-abiding, tax-paying citizens if they are gay.   You are asking for special privileges because of religion.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> You asked a question that wasn't simple.  So I answered it thoroughly.  I'm sure you didn't want/expect such a comprehensive argument in reply...
> 
> 
> 
> ...





bodecea said:


> I read your post...you want people forced to "bake the cake" for you based on religion...but you don't want the same rules to apply for your fellow law-abiding, tax-paying citizens if they are gay.   You are asking for special privileges because of religion.


No, I want the separation of powers to be respected.  I don't believe anyone, Christian or not, should be forced to bake a cake that says "heroin is cool!" or print cards that say "throw up after you eat, stay slim!".  You see, you're dodging the fundamental flaw in your argument which is THAT DEVIANT BEHAVIORS ARE NOT PROTECTED UNDER THE US CONSTITUTION and no amount of judicial activism can erase THAT FACT.

If you want to force people to support deviant sex addiction, you have to first prove that those BEHAVIORS are protected under the Constitution.  Which they are not.  Not even alluded to in the slightest.  The Judiciary CANNOT rewrite legislation in the US Constitution.  Only the Legislative branch can do that.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 9, 2017)

WorldWatcher said:


> The Judiciary hasn't added jack.  The PA law cases have all been under State Public Accommodation laws under the states power to regulate intrastate commerce.  These laws were passed by State legislatures, not the Judiciary (which can't pass laws anyway).  PA laws have been upheld repeatedly by the SCOTUS.



So why didn't the USSC cite the Commerce Clause to support DOMA?  Why did they reserve that citation JUST for deviant sex behavior practitioners and not Christian religion practitioners?  (Obergefell's Gay DOMA)  Where in the Constitution does it say that deviant sex addicts have enumerated protections?  Or even alluded to protections?  Are there protections for bulimics under the Commerce Clause?  Drug addicts or other majority-rejected behavioral addictions?


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > The Judiciary hasn't added jack.  The PA law cases have all been under State Public Accommodation laws under the states power to regulate intrastate commerce.  These laws were passed by State legislatures, not the Judiciary (which can't pass laws anyway).  PA laws have been upheld repeatedly by the SCOTUS.
> ...



Why would they cite the Commerce Clause when it didn't apply to DOMA?


----------



## mdk (Nov 9, 2017)

Imagine that! Sil supports public accommodation laws so long as they don't cover gays. Protections for me, but not for thee. Poor little hypocrite.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 9, 2017)

mdk said:


> Imagine that! Sil supports public accommodation laws so long as they don't cover gays. Protections for me, but not for thee. Poor little hypocrite.


Gay sex addicts, drug addicts, food addicts, those addicted to stealing (cleptomania), etc.  All majority-rejected deviant behaviors have NO Constitutional protections.  Please be comprehensive in your quotations mdk.  Otherwise you look dishonest/lying.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > The Judiciary hasn't added jack.  The PA law cases have all been under State Public Accommodation laws under the states power to regulate intrastate commerce.  These laws were passed by State legislatures, not the Judiciary (which can't pass laws anyway).  PA laws have been upheld repeatedly by the SCOTUS.
> ...



The only case the Supreme Court has rule on regarding 'deviant sex behavior practitioners' was Lawrence v Texas- where the Supreme Court said that Government has no business policing private sex acts between consenting adults.

None of the marriage cases had anything to do with sexual behavior.


----------



## mdk (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > The Judiciary hasn't added jack.  The PA law cases have all been under State Public Accommodation laws under the states power to regulate intrastate commerce.  These laws were passed by State legislatures, not the Judiciary (which can't pass laws anyway).  PA laws have been upheld repeatedly by the SCOTUS.
> ...



Why didn't the dissent cite The Prince's Trust in their opinion? My guess is the same reason why the majority didn't use the Commerce Clause: b/c they had nothing to do with the case being heard.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > You asked a question that wasn't simple.  So I answered it thoroughly.  I'm sure you didn't want/expect such a comprehensive argument in reply...
> ...



And really this identifies what Silhouette is all about.

She considers homosexuals to be deviants- and wants Americans to be able to discriminate against them. 

This is all about her personal bugaboo obsession with homosexuals and 'buttsex'- though I don't think it actually explains her delusional interpretations of the facts.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> [  Outside religion, we VOTE on what behaviors we allow to be tolerated and which we don't in this or that institution or format.



Again- your interpretation of the Constitution and the law are frankly idiotic.

Birth Control, voting, private consensual sex, mixed race marriage, abortion- all issues decided by the Supreme Court based upon the Constitution- because we have Constitutional protections against people like you.

Because of the Supreme Court- people like you can no longer pass laws to throw homosexuals in jail just for daring to love someone of the same gender.


----------



## mdk (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine that! Sil supports public accommodation laws so long as they don't cover gays. Protections for me, but not for thee. Poor little hypocrite.
> ...



And yet all those people are allowed to marry whether you piss your pants about it. They were able to marry yesterday, they will be able to marry today, and, they will be to marry tomorrow. The only thing you can do about it is whine and throw legal bullshit against the wall. How has that worked out for you thus far? Not good.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 9, 2017)

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Yeah- why would they cite something that would get them laughed out of court. They were real attorneys after all.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine that! Sil supports public accommodation laws so long as they don't cover gays. Protections for me, but not for thee. Poor little hypocrite.
> ...



Let us look at a relevant Public Accommodations law- shall we? 

Colorado law prohibits discrimination in
places of public accommodation based on
marital status
or actual or perceived
sexual orientation
. According to the Color
ado Anti-Discrimination Act
(“Act”), “sexual orientati
on” means heterosexuality, homosexuali
ty (lesbian or gay), bisexuality,
and transgender status. Transgender status means
a gender identity or gender expression that
differs from societal expectations based on gender assigned at birth.

Notice none of those refer to 'sex addicts' of any kind. It refers to sexual orientation.

I know in your sick twisted mind, you obsess over homosexuals having sex- but sexual orientation exists regardless of whether someone is having sex or not.


----------



## mdk (Nov 9, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Yeah- why would they cite something that would get them laughed out of court. They were real attorneys after all.



It's why almost all her legal rambling never get used in oral arguments. Either the lawyers are bright enough or her arguments are retarded. I am guessing the latter is the real reason why.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> So you're assisting Syriusly in not answering the question by not answering the question also and introducing gibberish as a strawman.  Time to report you again.



Report who? Since you don't use the reply button- are you going to report everyone?


----------



## bodecea (Nov 9, 2017)

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > It's OK.  I know you just "forgot" to include bulimics & drug addicts etc..
> ...


No offense taken.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine that! Sil supports public accommodation laws so long as they don't cover gays. Protections for me, but not for thee. Poor little hypocrite.
> ...


Show us where those cake bakers refused to bake cakes for any of those you listed.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



Again this just shows how little Silhouette understands the Constitution and Public Accommodation laws.

Before the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed- it was perfectly legal to deny service to blacks or Jews or Mexicans- or women. 

When the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed- Jews didn't get legal protection because the Constitution says that government can't discriminate based upon religion- Jews- and Christians-and women- got protection because Congress realized that it was wrong to discriminate against people because of their religious beliefs, or color, or gender or country of origin.

Most states have passed their own public accommodation laws- and some of them include protections for discrimination against the handicapped, against veterans, and also discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation.

Again what Silhouette refuses to acknowledge is that these laws protect everyone based on their sexual orientation- so in Colorado if a gay shop owner refused to sell a cantalope to Silhouette because she was flaunting her heterosexuality(maybe holding hands with a man)- that shop owner would be breaking the law. 

This is all about Silhouette's obsessive hatred of homosexuals. 

Sad really.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 9, 2017)

WorldWatcher said:


> The Judiciary hasn't added jack.  The PA law cases have all been under State Public Accommodation laws under the states power to regulate intrastate commerce.  These laws were passed by State legislatures, not the Judiciary (which can't pass laws anyway).  PA laws have been upheld repeatedly by the SCOTUS.



 Why did they reserve that citation JUST for deviant sex behavior practitioners and not Christian religion practitioners? [/QUOTE]


Syriusly said:


> The only case the Supreme Court has rule on regarding 'deviant sex behavior practitioners' was *Lawrence v Texas- where the Supreme Court said that Government has no business policing private sex acts between consenting adults*.
> 
> None of the marriage cases had anything to do with sexual behavior.



Keyword: PRIVATE.  When that group of deviant sex practitioners seeks to make what they do in private a public-sanctioned event (gay marriage) that involves stripping children of the right to both a mother and father in marriage, a right they've enjoyed since time-immemorial to 2015, then Lawrence v Texas DOES NOT apply.

The act of "marrying" a person of the same sex implies the two will bed down together and seek to raise children; whether or not they actually do.  A childless nonphysical relationship of cohabitation should not get incentive benefits from the state.  Otherwise mere dorm roomies in college would all qualify for marriage.  States give benefits to marrieds to entice them to provide a stable home of mother/father to children statistically anticipated to arrive.  Otherwise a state has no fiscal reason to entice marriage at all.


----------



## mdk (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Keyword: PRIVATE. When that group of deviant sex practitioners seeks to make what they do in private a public-sanctioned event (gay marriage) that involves stripping children of the right to both a mother and father in marriage, a right they've enjoyed since time-immemorial to 2015, then Lawrence v Texas DOES NOT apply.



Do you think that gay people have public sex at their weddings?  

I've been to numerous gay and straight weddings. I don't recall any of them having public sex as a part of the ceremony.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 9, 2017)

mdk said:


> Do you think that gay people have public sex at their weddings?
> 
> I've been to numerous gay and straight weddings. I don't recall any of them having public sex as a part of the ceremony.



No, they expect the public to sanction (with benefits and a contract) their deviant sexuality at the expense of children who used to get a mother and father both out of the marriage contract since time immemorial to 2015.  (Illegal revision of a contract to the detriment of children).


----------



## mdk (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think that gay people have public sex at their weddings?
> ...



You've made a fool of yourself on numerous occasions concerning the Infancy Doctrine and yet you continue to use it anyway. Too funny.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 9, 2017)

mdk said:


> You've made a fool of yourself on numerous occasions concerning the Infancy Doctrine and yet you continue to use it anyway. Too funny.



That's an ad hominem and not a lucid rebuttal. Care to give facts a try in your argument?  Shall we consult the mother/father survey again to refresh your memory on the 85% of people who believe a mother and father both are important in a growing child's life?


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > The Judiciary hasn't added jack.  The PA law cases have all been under State Public Accommodation laws under the states power to regulate intrastate commerce.  These laws were passed by State legislatures, not the Judiciary (which can't pass laws anyway).  PA laws have been upheld repeatedly by the SCOTUS.
> ...


They didn't. 

None of these laws have anything to do with 'deviant sex behavior practitioners' and literally all of these laws apply to Christians and Jews and Muslims.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > The Judiciary hasn't added jack.  The PA law cases have all been under State Public Accommodation laws under the states power to regulate intrastate commerce.  These laws were passed by State legislatures, not the Judiciary (which can't pass laws anyway).  PA laws have been upheld repeatedly by the SCOTUS.
> ...





Syriusly said:


> The only case the Supreme Court has rule on regarding 'deviant sex behavior practitioners' was *Lawrence v Texas- where the Supreme Court said that Government has no business policing private sex acts between consenting adults*.
> 
> None of the marriage cases had anything to do with sexual behavior.



Keyword: PRIVATE.  When that group of deviant sex practitioners .[/QUOTE]

Again

None of the marriage cases had anything to do with sexual behavior.

And Lawrence is not one of the marriage cases.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > The Judiciary hasn't added jack.  The PA law cases have all been under State Public Accommodation laws under the states power to regulate intrastate commerce.  These laws were passed by State legislatures, not the Judiciary (which can't pass laws anyway).  PA laws have been upheld repeatedly by the SCOTUS.
> ...





Syriusly said:


> The only case the Supreme Court has rule on regarding 'deviant sex behavior practitioners' was *Lawrence v Texas- where the Supreme Court said that Government has no business policing private sex acts between consenting adults*.
> 
> None of the marriage cases had anything to do with sexual behavior.




The act of "marrying" a person of the same sex implies the two will bed down together and seek to raise children; .[/QUOTE]

Not at all- marrying doesn't imply 'bedding down'- or raising children.

As I pointed out neither of the couples in Windsor or Obergefell had children or raised children.

Nor does the marriage of my 80 year old uncle to his 70 old bride imply that they will seek to raise children together.


----------



## mdk (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > You've made a fool of yourself on numerous occasions concerning the Infancy Doctrine and yet you continue to use it anyway. Too funny.
> ...



The Infancy Doctrine does not apply to contract between adults, nor has it ever been used to overturn one. You know this. I know this, but you're hoping no one else does. 

A household having a mother and father is very important for children, unless it's yours.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think that gay people have public sex at their weddings?
> ...



And there you go again- the bugaboo you have is with the 'deviant sexuality' as you call it. 

Frankly no different than those who a problem with the 'deviant faith' of the Jews. 

You are just a bigot who promotes your bigotry- no different than those who post the Jewish blood libel.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > You've made a fool of yourself on numerous occasions concerning the Infancy Doctrine and yet you continue to use it anyway. Too funny.
> ...



LOL

Having you tell someone else to use 'facts' is just very ironic. 

Since the only thing 'factual' about your survey is the number of posters who responded- not your fantasy interpretation.


----------



## Lysistrata (Nov 9, 2017)

There is no such thing as "Christian ideals against homosexuality." The source of these ideas comes from a place very far distant from any faith in the teachings of Jesus.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 9, 2017)

mdk said:


> You've made a fool of yourself on numerous occasions concerning the Infancy Doctrine and yet you continue to use it anyway. Too funny.





Silhouette said:


> That's an ad hominem and not a lucid rebuttal. Care to give facts a try in your argument?  Shall we consult the mother/father survey again to refresh your memory on the 85% of people who believe a mother and father both are important in a growing child's life?





mdk said:


> *The Infancy Doctrine does not apply to contract between adults, nor has it ever been used to overturn one*. You know this. I know this, but you're hoping no one else does.
> 
> A household having a mother and father is very important for children, unless it's yours.



No, that has never been tested in law...yet... But as the objections to Obegefell mount, it very likely will be.  And when it is, they'll have the Infancy Doctrine to cite to see if an implied contract (as legally enforceable as a written one) can be revised to the detriment of children; especially without their having representation at the revision table.  

The argument would be of course, that children are IMPLICIT PARTNERS AND BENEFICIARIES to and of the marriage contract since time immemorial.  Also, that marriage was created precisely to benefit them predominantly, society secondarily and the actual adults in the marriage tertiarily.  Marriage was created way way way back when and maintained until 2015 predominantly to secure a stable mother/father home environment so the little darlings would not grow up to be miscreants that then would go out and rampage the culture they lived in.  Long ago people saw what happened when little ones lacked a mother or father.  The idea was to entice those two to snuggle up for the benefit of the kids and by extension, the society those kids would one day join.  The adults are sort of an afterthought, seen in that light.

Good luck arguing otherwise.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > You've made a fool of yourself on numerous occasions concerning the Infancy Doctrine and yet you continue to use it anyway. Too funny.
> ...



If the 'infancy doctrine' applied to marriage- the first place it would be tested would be with divorce law- because if the 'infancy doctrine' applied to marriage, then children would be a part of the contract- and the courts would deny any divorce that was not in the interest of children. 

Instead the states have gone the other way with no-fault divorce- making divorce easier- and with no restrictions on the divorce itself- based upon the childrens interest.


----------



## mdk (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> No, that has never been tested in law...yet... But as the objections to Obegefell mount, it very likely will be. And when it is, they'll have the Infancy Doctrine to cite to see if an implied contract (as legally enforceable as a written one) can be revised to the detriment of children; especially without their having representation at the revision table.
> 
> The argument would be of course, that children are IMPLICIT PARTNERS AND BENEFICIARIES to and of the marriage contract since time immemorial. Also, that marriage was created precisely to benefit them predominantly, society secondarily and the actual adults in the marriage tertiarily. Marriage was created way way way back when and maintained until 2015 predominantly to secure a stable mother/father home environment so the little darlings would not grow up to be miscreants that then would go out and rampage the culture they lived in. Long ago people saw what happened when little ones lacked a mother or father. The idea was to entice those two to snuggle up for the benefit of the kids and by extension, the society those kids would one day join. The adults are sort of an afterthought, seen in that light.
> 
> Good luck arguing otherwise.



How can children that not exist be an "implicit partner" to a marriage contract? Hint: They can't. 

Why wasn't the Infancy Doctrine used in any of the oral arguments in the numerous state and federal cases arguing aganist gay marriage? Hint: Because it doesn't apply. Also, it's retarded. 

I don't need luck to argue otherwise. I have facts and you have your vivid imagination.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 9, 2017)

mdk said:


> How can children that not exist be an "implicit partner" to a marriage contract? Hint: They can't.



Yes, they can, when one considers marriage is an institution with regards to all children born or unborn as yet.  American children are implicit partners as a whole to the marriage contract.


----------



## mdk (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > How can children that not exist be an "implicit partner" to a marriage contract? Hint: They can't.
> ...



No, they can't and we've never done so in this nation. It's why you've never heard anyone but you argue that children are an implicit partner in a marriage contract. People that don't exist can't be a party to a contract.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think that gay people have public sex at their weddings?
> ...


How interesting that people like you look at couples and all you see is them in bed having sex.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 9, 2017)

mdk said:


> How can children that not exist be an "implicit partner" to a marriage contract? Hint: They can't.





Silhouette said:


> Yes, they can, when one considers marriage is an institution with regards to all children born or unborn as yet.  American children are implicit partners as a whole to the marriage contract.





mdk said:


> No, they can't and we've never done so in this nation. It's why you've never heard anyone but you argue that children are an implicit partner in a marriage contract. People that don't exist can't be a party to a contract.



But that's not why marriage was invented since time immemorial to 2015.  It was invented anticipating the arrival of children and so, the unborn or as-yet unconceived DO have rights in that scenario where the states incentivizing marriage is concerned.  If you think you're going to convince the 85% who feel motherless/fatherless marriages are not right where children are concerned, you have your work cut out for you.

Times have changed, but not that much as it turns out:  Poll.  Please Vote.  Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?


----------



## mdk (Nov 9, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > How can children that not exist be an "implicit partner" to a marriage contract? Hint: They can't.
> ...



Rinse. Repeat.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 10, 2017)

Are you referring to your own posting style?


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 10, 2017)

mdk said:


> I've been against public accommodation laws for many years now. We've had this discussion on numerous occasions in the past. Hell, I said as much on the first page of this thread. Do you oppose PA laws? Or only when they cover fags?


Not sure exactly.  I think they apply when they violate ACTUAL, REAL constitutional protections such as race, religion or country of origin, or gender (not what one does with one's private parts, but the actual private parts & DNA denoting "male" or "female").  I don't think it should be legal to say _"I'm not serving you because you are black, or a woman, or from Lithuania originally or you're a Christian"._  If you're open to the public, you serve protected people.  But deviant sex behaviors-as-identities are NOT protected Constitutionally.  I don't give a rat's ass how many activist judges say they are, there is NO LANGUAGE that even vaguely implies protection for such behaviors calling themselves "an identity".  Otherwise we'd have protections for bulimic-Americans and cleoptomaniac-Americans and drug-addict-Americans....etc. etc. in the interest of fairness.

If a compulsive addictive behavior gets to call itself "an identity" and get special protections from the Constitution (without that being actually legally done: ie legislated), then ALL compulsive addictive behaviors can have that umbrella without having to apply.  We cannot express a discriminatory preference for one set of majority-rejected deviant behaviors to the disadvantage of any other majority-rejected deviant behaviors.  Equality.  And you know I can cite precedent on equality.

If people doing deviant sex want specific protection for themselves as a waffling, vauge, amorphic "identity" (a new class) they need to petition their representatives to LEGISLATE new protection under the Constitution for that brand spanking new class.  Otherwise the judges are doing nothing but a power grab from the Legislature which is a violation of the separation of powers.


bodecea said:


> So, you want special privileges based on your religion.



No, I want the courts to wake up and define how deviant behavior practitioners can gain a special class status while they are somehow forgetting that deviant behavior practitioners are what the voters keep in check with the penal and civil code systems.  ie: the 14th Amendment's core theory is "if you allow one, you allow all".  Equality.  So why do just deviant sex practitioners get a special pass while other deviant behaviors don't have special protections?  You've got it exactly backwards.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 10, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > How can children that not exist be an "implicit partner" to a marriage contract? Hint: They can't.
> ...



Merely repeating over and over- what the courts have found to be false- doesn't magically make it true now.

You are delusional.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 10, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > I've been against public accommodation laws for many years now. We've had this discussion on numerous occasions in the past. Hell, I said as much on the first page of this thread. Do you oppose PA laws? Or only when they cover fags?
> ...



And again- you have no clue what the law is or even what the Public Accommodation rules are.

There is no constitutional protection for race, religion, country of origin, gender or sexual orientation for public accommodations.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act- and all other public accommodation laws are legislation- which protect the rights of the discriminated classes named- some are based on behavior- like religion- some are based upon race- some are based upon sexual orientation. 

Then when it comes to marriage- we all have marriage rights- and the States cannot arbitrarily deny them- which is why Obergefell is merely the latest of the Supreme Court decisions overturning unconstitutional marriage laws.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 10, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> If people doing deviant sex want specific protection for themselves.



People doing 'deviant sex' got protection from unconstitutional interference into their privacy in Lawrence v. Texas.

Because of Lawrence v. Texas good ol boys can no longer have gays arrested for private consensual sex.

Obergefell of course has nothing to do with the 'deviant sex' you are so obsessed with. It has to do with marriage.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 10, 2017)

Congress has no Power, to dictate morals of Religion.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 10, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Congress has no Power, to dictate morals of Religion.


The Judicial has no Power to dictate (a)morals of the LGBTQ etc. cult either.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 11, 2017)

Syriusly, merely repeating over and over your inane stance doesn't give it veracity.l


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 11, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> If people doing deviant sex want specific protection for themselves.





Syriusly said:


> People doing 'deviant sex' got protection from unconstitutional interference into their privacy in Lawrence v. Texas.
> 
> Because of Lawrence v. Texas good ol boys can no longer have gays arrested for private consensual sex.
> 
> Obergefell of course has nothing to do with the 'deviant sex' you are so obsessed with. It has to do with marriage.



Marriage is a public recognition of two people to cohabitate with the best benefit to children.  In gay marriage boys are stripped legally of a father for life 50% of the time and girls are stripped legally of a mother for life 50% of the time.  In 100% of so-called "gay marriage", children are stripped of one or the other "legally" for life.  Which is a violation of their millennial-old contractual enjoyment of marriage for their sake.


----------



## Lysistrata (Nov 11, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > If people doing deviant sex want specific protection for themselves.
> ...


What children?


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 11, 2017)

Lysistrata said:


> What children?



The children every state anticipates will statistically arrive to a marriage; whether or not they do.  They have to approve of a contract to "children" generally as to marriage.  Gay marriage takes either the father or mother away from those anticipated children for life as a matter of contractual law; which is forbidden to do.

The Infancy Doctrine says no contract shared or implied to be shared by children may have terms detrimental to them.  That's "what children".


----------



## mdk (Nov 11, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > If people doing deviant sex want specific protection for themselves.
> ...



Merely repeating over and over your inane stance doesn't give it veracity!


----------



## Lysistrata (Nov 11, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > What children?
> ...


So you think that a lot of children will be born to same-sex couples? Please review basic biology.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 11, 2017)

Lysistrata said:


> So you think that a lot of children will be born to same-sex couples? Please review basic biology.


Nice strawman.  We agree that gays can never be natural parents.  I'm talking about all children, natural, adopted etc. need both mother and father from the marriage contract.  Not the guaranteed absence of one or the other for life from the marriage contract...


----------



## bodecea (Nov 11, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > If people doing deviant sex want specific protection for themselves.
> ...


Thank you for proving that the 14th Amendment applies.


----------



## mdk (Nov 11, 2017)

Any marriage that doesn't produce children should be made null and void. After all, marriage isn't really about the two people getting married, it's all about the children.


----------



## Lysistrata (Nov 11, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > So you think that a lot of children will be born to same-sex couples? Please review basic biology.
> ...


You are still imagining children. Married people often do not produce children between them. If there are children present in their families, this phenomenon is through another means than through biological procreation. If a married couple does not produce biological children, what harm is done, anyway? Then the married couple would just be one man and one woman down the block, or two men, or two women living down the block. I fail to see why this is so earth-shattering.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 11, 2017)

Imagining children?


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 11, 2017)

Lysistrata said:


> You are still imagining children. Married people often do not produce children between them. If there are children present in their families, this phenomenon is through another means than through biological procreation. If a married couple does not produce biological children, what harm is done, anyway? Then the married couple would just be one man and one woman down the block, or two men, or two women living down the block. I fail to see why this is so earth-shattering.



Being a child legally separated for life from either a mother or father is brand new law and an earth-shattering concept given that THE reason marriage was invented was to insure both vital mother and father for boys and girls anticipated to arrive.

Two budding business partners sign a contract in anticipation of profits not yet existing, yet when they exist, they are bound by the terms of the contract's specifics for a reason.  Not all partnerships result in profits.  Some fail right out of the chute.  That doesn't mean we revise business contracts to exclude the idea of profits entirely because some partnerships fail.

Marriage has always been about children primarily and adults secondarily since time immemorial.  It was that way to keep boys with fathers and girls with mothers and the influence of both in each's life.  It was so they grew up to be the best people society could expect instead of outcasts and ne'er do wells as to this day is statistically shown to be true (page 6, left hand side).  The largest youth survey of its kind showing the importance of regular male role models for boys and regular female role models for girls> Youth_Index_2010_Jan2011.pdf

And we have 85% of responders here agreeing:  Poll.  Please Vote.  Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?


----------



## Montrovant (Nov 11, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly, merely repeating over and over your inane stance doesn't give it veracity.l


----------



## Lysistrata (Nov 11, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > You are still imagining children. Married people often do not produce children between them. If there are children present in their families, this phenomenon is through another means than through biological procreation. If a married couple does not produce biological children, what harm is done, anyway? Then the married couple would just be one man and one woman down the block, or two men, or two women living down the block. I fail to see why this is so earth-shattering.
> ...


You are still imagining children. Where are the children you write about coming from? Some heterosexuals will have them by natural means and then proceed to screw up the parental relationship, including through violence between the adult partners. At least with same-sex partners, we know that they care for children because they want to and are volunteers, whereas many heterosexuals just have them because they are careless.
Some heterosexuals think that parenthood means writing out a check for child support, but are not there to diaper, bathe, feed, comfort, cuddle, read bedtime stories, take to school, go to parent-teacher conferences, take their child to doctors, instruct on the ways of the world.
Have fun in fairyland.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 11, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Congress has no Power, to dictate morals of Religion.
> ...



Well I guess its a good thing that the Judiciary hasn;t dictated morals to anyone. 

The Judiciary enforces the Constitution- so that the 'moral majority' like yourself- can't tell Jews or Blacks or Gays what is permissable to say, who they are allowed to marry or who they can have sex with.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 11, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly, merely repeating over and over your inane stance doesn't give it veracity.l



LOL- I enjoy citing the facts again- I cite the actual laws- the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Colorado Public Accommodations law- and court cases- such as Obergefell, Windsor, Loving, Lawrence

You cite what the voices in your head tell you.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 11, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > If people doing deviant sex want specific protection for themselves.
> ...



Marriage is a public recognition of the union and partnership of two people. Marriage doesn't require children- and children don't require marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 11, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > What children?
> ...



There is virtually nothing in that paragraph that is actually true- it is all literally plucked from your imagination.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 11, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > So you think that a lot of children will be born to same-sex couples? Please review basic biology.
> ...



Lots of gays are biological parents of children. Probably not the majority but certainly there is nothing preventing any gay person from being a biological parent.

And preventing two gays from marrying- doesn't magically provide those kids with a parent of the opposite gender. 

It only ensures that their children will be harmed.

Which is clearly the point of your campaign.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 11, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > If people doing deviant sex want specific protection for themselves.
> ...



And again you are just lying.

For perhaps the majority of gay couples- they will have no children- so not 100% of anything
Children being raised by a gay couple are not being stripped of anything when their two mom's marry- instead they are getting two legally married mom's- they are getting protection- which you want to deny.
And this comes down to the ultimate lie of your campaign. Your goal is deny gays marriage- and to injure any children that they raise.

How do we know this? 

Because everything you propose has no other purpose- no other outcome.

You want to deny all gay couples their right to marriage- 'to protect the children'
Even the gay couples who don't have children.
Even though denying a gay couple with children won't protect those children at all. 

The only things your proposals do is:
a) Deny gay couples marriage and
b) Deny their children married parents. 

Your proposals do nothing but harm people- and that is your intention.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 11, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Imagining children?



Well you aren't imagining children- you are using and abusing the issue of children in order to harm gay Americans.

Obergefell and Windsor- neither couple had children- yet you claim that they should be denied marriage because of the children you imagine that they might have.

You claim that marriage is only for children- but you have no problem with infertile 80 year olds who will never have children marrying- as long as they are straight.  You claim that is the exception to the rule- but ignore the fact that with gays being some 3% of the population- everything that they do is as much of an exception at two 80's year old heterosexuals marrying.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 11, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> [Q
> Marriage has always been about children primarily and adults secondarily since time immemorial.  It was that way to keep boys with fathers and girls with mothers and the influence of both in each's life.



You keep repeating that- but the voices in your head are lying to you. 

Men married women right before they went off to fight World War 2- knowing that they might die. Not because that marriage was designed to keep boys with fathers- but because they wanted to be married to their wives. Sea Captains married and left on 2 year voyages leaving their wives to raise all of the kids. 

Everything you do is designed to harm gays- and any children that they may raise.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 11, 2017)

And gay marriage is designed to hurt children by using a contract to hold them away from either a mom or dad for life.


----------



## Montrovant (Nov 11, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> And gay marriage is designed to hurt children by using a contract to hold them away from either a mom or dad for life.



If the gay couple is not having the children biologically, wouldn't that mean any children they have are already without a mother or father?  The gay married couple would be adopting.  Children that get adopted are already without parents, or at least without parents who have any involvement in their lives.

If you are concerned about children not having a mother and father, the only argument that might make sense in this context would be that gay couples shouldn't have biological children where the sperm or egg donor does not have a part in the child's life.  Whether or not a same sex couple is married has no effect on the parental status of their children.

Are you going to argue that it's better for a child without parents to wait and hope that an opposite sex couple might adopt them than have a same sex couple do so now?  I believe that is an argument you've made before.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 11, 2017)

It's best for a state to incentivize mother/father marriages for the contract's main beneficiaries: children who come in both genders and who need regular mentors in the home of their own gender.

If the couple remains childless that's their choice.  But that choice doesn't affect the terms of the contract and its main beneficiaries in homes where children arrive; where states' extending benefits are concerned.  They get something out of the terms: children raised by both mother and father.  Otherwise it's not worth the dime they spend.

And, contracts children share implicitly cannot contain terms detrimental to them; such as legally bifurcating them from either a mother or father for life.  Because marriage is about the children it serves and has been about that since the beginning of recorded human history, only man/woman contracts are valid because only that combination can provide father and mother to children which statistically will arrive.  States rely on statistics, not rare exceptions to the rule when setting rules about marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 11, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> And gay marriage is designed to hurt children by using a contract to hold them away from either a mom or dad for life.



And how does it keep them way fro a mom or dad 'for life' Silly?

Case A: 
Sally and Jill are moms to two kids- not married.
Case B:
Sally and Jill are moms to two kids- married.
Case C:
Sally is the mom of two kids

Tell me how in Silly's world the kids are worse off in Case B- than in Case A or Case C.

Because in the real world- the kids in Case B are protected from harm.

And that is of course why you object to gays being married. Because you want their children to be harmed.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 11, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> It's best for a state to incentivize mother/father marriages for the contract's main beneficiaries: children who come in both genders and who need regular mentors in the home of their own gender..



Except of course the state doesn't do that. The state provides incentives for kids- and provides incentives for married people- it doesn't provide married people incentives to have kids. 

And of course the state provides for no fault divorce so those parents can divorce each other and no longer be 'regular mentors in the home of their own gender' 

But that would be great for girls being raised by two moms- so that they could have two mentors of their own gender.

It is fun to watch Silhouette twist and torture logic- and the facts- to build a house of  cards designed to deny gay couples- and their children equal treatment- and to specifically harm them.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 12, 2017)

The exceptions that don't fit "father/mother" are not called "marriage".  Father/mother further distilled are "adult male/adult female".  In many states these must not be related by blood too closely.  All for reasons of the children anticipated to arrive.  Just like profits are anticipated to arrive in any budding business contract between partners.  Their nonexistence at the onset of the partnership does not mean they aren't part of the anticipated and implied contract.

So if you're an adult male & adult female not related too closely by blood, you may marry because only adult males and adult females can be fathers and mothers.  Any other combination doesn't work for what the kids need.  So adult male and females may marry, regardless of the presence of children at the outset.  It's their anticipation that states set the parameters around.  Failing to produce doesn't disqualify you as an adult male and female.  Some day you two might decide to adopt.  And so, you must fit the bill.


----------



## mdk (Nov 12, 2017)




----------



## Syriusly (Nov 12, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> The exceptions that don't fit "father/mother" are not called "marriage".  Father/mother further distilled are "adult male/adult female".  In many states these must not be related by blood too closely.  All for reasons of the children anticipated to arrive.  Just like profits are anticipated to arrive in any budding business contract between partners.  Their nonexistence at the onset of the partnership does not mean they aren't part of the anticipated and implied contract.
> 
> So if you're an adult male & adult female not related too closely by blood, you may marry because only adult males and adult females can be fathers and mothers.  Any other combination doesn't work for what the kids need.  So adult male and females may marry, regardless of the presence of children at the outset.  It's their anticipation that states set the parameters around.  Failing to produce doesn't disqualify you as an adult male and female.  Some day you two might decide to adopt.  And so, you must fit the bill.



Did you even read that gibberish you wrote?

The States  have laws allowing the marriage of First Cousins- but only if they prove that they cannot have children. But you seem to be saying that their children are still part of some implied contract- when the contract specifically says there can be no children!

IF the States actually meant that Marriage was for the benefit of children- then they would just forbid the marriage of First Cousins- rather than giving them a carve out to allow them to marry- but only if they cannot have children.

And yes- many states just forbid that kind of marriage completely.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 13, 2017)

Marriage is about children first and foremost, their anticipation and stable home of father/mother for boys and girls to arrive.  Deal with that.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 13, 2017)

Back to the law in AZ.  Syriusly has dodged the question and gotten off the hook long enough.  Should a gay graphic designer be required by PA laws to print a billboard for a Christian customer that reads: "Homosexuality is a sin unto God!"?  Yes or no Syriusly?  

*waits for another dodge*


----------



## my2¢ (Nov 13, 2017)

_Now, should the State of Arizona which so recently announced Christians must promote the behaviors of homosexuals, also force homosexuals to promote the behaviors of Christians?_

I voted "no" since the Christian denominations that I most closely follow would favor such action by the state.


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 13, 2017)

my2¢ said:


> _Now, should the State of Arizona which so recently announced Christians must promote the behaviors of homosexuals, also force homosexuals to promote the behaviors of Christians?_
> 
> I voted "no" since the Christian denominations that I most closely follow would favor such action by the state.


But in the interest of fairness, shouldn't a gay designer have to accommodate the wishes of his Christian clients?  If Christians cannot object despite their deeply held beliefs, why can a gay designer object BECAUSE of his deeply held beliefs?


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 13, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Marriage is about children first and foremost, their anticipation and stable home of father/mother for boys and girls to arrive.  Deal with that.



LOL- none of us have to deal with your own personal fantasy.

Which is why not one of the many states who fought to prevent gay marriage even attempted your convoluted and twisted logic in order to deny gay couples their right to marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 13, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> my2¢ said:
> 
> 
> > _Now, should the State of Arizona which so recently announced Christians must promote the behaviors of homosexuals, also force homosexuals to promote the behaviors of Christians?_
> ...



Actually what it is is that business's have to follow the law.

And it doesn't matter whether the business owner is gay or Christian- the business cannot deny service to a Christian based upon his faith. And in a few states the business cannot deny service to a homosexual based upon his sexual orientation.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 13, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Back to the law in AZ.  Syriusly has dodged the question and gotten off the hook long enough.  Should a gay graphic designer be required by PA laws to print a billboard for a Christian customer that reads: "Homosexuality is a sin unto God!"?  Yes or no Syriusly?
> 
> *waits for another dodge*


LOL- I will say it again- it doesn't matter whether the graphic designer is gay or Christian. 

If the business owner denies service to the Christian because of the Christians faith then he is in violation of the law.

Now answer me this question- what if the business owner is a Christian- and refuses to print that billboard- because the business owner believes that your Christian is falsely representing Christianity?


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 13, 2017)

So OK then gay business owners have to accommodate messages like "homosexuality is a sin unto God!", even if that billboard (they had to create against their will/beliefs) will then sit 10 feet outside the front door of their shop.  Gotcha.  I hope this happens soon.  Love to see how it's handled.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 13, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> So OK then gay business owners have to accommodate messages like "homosexuality is a sin unto God!", even if that billboard (they had to create against their will/beliefs) will then sit 10 feet outside the front door of their shop.  Gotcha.  I hope this happens soon.  Love to see how it's handled.



Silhouette- nothing is stopping you from putting your money where you mouth is- go find that mythical gay billboard owner- and pay to have that billboard put up. Hell I have seen plenty of billboards like them up across the U.S. 

Now answer me this question- what if the business owner is a Christian- and refuses to print that billboard- because the business owner believes that your Christian is falsely representing Christianity?


----------



## my2¢ (Nov 13, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> my2¢ said:
> 
> 
> > _Now, should the State of Arizona which so recently announced Christians must promote the behaviors of homosexuals, also force homosexuals to promote the behaviors of Christians?_
> ...



Accommodate in what way?  I would agree that a gay designer should not be able to refuse service to anybody based on religion, race, or sexual leaning. 

Brush & Nib designers are not being forced to stop promoting their Christianity, per their website: Meet Us


----------



## Silhouette (Nov 13, 2017)

Well it looks like we're all on the same page then: Gay graphic designers...break out those pens and start designing "Homosexuality is a sin unto God" signs pronto.  Or AZ will fine you and take your business license away.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 20, 2017)

Silhouette said:


> Well it looks like we're all on the same page then: Gay graphic designers...break out those pens and start designing "Homosexuality is a sin unto God" signs pronto.  Or AZ will fine you and take your business license away.



I look forward to seeing Silhouette trying to hire that mythical gay billboard operator to put up "Homosexuality is a sin unto God" and pretending like he refused her so she can sue him. 

I won't hold my breath.


----------

