# Why does it matter if Homosexuality is a choice or not?



## Teddy Pollins (Jul 28, 2015)

Is it an actual question for anybody else? I feel that saying it is a choice somehow implies that something is fundamentally wrong with homosexual activity. If you were born loving dudes or one day woke up to find you only wanted to sleep with men, I fail to understand how either can justify persecution. Of course this applies to lesbians as well.
Having choice or not homosexuality has no sense...


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Jul 28, 2015)

If it's not a choice then the hatred and fear the homophobes have of gay people becomes just that, fear and hatred.  It also makes the Bible dead wrong as then it is no longer a sin, it's people being as God created them.  Open the door to religion being bullshit on something that fundamental and all hell breaks loose...


----------



## Pete7469 (Jul 28, 2015)

I just think butt piracy is gross, not that the pillow biters deserve contempt.

If I was a woman I'd be a raging bulldyke.

What I don't get about queers in general is how that one aspect of their life is what defines them, it is the the focal point of how they live their lives. Even other perverts keep their deviance to themselves, why the queers have to demand acceptance and participation in their ceremonies is beyond comprehension. It's because of that that I oppose their agenda. If they would just shut the fuck up no one would care what they did.


----------



## Bombur (Jul 28, 2015)

Teddy Pollins said:


> Is it an actual question for anybody else? I feel that saying it is a choice somehow implies that something is fundamentally wrong with homosexual activity. If you were born loving dudes or one day woke up to find you only wanted to sleep with men, I fail to understand how either can justify persecution. Of course this applies to lesbians as well.
> Having choice or not homosexuality has no sense...



It doesn't matter, you are correct. When you approach the issue morally the first place you always start is with love and empathy and whether it is a choice or not you should treat them with dignity and respect. Those that hate fail in many ways but it is very common for them to try and rationalize their hate. The discussion about whether it is a choice or not is really just people trying to argue against a rationalization that will simply change if need be.


----------



## Seawytch (Jul 28, 2015)

In a free country it shouldn't matter...but it seems to matter to the haters.

For the record, I never chose.


----------



## Pete7469 (Jul 28, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> In a free country it shouldn't matter...but it seems to matter to the haters.
> 
> For the record, I never chose.



In a free country you should have the choice not to cater to a wedding without worrying about having your business shut down or threatened with violence.

You queers are the real haters.

Oregon bakery shuts down after gay rights attacks Deseret News National

Indiana pizza shop won t cater gay wedding gets over 50K from supporters - The Washington Post

Gay Group Demands Christian Churches Be SHUT DOWN for Opposing Same-Sex Marriage Top Right News


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Jul 28, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > In a free country it shouldn't matter...but it seems to matter to the haters.
> ...


PA laws apply to many, and for good reason, and they are constitutional.  Obey the law or face the consequences.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 28, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Or fight to change the law.
 Laws are not meant to be followed anyway, the left has already shown they only have to abide by the rights and laws they agree with.


----------



## Seawytch (Jul 28, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > In a free country it shouldn't matter...but it seems to matter to the haters.
> ...



Title II of the Civil Rights Act. 

Aaahhhhh tyranny!!!!


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 28, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


The Constitution only has to be followed if you agree with it, rights are  subject to the discretion of those in office.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jul 28, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> The Constitution only has to be followed if you agree with it, rights are  subject to the discretion of those in office.



Yup.

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
- Mousey Dung


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jul 28, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



If you're going to force someone to do business with you who doesn't want to through the threat of losing their business if they don't then the tyrannical act is being committed by you, not them.  All of these gay couples who have sued have not done so out of a sense of justice, they've done so out of spite and a want for revenge.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 28, 2015)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pete7469 said:
> ...


Cash is always good to have too.


----------



## S.J. (Jul 28, 2015)

I don't care what they do, just don't try to force others to participate in, suport, or finance it.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Jul 28, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pete7469 said:
> ...


Do the real conservatives a favor, don't call yourself one.  They are known for being rational instead of hyper-partisan.  

And the laws apply at all times but enforcement of them tends to change.  The phrase, The Law Is An Ass is still accurate.  Hopefully the people who are charged with enforcing the laws take that into consideration.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Jul 28, 2015)

S.J. said:


> I don't care what they do, just don't try to force others to participate in, suport, or finance it.


Others are mandated only to do what they already do, for pay no less.


----------



## 1stRambo (Jul 28, 2015)

Yo, if you wish to live the life of abnormality, then follow Obama and his wicked ways, but if you are a stand up American, and wish to live the American way, then live your life as a moral American!!!

"GTP"
How Obama Wished He Could Keep The White House!


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jul 28, 2015)

Teddy Pollins said:


> Is it an actual question for anybody else? I feel that saying it is a choice somehow implies that something is fundamentally wrong with homosexual activity. If you were born loving dudes or one day woke up to find you only wanted to sleep with men, I fail to understand how either can justify persecution. Of course this applies to lesbians as well.
> Having choice or not homosexuality has no sense...


Something is fundamentally wrong with it. Were fags the only ones left alive they would go extinct. Unless you believe that like some frogs they can change sex when necessary


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 28, 2015)

OK!  Why don't WE ALL BECOME GAY!!!
That seems to be the objective right?
But wait... how will we reproduce?  Artificially right?  OK sounds like a plan!


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 28, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


one, do everyone here a favor and learn what the word conservative means. You evidently have no clue.
next the law and rights do not apply as written, they are up to the interpretation of whatever judge takes it upon himself to do so.
Rights are not absolute. They all come with conditions that need to be met before you are allowed them.


----------



## turzovka (Jul 28, 2015)

Teddy Pollins said:


> Is it an actual question for anybody else? I feel that saying it is a choice somehow implies that something is fundamentally wrong with homosexual activity. If you were born loving dudes or one day woke up to find you only wanted to sleep with men, I fail to understand how either can justify persecution. Of course this applies to lesbians as well.
> Having choice or not homosexuality has no sense...



Who is trying the hardest to prove this one way or another?....  those who are pushing hard for gay acceptance or those concerned about all this 'gay is ok' push?  (I say it is the gay activist group.)

I think most Christians opposed are mostly concerned about formally institutionalizing gay marriage as an accepted and proper norm for our nation.  Now this endorsement puts us in a different light and a judgment upon the nation’s soul.  Not unlike legalization of abortion.  Who are we fooling?  Not God.  This is a seriously bad development and affront to the One who has blessed us in so many ways hitherto.

So that is why it is a big deal.  Make it a legal contract with govt benefits similar to married couples and it is far less of an offense from my perspective.

I very much resent the govt involved in schools telling young kids gay sex is perfectly ok and ok for them to choose.  As well as the grotesque message if you want to change your gender that is fine, too.  This nation is immoral and uncaring towards its Creator.  How blind.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Jul 28, 2015)

turzovka said:


> Teddy Pollins said:
> 
> 
> > Is it an actual question for anybody else? I feel that saying it is a choice somehow implies that something is fundamentally wrong with homosexual activity. If you were born loving dudes or one day woke up to find you only wanted to sleep with men, I fail to understand how either can justify persecution. Of course this applies to lesbians as well.
> ...


This nation is secular.  Start there.


----------



## g5000 (Jul 28, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> What I don't get about queers in general is how that one aspect of their life is what defines them



It is the bigots who define them by that one aspect of their lives.  It is the bigots who oppress just because of that one aspect of their lives.


----------



## g5000 (Jul 28, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> If they would just shut the fuck up no one would care what they did.



You would like that, wouldn't you.  You would like the gays to just roll over and continue to take oppression by the likes of you and not complain.

The fact is, you bigots DO care what gays do.  That's the whole problem!


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 28, 2015)

Being a fudge packer or a carpet muncher is a "choice"......a perverted choice.....but still a choice.   .....


----------



## turzovka (Jul 28, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> This nation is secular.  Start there.



That means zero.    This nation is made up of 75% people who identify themselves as Christians.

Well if that 75% thinks God is Ok with gay marriage and abortion, then they are the naïve or careless ones I was speaking of.    They are the fools bringing judgment upon us all.      I do not expect those who do not believe in God or care one bit about him to be anything but wrong on issues such as this.   Somehow we have to overcome your blindness.


----------



## Bombur (Jul 28, 2015)

turzovka said:


> Teddy Pollins said:
> 
> 
> > Is it an actual question for anybody else? I feel that saying it is a choice somehow implies that something is fundamentally wrong with homosexual activity. If you were born loving dudes or one day woke up to find you only wanted to sleep with men, I fail to understand how either can justify persecution. Of course this applies to lesbians as well.
> ...



As a Christian I find your brand of Christianity to be terrible. You do not speak for me.


----------



## turzovka (Jul 28, 2015)

Bombur said:


> As a Christian I find your brand of Christianity to be terrible. You do not speak for me.



We do not choose brands of Christianity.     You want to say abortion is ok or gay sex is not sinful, fine.  But you telling me that is a brand of Christianity means nothing to me.

all sex outside of marriage is sinful in one degree or another.


----------



## MsnBama (Jul 28, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> What I don't get about queers in general is how that one aspect of their life is what defines them, it is the the focal point of how they live their lives. Even other perverts keep their deviance to themselves, why the queers have to demand acceptance and participation in their ceremonies is beyond comprehension. It's because of that that I oppose their agenda. If they would just shut the fuck up no one would care what they did.



What I don't get about homophobic assholes is how any aspect of someone else's life is what defines them, it is the focal point of how they live their own lives. Many other assholes keep their douchebag beliefs to themselves, why homophobic assholes have to spew hatred and demand national intolerance for ceremonies and lifestyles that do not impact their lives in any way is beyond comprehension. It's because of that that I oppose homophobic assholes and frequently find myself sad that there isn't a hell for them to burn in. If homophobic assholes would just shut the fuck up and live their own lives everyone of every race, gender, creed, and sexual orientation could live their own lives happily and in peace.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 28, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> I just think butt piracy is gross, not that the pillow biters deserve contempt.
> 
> If I was a woman I'd be a raging bulldyke.
> 
> What I don't get about queers in general is how that one aspect of their life is what defines them, it is the the focal point of how they live their lives. Even other perverts keep their deviance to themselves, why the queers have to demand acceptance and participation in their ceremonies is beyond comprehension. It's because of that that I oppose their agenda. If they would just shut the fuck up no one would care what they did.



Well for hundreds of years- people like yourself passed laws to criminalize what they did in private, and passed laws to fire homosexuals, and then people just targeted people who were thought to be homosexuals and beat them or murdered them.

What you call 'shut the fuck up' is just that you want the good old days- when homosexuals were terrorized and targeted.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 28, 2015)

turzovka said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > This nation is secular.  Start there.
> ...



If your God wants to bring judgement on all of us because we are treating homosexuals equally- then fine- fuck that God.


----------



## Bombur (Jul 28, 2015)

turzovka said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > turzovka said:
> ...



I understand that you think you understand what it means to be Christian better than I do. I obviously disagree. It is important to me that you and anyone else reading your message of hate and ignorance understands that you don't speak for Christians but only yourself. We can argue back and forth whether or not you are actually loving your neighbor as yourself but I think it is pretty clear you are not even really trying so there is little reason to argue.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 28, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> OK!  Why don't WE ALL BECOME GAY!!!
> That seems to be the objective right?
> But wait... how will we reproduce?  Artificially right?  OK sounds like a plan!



That does appear to be the objective to the brain dead of far right.


----------



## turzovka (Jul 28, 2015)

MsnBama said:


> What I don't get about homophobic assholes is how any aspect of someone else's life is what defines them, it is the focal point of how they live their own lives. Many other assholes keep their douchebag beliefs to themselves, why homophobic assholes have to spew hatred and demand national intolerance for ceremonies and lifestyles that do not impact their lives in any way is beyond comprehension. It's because of that that I oppose homophobic assholes and frequently find myself sad that there isn't a hell for them to burn in. If homophobic assholes would just shut the fuck up and live their own lives everyone of every race, gender, creed, and sexual orientation could live their own lives happily and in peace.
> 
> They'd probably get laid more frequently too, which I believe is probably at the root of all this anger.



You appear to be the one with all the anger.

As long as you do not believe in sin or judgment, then we have no case or cause.


----------



## turzovka (Jul 28, 2015)

Bombur said:


> I understand that you think you understand what it means to be Christian better than I do. I obviously disagree. It is important to me that you and anyone else reading your message of hate and ignorance understands that you don't speak for Christians but only yourself. We can argue back and forth whether or not you are actually loving your neighbor as yourself but I think it is pretty clear you are not even really trying so there is little reason to argue.


*>>It is important to me that you and anyone else reading your message of hate and ignorance understands that you don't speak for Christians but only yourself.<< *

Well for one, your definition of “hate and ignorance” are so flawed there is no starting point of a debate.  Secondly, I am not speaking for “christians” (like you for instance), but I am speaking for Christianity.  And on that I would challenge you.

*>>We can argue back and forth whether or not you are actually loving your neighbor as yourself but I think it is pretty clear you are not even really trying so there is little reason to argue.<<*

We can also argue back and forth whether you even know what it means to “love your neighbor as yourself.”


----------



## turzovka (Jul 28, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> If your God wants to bring judgement on all of us because we are treating homosexuals equally- then fine- fuck that God.


How easily you and your feelings are manipulated.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Jul 28, 2015)

turzovka said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > This nation is secular.  Start there.
> ...


Won't happen here as this is a secular nation, by law.  If you wish to live in a theocracy, or a religious democracy (mob rule for Jesus), then get the fuck out of my country because you are an American in name only.


----------



## MsnBama (Jul 28, 2015)

turzovka said:


> MsnBama said:
> 
> 
> > What I don't get about homophobic assholes is how any aspect of someone else's life is what defines them, it is the focal point of how they live their own lives. Many other assholes keep their douchebag beliefs to themselves, why homophobic assholes have to spew hatred and demand national intolerance for ceremonies and lifestyles that do not impact their lives in any way is beyond comprehension. It's because of that that I oppose homophobic assholes and frequently find myself sad that there isn't a hell for them to burn in. If homophobic assholes would just shut the fuck up and live their own lives everyone of every race, gender, creed, and sexual orientation could live their own lives happily and in peace.
> ...



No, I'm a rather happy individual. I live my life on my terms and don't get bogged down trying to control anyone else's life when has no relevance to my own. 

What I AM angry about are intolerant pricks who think that condemning young adults to living a life of lies and shame isn't complete bullshit. Stop hiding behind your "celestial North Korea" (to quote Hitch) as if he/she commanded you to spew filth in the general direction of anyone who looks, acts, sounds, or believes anything different than you. Last I checked, the Bible commands us to love our neighbors, not call them names and discriminate against them. Try living that life and let the rest work itself out, your "salvation" isn't going to be taken away because you didn't call someone a faggot or queer when the opportunity presented itself.


----------



## turzovka (Jul 28, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Won't happen here as this is a secular nation, by law.  If you wish to live in a theocracy, or a religious democracy (mob rule for Jesus), then get the fuck out of my country because you are an American in name only.


Just because I upset you is no reason to sound so ignorant.

This nation, in more legal terms, is neither secular nor Christian,   It is a democratic republic.  Where do you come off calling it secular?     I call it Christian because of the great majority make up of its citizens.   Albeit they do not act Christian enough, and in that way you would be more correct, they are secular to their demise.

But to the main point ---  If these 75% Christians want to vote for representatives that will vote against gay marriage or legal abortion or prostitution or booze on Sunday -- then they will prevail.   You see what just happened?    The democratic republic just voted in a law that has a Christian moral teaching as its base and as its reason the congressmen voted for it.     Don't like it?  Move.


----------



## MsnBama (Jul 28, 2015)

turzovka said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Won't happen here as this is a secular nation, by law.  If you wish to live in a theocracy, or a religious democracy (mob rule for Jesus), then get the fuck out of my country because you are an American in name only.
> ...



Now you're going too far. No booze on Sunday? You're a loony.


----------



## g5000 (Jul 28, 2015)

turzovka said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > This nation is secular.  Start there.
> ...


You know, the bigots of the past thought the abolition of slavery would bring God's judgment down on us.  Then, the descendants of those bigots thought interracial marriages and desegregation would bring God's judgment down on us.  They made their fiery "mongrelization" speeches at the foot of a burning cross.

Same bullshit, different decade.

I will leave the decisions of which married people get government cash and prizes up to Caesar, and leave whether or not being gay or being a judgmental prig is a sin up to God.


----------



## turzovka (Jul 28, 2015)

g5000 said:


> You know, the bigots of the past thought the abolition of slavery would bring God's judgment down on us. Then, the descendants of those bigots thought interracial marriages and desegregation would bring God's judgment down on us. They made their fiery "mongrelization" speeches at the foot of a burning cross.  Same bullshit, different decade.
> 
> I will leave the decisions of which married people get government cash and prizes up to Caesar, and leave whether or not being gay or being a judgmental prig is a sin up to God.


Your problem (as far as I am concerned) is that you take too much comfort and pleasure in the sins and faults of Christians.  As though it gives you license to sin away and disregard any moral truth or evidence for God.

Sorry to shock you, but all Christians are sinners.  So we can never win on that score.  But as long as you and yours point out the worst of those sins and ignore the far greater virtue  and charity found in the history of that faith, well, you will win.

But I am pretty certain most Christians did not believe giving up slavery will bring God’s judgment upon us.  I am pretty certain most Christians did not believe mixed marriages will bring the wrath of God upon us.  I am pretty certain the Catholic Church did not believe that either.  So if you want to be a demagogue and make all these false, bold declarations of dubious veracity, be my guest.  But you may need good council at some point. 

Your final sentence is a good one.  I can concur with most of that.


----------



## g5000 (Jul 28, 2015)

turzovka said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > You know, the bigots of the past thought the abolition of slavery would bring God's judgment down on us. Then, the descendants of those bigots thought interracial marriages and desegregation would bring God's judgment down on us. They made their fiery "mongrelization" speeches at the foot of a burning cross.  Same bullshit, different decade.
> ...



You seem to be under the impression I am not a Christian.




turzovka said:


> But I am pretty certain most Christians did not believe giving up slavery will bring God’s judgment upon us.  I am pretty certain most Christians did not believe mixed marriages will bring the wrath of God upon us.



You must be very young.



turzovka said:


> I am pretty certain the Catholic Church did not believe that either.  So if you want to be a demagogue and make all these false, bold declarations of dubious veracity, be my guest.  But you may need good council at some point.
> 
> Your final sentence is a good one.  I can concur with most of that.


Matthew 7:1-3


----------



## turzovka (Jul 28, 2015)

MsnBama said:


> No, I'm a rather happy individual. I live my life on my terms and don't get bogged down trying to control anyone else's life when has no relevance to my own.
> 
> What I AM angry about are intolerant pricks who think that condemning young adults to living a life of lies and shame isn't complete bullshit. Stop hiding behind your "celestial North Korea" (to quote Hitch) as if he/she commanded you to spew filth in the general direction of anyone who looks, acts, sounds, or believes anything different than you. Last I checked, the Bible commands us to love our neighbors, not call them names and discriminate against them. Try living that life and let the rest work itself out, your "salvation" isn't going to be taken away because you didn't call someone a faggot or queer when the opportunity presented itself.


You, too, are a demagogue as far as I am concerned.   I do not have the zeal to tackle all of your accusations which contain tiny grains of truth, at best, amongst the gross deceptions..


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 28, 2015)

turzovka said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > If your God wants to bring judgement on all of us because we are treating homosexuals equally- then fine- fuck that God.
> ...



How easily you are duped by a book of fairy tales.


----------



## g5000 (Jul 28, 2015)

turzovka, take a moment and think about exactly what it is gay people are asking for.

It is all about government cash and prizes.  If we heteros had not demanded government get all up in our marriages and give us these cash and prizes, the fight over giving gays those _exact same government prizes_ would be completely moot.  It would be a total non-issue.

So this matter has absolutely nothing to do with religion.  None whatsoever.  It's about tax returns and Social Security survivor benefits, none of which were established by God.

Understand now?


----------



## Seawytch (Jul 28, 2015)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pete7469 said:
> ...



And you know this how? 

Repeal Title II of the CRA before you snivel and whine about local and state laws.

Good luck.


----------



## Mac1958 (Jul 28, 2015)

Teddy Pollins said:


> I feel that saying it is a choice somehow implies that something is fundamentally wrong with homosexual activity.


I think that's probably it.  It's easier to oppose something when you can say it is a choice.  Therefore, if homosexuality is (as I believe) the way a person is wired, then the only argument can be "then stop behaving the way you're wired", and that's not exactly compelling.

.


----------



## Idadunno (Jul 28, 2015)

Teddy Pollins said:


> homosexuality has no sense...


Because of phrases like that, it is important that people understand that homosexuals were born that way (research "epigentics). If it has no sense, take it up with God (if you believe that God creates all life), and leave people alone.


----------



## Idadunno (Jul 28, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > In a free country it shouldn't matter...but it seems to matter to the haters.
> ...


We would also not have to serve assholes like you. Would you sue me? Of course you would, and you would whine to the media of discrimination... Oh, Idadunno is a bigot hater! Oh, she made me cry! Someone give me a tissue damnit!


----------



## Bombur (Jul 28, 2015)

turzovka said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > I understand that you think you understand what it means to be Christian better than I do. I obviously disagree. It is important to me that you and anyone else reading your message of hate and ignorance understands that you don't speak for Christians but only yourself. We can argue back and forth whether or not you are actually loving your neighbor as yourself but I think it is pretty clear you are not even really trying so there is little reason to argue.
> ...



You don't speak for Christianity. Your voice is the voice of hate and ignorance. 

End of story.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 28, 2015)

Teddy Pollins said:


> Is it an actual question for anybody else? I feel that saying it is a choice somehow implies that something is fundamentally wrong with homosexual activity. If you were born loving dudes or one day woke up to find you only wanted to sleep with men, I fail to understand how either can justify persecution. Of course this applies to lesbians as well.
> Having choice or not homosexuality has no sense...


 
There is something fundamentally wrong with homosexuality.  The colon is a dangerous part of the lower digestive tract that is highly susceptible to passing on STDs, most pernicious of which is the HIV virus which finds the colon like a superhighway directly into the bloodstream.  It isn't a sex organ in other words.  So, having sex with the digestive tract is abnormal and dangerous.  And it's spreading one of the largest epidemics in our country.

Whether it is a choice or not matters a lot legally.  Behaviors are not the same as a static state of being.  You could just as easily justify a penchant to commit burglary if you are a cleptomaniac (an actual mental syndrome) "since your earliest memory"..  Between theft and the HIV virus, I'll take someone stealing from me, thanks.  At least that I can recover from and live a long life.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Jul 28, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Teddy Pollins said:
> 
> 
> > Is it an actual question for anybody else? I feel that saying it is a choice somehow implies that something is fundamentally wrong with homosexual activity. If you were born loving dudes or one day woke up to find you only wanted to sleep with men, I fail to understand how either can justify persecution. Of course this applies to lesbians as well.
> ...


We didn't invent condoms because sex was safe...


----------



## buddhallah_the_christ (Jul 28, 2015)

I've always wondered how people can think it's a choice.
I don't CHOOSE to be attracted to women, and often, it would be helpful not to be attracted to women, but I can't help it.
Why would it be any different for homosexuals?


----------



## Pete7469 (Jul 29, 2015)

MsnBama said:


> What I don't get about homophobic assholes is how any aspect of someone else's life is what defines them, it is the focal point of how they live their own lives. Many other assholes keep their douchebag beliefs to themselves, why homophobic assholes have to spew hatred and demand national intolerance for ceremonies and lifestyles that do not impact their lives in any way is beyond comprehension. It's because of that that I oppose homophobic assholes and frequently find myself sad that there isn't a hell for them to burn in. If homophobic assholes would just shut the fuck up and live their own lives everyone of every race, gender, creed, and sexual orientation could live their own lives happily and in peace.



If weapons grade stupid bed wetting libtards weren't kept alive by redundant safety measures the world would be a better place.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 29, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


partially correct.
Freemasons took seriously the principle that men should worship according to their own conscience. Masonry welcomed anyone from any religion or non-religion, as long as they believed in a Supreme Being. Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Hamilton, Lafayette, and many others accepted Freemasonry, and as such they incorporated Freemason ideals into the constitution when written.
 So where it is correct to say that the country was not actually founded as a Christian country, it is just as correct to say that it was founded with a basis on a Supreme Being, a God and the ability to worship that God of your choice.
 The fact that Masonry welcomed all as long as the believed in a supreme being disclaims that notion that we were founded as a secular nation. The U.S was in fact founded with a theological belief system. Christianity just happened to be the most prevalent at the time. and still is.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 29, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Teddy Pollins said:
> ...


evidently they didn't invent them soon enough, or didn't supply the required education to use them soon enough. You are living proof of that.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 29, 2015)

Teddy Pollins said:


> Is it an actual question for anybody else? I feel that saying it is a choice somehow implies that something is fundamentally wrong with homosexual activity. If you were born loving dudes or one day woke up to find you only wanted to sleep with men, I fail to understand how either can justify persecution. Of course this applies to lesbians as well.
> Having choice or not homosexuality has no sense...


 
Whether it is a choice or not is irrelevant

You should be able to choose who your partner is


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 29, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Teddy Pollins said:
> 
> 
> > Is it an actual question for anybody else? I feel that saying it is a choice somehow implies that something is fundamentally wrong with homosexual activity. If you were born loving dudes or one day woke up to find you only wanted to sleep with men, I fail to understand how either can justify persecution. Of course this applies to lesbians as well.
> ...


I agree,
 I doubt God is going to turn me away because I didn't stone some gay guy to death.


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 29, 2015)

buddhallah_the_christ said:


> I've always wondered how people can think it's a choice.
> I don't CHOOSE to be attracted to women, and often, it would be helpful not to be attracted to women, but I can't help it.
> Why would it be any different for homosexuals?



Simple.  If we ALL were attracted to the same sex most likely we all wouldn't be here.
A very very few people are "genetically" disposed to same sex.
The vast vast majority of homosexuals are learned behavior.
FACTs support this in that if it were the reverse, i.e. vast vast majority disposed to the same sex humankind wouldn't exist!
Now for some birds and bees for people like you:
It takes historically one man to have sex with a woman to reproduce.
Historically the ONLY way humans were reproduced was through sexual reproduction i.e. a male and woman having sex.
It is that simple.

Now that you've had the birds and bees lesson, here are some more facts...
Men are more promiscuous then women because now read closely:
Men have millions of sperm: women less.  Only 300 to 400 will be ovulated during a woman's reproductive lifetime. Fertility can drop as a woman ages due to decreasing number and quality of the remaining eggs.
So again men don't need to protect their genetic lineage as women do with their limited supply.
As a result a man can basically have sex with his hand.  Or another man's mouth.  Makes NO difference to most men!
Why would that famous line in "Full Metal Jacket" be said by the Gunnery Sergeant Hartman:
"_I bet you're the kind of guy that would fuck a person in the ass and not even have the goddamn common courtesy to give him a reach-around._"
So tell me if homosexual behavior by these marines was generated by "I gotta be me" genes???
Full Metal Jacket 1987 - Quotes - IMDb


----------



## MsnBama (Jul 29, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> MsnBama said:
> 
> 
> > What I don't get about homophobic assholes is how any aspect of someone else's life is what defines them, it is the focal point of how they live their own lives. Many other assholes keep their douchebag beliefs to themselves, why homophobic assholes have to spew hatred and demand national intolerance for ceremonies and lifestyles that do not impact their lives in any way is beyond comprehension. It's because of that that I oppose homophobic assholes and frequently find myself sad that there isn't a hell for them to burn in. If homophobic assholes would just shut the fuck up and live their own lives everyone of every race, gender, creed, and sexual orientation could live their own lives happily and in peace.
> ...



Aww, you hurt my feelings. 

We "libtards" aren't the idiots running around hating on and discriminating against, picking fights with, and killing fellow Americans now are we? No, that is the far right wing of what was once known as the Republican party but could now accurately be called the American Taliban.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 29, 2015)

MsnBama said:


> Aww, you hurt my feelings.
> 
> We "libtards" aren't the idiots running around hating on and discriminating against, picking fights with, and killing fellow Americans now are we? No, that is the far right wing of what was once known as the Republican party but could now accurately be called the American Taliban.


 
The kid who shot the 9 black churchgoers in SC is gay.  The LA shooter was a poster here who advocated unemployment and wealth redistribution.

Hardly conservative or "right wing" values...though it is disturbing that the left seems to be in unison on those false talking points when the facts are obvious those two domestic terrorists leaned left...


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 29, 2015)

MsnBama said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> > MsnBama said:
> ...


 actually, it is the homosexauls trying to force people to accept their way. not the other way around.
 as far as the liberals running around killing people? the majority of crimes in this country are by the hands of liberals. How is it ok if blacks kill 20 people today but not ok if one white conservative blows away some people in a church.
  could you please bring up some examples of this "American Taliban" doing their terrorist attacks.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 29, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> MsnBama said:
> 
> 
> > Aww, you hurt my feelings.
> ...


 let me guess, the LA shooter that posted here was also in favor of more gun control.
 He was obviously before my time.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 29, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Teddy Pollins said:
> 
> 
> > Is it an actual question for anybody else? I feel that saying it is a choice somehow implies that something is fundamentally wrong with homosexual activity. If you were born loving dudes or one day woke up to find you only wanted to sleep with men, I fail to understand how either can justify persecution. Of course this applies to lesbians as well.
> ...



And that believe of yours is why you keep on your campaign to promote persecution of homosexuals.

Why is it that bigots like yourself always use the same laughable tactic?

"Homosexuals are bad because anal sex is bad"

Meaning somehow you think lesbians are bad because gay men have anal sex?

How in the hell does that even make any sense in your teeny tiny bigot brains?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 29, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> MsnBama said:
> 
> 
> > Pete7469 said:
> ...



Christian conservatives have spent the last two hundred years attempting to force their opinion on homosexuals through laws and public condemnation. 

Homosexuals have done nothing compared to the efforts of Christian Americans.


----------



## Bonzi (Jul 29, 2015)

Teddy Pollins said:


> Is it an actual question for anybody else? I feel that saying it is a choice somehow implies that something is fundamentally wrong with homosexual activity. If you were born loving dudes or one day woke up to find you only wanted to sleep with men, I fail to understand how either can justify persecution. Of course this applies to lesbians as well.
> Having choice or not homosexuality has no sense...


 
They should not be persecuted.  No one should
It is God's will we all come to a saving knowledge of Him, and live for Him and His Kingdom.
You have a choice to live for God or Self.
If you live for Self, you can make your own rules
If you live or God, God's rules (the Bible)....


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 29, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> buddhallah_the_christ said:
> 
> 
> > I've always wondered how people can think it's a choice.
> ...



Well thank you for your opinion- which is not anything similar to a fact.

The fact is that we don't know why persons are sexually oriented to the same gender- epigenetics seems to be the most likely answer right now- but its just a promising theory. 

I have not seen any evidence at all that homosexuality is a 'learned behavior' 

And back to the original question- why does it matter?

Just treat people like people.


----------



## mdk (Jul 29, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> MsnBama said:
> 
> 
> > Aww, you hurt my feelings.
> ...



Hogwash! Your proof that Dylan Roof is gay is a picture of him wearing a Gold's Gym t-shirt and a wrist watch. This evidence of yours is hardly compelling.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 29, 2015)

Dylan Roof is gay.  If this was a question of whether or not the boy was gay on any other topic, you folks would be screaming to the rooftops about all the signs in the photos and his sweet looking black boyfriend that he was gayer than AIDS..  And you know it.  Your selective gaydar is sickening when 9 lives were taken from the earth and you're now using that incident to say this lavender limp wristed boy-lover was "a typical southern conservative".

There's your "hogwash"..


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 29, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Dylan Roof is gay.  .



Once again demonstrating that Silhouette literally has gay on her brain.

When Silhouette hears hoofbeats, she doesn't presume that she is hearing horses- she presumes she is hearing gay unicorns wearing tutu's coming to attack children.


----------



## mdk (Jul 29, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Dylan Roof is gay.  If this was a question of whether or not the boy was gay on any other topic, you folks would be screaming to the rooftops about all the signs in the photos and his sweet looking black boyfriend that he was gayer than AIDS..  And you know it.  Your selective gaydar is sickening when 9 lives were taken from the earth and you're now using that incident to say this lavender limp wristed boy-lover was "a typical southern conservative".
> 
> There's your "hogwash"..



What a total crock of bullshit. You have not presented a single shred of evidence that Roof is gay. Claiming that wearing a Gold's Gym tank top and a wrist watch makes him a homosexual is beyond laughable, even for you.  You only hope Roof is gay so you can use this terrible tragedy to smear gay people. Oh...and I never said he was 'typical southern conservative' that is just you making shit up as you go along again. Roof being gay is just another one of your wild and unprovable conspiracy theories you use to justify your rabidly anti-gay narrative.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 29, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan Roof is gay.  .
> ...


 
Ad hominems, diversions, strawmen....this topic must really bother you.  I know how nervous you get when someone starts looking into what makes gays gay...the behavior thing and the extremely shakey legal ground of promoting a behavior "as a class" of people that the Constitution's provisions about self-governing flies directly in contradiction thereof.

I know how nervous that makes you because if some sharp lawyer for conservatives figures out that what SCOTUS did this June was an addition to the Constitution which defies or suppresses other parts of it (the right of the majority to regulate behaviors) then your house of cards will come tumbling down.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 29, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Dylan Roof is gay.  If this was a question of whether or not the boy was gay on any other topic, you folks would be screaming to the rooftops about all the signs in the photos and his sweet looking black boyfriend that he was gayer than AIDS..  And you know it.  Your selective gaydar is sickening when 9 lives were taken from the earth and you're now using that incident to say this lavender limp wristed boy-lover was "a typical southern conservative".
> 
> There's your "hogwash"..


 


mdk said:


> What a total crock of bullshit. You have not presented a single shred of evidence that Roof is gay. Claiming that wearing a Gold's Gym tank top and a wrist watch makes him a homosexual is beyond laughable, even for you.  You only hope Roof is gay so you can use this terrible tragedy to smear gay people. Oh...and I never said he was 'typical southern conservative' that is just you making shit up as you go along again. Roof being gay is just another one of your wild and unprovable conspiracy theories you use to justify your rabidly anti-gay narrative.


Yeah, did you see the video on youtube of his sweet black boyfriend?  You should watch it when you get a chance and then you can lie to the folks here about how there isn't a single whit of a sign that Dylan Roof is gay..


----------



## mdk (Jul 29, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan Roof is gay.  If this was a question of whether or not the boy was gay on any other topic, you folks would be screaming to the rooftops about all the signs in the photos and his sweet looking black boyfriend that he was gayer than AIDS..  And you know it.  Your selective gaydar is sickening when 9 lives were taken from the earth and you're now using that incident to say this lavender limp wristed boy-lover was "a typical southern conservative".
> ...



Another one of your baseless and bogus claims. What evidence do you have this was his boyfriend? Hint: Your imagination ins't evidence and you have presented zero evidence that Roof is gay.  You tried this bullshit several months ago and you got resoundingly lambasted then as well.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 29, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > MsnBama said:
> ...


 I know right?
 Christian Conservatives should be more open armed and loving, they could learn a lot from the muslims in this matter.
 its all the Christians, no other religion, only the Christians.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 29, 2015)

I just discovered that Im going to hell.
 Im having dinner with some lesbians tonight, or are lesbians ok because its more expected from femles. Or maybe they make better porn for straight guys.
 Hope nobody at another table notices and starts throwing stuff at us like rocks or Bibles.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 29, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...



Hmmmm it hasn't been Muslims in the United States who have been pushing legislation through to persecute homosexuals.

It has been Christians.

If you want to argue who demonizes gays more-  the followers of Christ or Mohammed - well you can have that argument.

But since I was responding to claim that said that homosexuals were the ones trying to force their ways upon everyone else- it is appropriate to point out that for the last 200 years, Christians have attempted to force their opinions about homosexuals on everyone else- to the point of throwing them in jail.


----------



## Seawytch (Jul 29, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...



In the United States? Yes, it was just the Christians.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 29, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan Roof is gay.  If this was a question of whether or not the boy was gay on any other topic, you folks would be screaming to the rooftops about all the signs in the photos and his sweet looking black boyfriend that he was gayer than AIDS..  And you know it.  Your selective gaydar is sickening when 9 lives were taken from the earth and you're now using that incident to say this lavender limp wristed boy-lover was "a typical southern conservative".
> ...



More of your gay on the brain.


----------



## mdk (Jul 29, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> I just discovered that Im going to hell.
> Im having dinner with some lesbians tonight, or are lesbians ok because its more expected from femles. Or maybe they make better porn for straight guys.
> Hope nobody at another table notices and starts throwing stuff at us like rocks or Bibles.



Or Bibles made of rocks. lol.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 29, 2015)

Silhouette said:


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



The topic doesn't bother me- what I do get irritated about is your constant attack on Americans who happen to be gay.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 29, 2015)

mdk said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > I just discovered that Im going to hell.
> ...


 those damn things hurt, you ever been pummeled by a rock bible?
 leaves marks.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 29, 2015)

Syriusly said:


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


----------



## mdk (Jul 29, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...



It fell out of my fanny pack and landed on my foot. I always keep a few on hand in the case the urge to throw one arises. I like to be prepared. lol


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 29, 2015)

MsnBama said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> > What I don't get about queers in general is how that one aspect of their life is what defines them, it is the the focal point of how they live their lives. Even other perverts keep their deviance to themselves, why the queers have to demand acceptance and participation in their ceremonies is beyond comprehension. It's because of that that I oppose their agenda. If they would just shut the fuck up no one would care what they did.
> ...


If they force me to be a part of their wedding. Then they are affecting my life.


----------



## MsnBama (Jul 29, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> gayer than AIDS..



Oh wow.


----------



## MsnBama (Jul 29, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> MsnBama said:
> 
> 
> > Pete7469 said:
> ...



And who is forcing you to be a part of a gay wedding? Last I checked, unless contracts are signed, you can still decline to participate in any wedding you choose.


----------



## Seawytch (Jul 29, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> MsnBama said:
> 
> 
> > Pete7469 said:
> ...



Nobody forces you into the wedding business. Argument fail.


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 29, 2015)

MsnBama said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > MsnBama said:
> ...


A baker would disagree. He sold the queers  goods like everyone else. When they wanted him to cater their wedding. He said his religious beliefs say that gay marriage is wrong so he couldn't do it. Well he is out of business. Even though he sold them stuff in the past. Fuck them.


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 29, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > MsnBama said:
> ...


Tell that to the baker.


----------



## MsnBama (Jul 29, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> MsnBama said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



So the homosexual community as a whole is to blame because other Americans exercised their right not to patronize a company based on the beliefs of the owner? Um no. If I don't like the practices of a private business owner, I have the right not to spend my money there and no one is to blame as that is my right. 

He made his personal beliefs public knowledge and now has to face the consequences for doing so just like anyone else. 

No one FORCED him to participate in that wedding just like no one is forcing you to participate as you claimed when you initially responded.


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 29, 2015)

MsnBama said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > MsnBama said:
> ...


So you are okay with him losing his business? Even though he sold them every day items and thought of them as friends?


----------



## kaz (Jul 29, 2015)

Teddy Pollins said:


> Is it an actual question for anybody else? I feel that saying it is a choice somehow implies that something is fundamentally wrong with homosexual activity. If you were born loving dudes or one day woke up to find you only wanted to sleep with men, I fail to understand how either can justify persecution. Of course this applies to lesbians as well.
> Having choice or not homosexuality has no sense...



No one advocated persecuting gays.  The idea that not giving gays paper and tax breaks is "persecution" is blatantly retarded.  At least have an honest discussion.  Liberals are so soft and weak, you would die of starvation if you had to make it on your own.  Not granting governmental favors is "persecution."  My God


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 29, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > buddhallah_the_christ said:
> ...



The EVIDENCE is history!
If homosexuality was entirely genetics based there would be no human reproduction right????
I mean seriously how would mankind reproduce if we were ALL GENETICALLY predisposed to same sex?
NOW there are those that are genetically predisposed.  I've NEVER NEVER said there weren't!
I'm saying that the gay population has increased simply because it is not considered rape to get a blow job from another guy!  Simple as that!
Lot easier.


----------



## Seawytch (Jul 29, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> MsnBama said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



Since he chooses to "lose" his business, yeah I'm okay with it. 

He is choosing to do business. If he chooses to also not obey the law, he suffers the consequences. He has choices if he must be anti gay.

1) Operate your business where PA laws don't protect gays. 

2) Don't bake wedding cakes


----------



## MsnBama (Jul 29, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> So you are okay with him losing his business? Even though he sold them every day items and thought of them as friends?



ETA: I wrote this with Jack Phillips in mind, forgive me if I'm speaking about a different incident than that which you are referencing. 

1) If he sold to them on a regular basis, why the discrimination in the first place?

2) As far as I've seen, he's not losing his business. He's choosing not to make wedding cakes any longer.

Do you not understand that it is illegal for a public entity to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, creed, or sexual orientation? Illegal. That's Colorado state law and if he had a problem operating his business while abiding by the law then he probably shouldn't have opened in the first place.

Either way, he's making a choice to stop doing wedding cakes. A CHOICE. No one is forcing him to stop, he's doing that all on his own.

And, for the record, the Mullins couple was married in Massachusetts, he was not participating in ANY wedding. They wanted a cake for a reception back in Colorado after the fact. He discriminated against two people and now he is complaining about facing those consequences.


----------



## MsnBama (Jul 29, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > MsnBama said:
> ...




PA? I thought he meant the clown in Colorado.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 29, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



You have never actually gone to a science class or read a science book have you? Or read much?

If homosexuality was genetic, the estimated 3% of the population that is homosexual would not prevent the estimated 97% of the population that is heterosexual from reproducing. 

Your claim is as logical as saying if 'blue eyes' were entirely genetics based, everyone would have blue eyes. 

I do not claim that homosexuality is genetic- though it could be. If it is, it is probably due to some combination of genetic factors, because there is no obvious link.

There is no evidence at all that homosexuality is 'learned' or 'choice'- though there is some indication that some homosexuality could be the result of childhood sexual abuse. 

The best evidence so far is that epigenetics may be the answer- and I can't remember enough about it to summarize epigenetics here- but in essence it would mean that children are born that way- but not due to genetics.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 29, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...


They came out of the closet now that the straights can't kill them anymore without a life in prison...


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 29, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



So you think getting a blow job from a woman is considered rape?

I don't know if you are a man or a woman- but let me ask you this- regardless of what gender you are- are you willing to go out right now and have sex with the same gender?

If you are a man- maybe just go get one of those simple blow jobs from another man?

Just to show us that being 'gay' is just because it is easier?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 29, 2015)

kaz said:


> Teddy Pollins said:
> 
> 
> > Is it an actual question for anybody else? I feel that saying it is a choice somehow implies that something is fundamentally wrong with homosexual activity. If you were born loving dudes or one day woke up to find you only wanted to sleep with men, I fail to understand how either can justify persecution. Of course this applies to lesbians as well.
> ...



For 200 years people advocated persecuting gays. Not persecuting gays is a rather new concept in the United States, only recently achieved through all of that activity that you consider 'retarded'.

The first step was eliminating both legal and illegal persecution of homosexuals- largely achieved. 
The second step was achieving legal equality- now largely achieved.

Of course you find all of that 'soft and weak' and liberal. 

You have your marriage bennies- you just want homosexual couples to pay for yours without you having to pay for theirs.


----------



## mdk (Jul 29, 2015)

MsnBama said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



In the context of Seawytch's post 'PA laws' means public accommodation laws. Every single gay marriage thread here ends up into to a long winded discussion about public accommodation laws so folks started to abbreviate it to save time. lol


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 29, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> A baker would disagree. He sold the queers  goods like everyone else. When they wanted him to cater their wedding. He said his religious beliefs say that gay marriage is wrong so he couldn't do it. Well he is out of business. Even though he sold them stuff in the past. Fuck them.



1.  No he didn't sell the lesbians the same goods like everyone else.  He would sell a different-sex couple a wedding cake but refused the same goods to the lesbian couple.

2.  The bakers don't "cater" a wedding, they deliver a cake to the reception location.  Then leave.

3.  The law in Oregon isn't that the sell some products to some people and a limited selection of products to others.  The law is that they provide "full and equal" access to goods and services.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 29, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> So you are okay with him losing his business? Even though he sold them every day items and thought of them as friends?




Where do you inject "he thought of them as friends" from?  The Bowman-Cryers had brought a weeding cake for Cheryl McPherson two years previously.  Just buying a product years ago counts as "being friends" now?


>>>>


----------



## MsnBama (Jul 29, 2015)

mdk said:


> MsnBama said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Thank you.


----------



## mdk (Jul 29, 2015)

MsnBama said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > MsnBama said:
> ...



You're welcome. At first I was confused as well. lol. I would think...what the hell does this have to do with the laws of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?


----------



## MsnBama (Jul 29, 2015)

mdk said:


> MsnBama said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



I just assumed I missed a news story about another bakery. LOL.


----------



## mdk (Jul 29, 2015)

MsnBama said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > MsnBama said:
> ...



You likely won't hear of any either. Pennsylvania is my home state and we do not have public accommodation protections for gay people here.


----------



## kaz (Jul 29, 2015)

healthmyths said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



Why would it being genetic mean everyone is the same?  We don't all have the same color hair


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 29, 2015)

kaz said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Genetically all predisposed to Homosexuality is what I meant but of course you didn't read the 3rd sentence!
Yes there are those genetically predisposed to same sex.  Thank God literally though the vast,vast majority of us are NOT predisposed or there never would
been a human race!  Those of us predisposed to opposite sex would be providing the genetic pool for "same sex" and I shudder to think what kind of
mutants that would have been!
My point is we as a society have become more acceptant of homosexuality and as a result MORE men that ARE NOT predisposed i.e. genetically ARE
gay due to "behavior modification"... heard of Nature vs Nuture???  With the growing acceptance of gaydom we see growing larger then genetically explained
number of gays...i.e. behavior modification.  As I've said males with millions of sperms don't care how the come!  Hand.  Another man's mouth.  Irrelevant!
That's why as society comes to accept "gaydom"  there are more "gays" that are gay because it is MORE convenient!


----------



## healthmyths (Jul 29, 2015)

5:40 p.m. EDT July 15, 2014
A total of 2.3% of U.S. adults said they were gay, lesbian or bisexual in the largest federal government survey ever to ask about sexual orientation.

That number is a bit lower than the 3% to 4% found in some other recent surveys, including a Gallup Pollfrom 2012 — but some of those studies encompassed broader groups, including transsexuals. In the new survey of 34,557 adults, released Tuesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an additional 1.1% said they were "something else," didn't know or refused to answer.
Just over 2 tell CDC they are gay lesbian bisexual

But with the constant daily barrage of "I've gotta be me" flaming gays on TV, magazines, news, etc. I'm sure many people thought there were 10 to 20% of population gay!


----------



## Seawytch (Jul 29, 2015)

kaz said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



No shit Sherlock but is there anywhere the law treats you differently because of the color of your hair?


----------



## kaz (Jul 29, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



Nope, and gays weren't treated differently under the law either.  They had exactly the same rights as everyone else.  Now they have more, the courts decreed it


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 29, 2015)

kaz said:


> Nope, and gays weren't treated differently under the law either.  They had exactly the same rights as everyone else.  Now they have more, the courts decreed it



Before the bans were fund unconstitutional:

Bob had a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
Joan did not have the right to Civilly Marry Jane.
Bob and Joan did not have the same right.
After the bans were fund unconstitutional:

Bob has a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
Joan has a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
Bob and Joan can both Civilly Marry Jane** 

Bob and Joan have the same rights, not more.

(**individually of course, not together)


>>>>


----------



## idb (Jul 29, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> If it's not a choice then the hatred and fear the homophobes have of gay people becomes just that, fear and hatred.  It also makes the Bible dead wrong as then it is no longer a sin, it's people being as God created them.  Open the door to religion being bullshit on something that fundamental and all hell breaks loose...


I think the reasoning is something like..."It's icky...we must ban it".


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 29, 2015)

MsnBama said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > So you are okay with him losing his business? Even though he sold them every day items and thought of them as friends?
> ...


So then you are okay with a white supremacists walks into a black bakers shop and makes him do confederate flag cakes?


----------



## Seawytch (Jul 29, 2015)

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


So a ban on redheads marrying each other would be constitutional since the could still marry brunettes?

Didn't think that through did you?


----------



## Seawytch (Jul 29, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> MsnBama said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



So you're okay with non sequiturs? Nobody has to provide a service they would not otherwise provide.

You sell a WEDDING CAKE to couple A, you must also sell a WEDDING CAKE to coupleB even if couple B is black, Muslim or in some places, gay.


----------



## MsnBama (Jul 29, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> MsnBama said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



That is a ridiculous argument. 

First, I've never met a white supremacist willing to patronize the business of anyone other than other whites. 

Second, the refusal wouldn't be considered discrimination based on any of the protected categories. Try again.


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 29, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > So you are okay with him losing his business? Even though he sold them every day items and thought of them as friends?
> ...


I read in an article that the bakers said they would come in and buy pastries. And that they knew his religious stance, so he was shocked they asked. I could understand if there wasn't anymore bakeries, but there are and the queer couple were assholes for doing it in the first place. In a civil society you would say okay and go to a different bakery, queers aren't civil. It's all about the agenda. Well I say mind your own business, and fuck off.


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 29, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > MsnBama said:
> ...


I think if it's not a life threatening thing, anyone can deny anyone service. Only in liberal looney land would you give someone money that doesn't want to do business with you.


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 29, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > MsnBama said:
> ...


I think a person should have the right to deny anyone service for any reason. I noticed we haven't heard anything about the muslim baker telling the queers to go down the road. Wonder why?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Jul 29, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


Probably because he's just as fucking wrong as you are.  Baking cakes for cash is not serving God. Obey the law and bake the stupid fucking cake.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Jul 29, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


Well what you think isn't the law, so change your thinking or you're just being a whiny infant.


----------



## kaz (Jul 29, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, and gays weren't treated differently under the law either.  They had exactly the same rights as everyone else.  Now they have more, the courts decreed it
> ...



Making life fair isn't a power of the courts.  Being gay didn't change who you could marry, the job of the courts was over at that point and it became the job of the legislature


----------



## kaz (Jul 29, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



No, you didn't think that one through, it has nothing to do with my gay argument.  Being red head would in your example change who you could marry.  Unlike being gay which didn't


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Jul 29, 2015)

kaz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


The courts make people equal before the state and the laws the state passes.  This isn't new.


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 29, 2015)

MsnBama said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > MsnBama said:
> ...


Okay using your same logic why would a queer go into a christian bakery and demand him bake them a cake?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 29, 2015)

"Why does it matter if Homosexuality is a choice or not?"

It doesn't. 

However, for those hostile to gays, if homosexuality is a choice, then bigots can 'argue' that laws disadvantaging gay Americans are 'justified.'

Of course, the Constitution affords citizens the protected liberty of choice, where it's legally and Constitutionally irrelevant as to whether homosexuality manifests as a choice or a consequence of birth.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 29, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > In a free country it shouldn't matter...but it seems to matter to the haters.
> ...


Given your bigotry and unwarranted animosity to toward gay Americans, you're in no position to accuse anyone of 'hate.'


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 29, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, and gays weren't treated differently under the law either.  They had exactly the same rights as everyone else.  Now they have more, the courts decreed it
> ...


Bob and Joan had the same rights in the first one too, Bob did not have a right to marry joe, joan did.
 you forgot that one.
 and if you say she did not have the same right because she did not want to marry joe, then is she denying joe his right to marry her, or is Mary Jane denying joan her rights if she did not want to marry her


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 29, 2015)

kaz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Making laws equal before the law though are the job of the court.

And the courts ruled- consistently that laws which prevented a person from marrying someone of the same gender, while allowing a person to marry someone of another gender- were not equal under the law.

Nothing about fair-  just like you wanting for gays to pay for your marriage, but don't want to pay for a gay couple marriage is not about fair- just about you having yours and wanting to deny them theirs.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 29, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


In a civil society we wouldn't have you and other hateful bigots seeking to disadvantage gay Americans based solely on who they are.


----------



## idb (Jul 29, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> MsnBama said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


Because he wants a cake?


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 29, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


I don't agree with queers, but they have the right to be happy. I've personally never done anything against a queer. I was actually for civil unions when this subject came up years ago. If they want a document saying they are life long partners. Then I'm all for it, and in that context I don't think the baker would've had a problem baking the cake. Marriage was defined to be between a male and female united by God. So maybe if they would've accepted civil unions we wouldn't be in this mess.


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 29, 2015)

idb said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > MsnBama said:
> ...


So would the white supremacists.


----------



## MsnBama (Jul 29, 2015)

idb said:


> Because he wants a cake?



A cake baked by a Christian and eaten by a homosexual tastes different apparently. 

I'm not really in the habit of demanding the businesses I use most frequently share their religious and/or political beliefs with me, I suppose he believes they should have asked and never used the baker. 

He has no argument, he's just throwing everything against the wall and hoping something eventually sticks.


----------



## idb (Jul 29, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


Sure.
I'm certain you're about to make a point any moment now.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 29, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> I read in an article that the bakers said they would come in and buy pastries.



Wrong baker.

Try reading the uncontested statement of facts in the case instead of "some article".

They had made a purchase before.  A couple of years earlier they (the bakers) had supplied the wedding cake for one of the couples mother.  Nowhere does it say they were regular customers or that they were considered "friends".

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf


>>>>[/QUOTE]


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 29, 2015)

idb said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


Done made it.


----------



## MsnBama (Jul 29, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



No, you did not.


----------



## idb (Jul 29, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


You know what?
I believe you have.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 29, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> I think if it's not a life threatening thing, anyone can deny anyone service. Only in liberal looney land would you give someone money that doesn't want to do business with you.



Partially correct.  A business can deny service to anyone.  However the reason service is denied cannot be based on specific criteria.  In Oregon that criteria is "race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older".

If you own a business and are booked or do not carry a type of product, you can refuse service to anyone.  On the other hand you can't deny goods and service because of one of the specified characteristics of the customer.


>>>>


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 29, 2015)

MsnBama said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


I think if a white supremacists walks into a black bakers shop and ask him to cater an event. The black man has the very right to tell him no. If a queer does the same, the baker has the right to say no. If either walks in and wants to buy off the shelf than yes sell it to them. Not hard to understand.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 29, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Okay using your same logic why would a queer go into a christian bakery and demand him bake them a cake?



They went into the bakery to order a cake, "queer" or "christian" had nothing to do with it.

The bakers had previously supplied a cake for one of the couples mother a couple of years before and done a good job.  Many businesses excel because of word or mouth and repeat business for doing good work.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 29, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Nope didn't forget.

But you actually prove the point that was already made.  If Joan could Civilly Marry Joe but Bob cannot.  Then Joan and Bob were being treated differently under the law.

Thanks for proving my point.


>>>>


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 29, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > I think if it's not a life threatening thing, anyone can deny anyone service. Only in liberal looney land would you give someone money that doesn't want to do business with you.
> ...


Okay then if I have my concealed carry permit, and a business owner doesn't want guns in his store. I am by law legally able to carry it. Right?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 29, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> I don't agree with queers, but they have the right to be happy. I've personally never done anything against a queer. I was actually for civil unions when this subject came up years ago. If they want a document saying they are life long partners. Then I'm all for it, and in that context I don't think the baker would've had a problem baking the cake. Marriage was defined to be between a male and female united by God. So maybe if they would've accepted civil unions we wouldn't be in this mess.



Psst...

There was no Civil Marriage in Oregon at the time of the incident.

>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 29, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> I think if a white supremacists walks into a black bakers shop and ask him to cater an event. The black man has the very right to tell him no. If a queer does the same, the baker has the right to say no. If either walks in and wants to buy off the shelf than yes sell it to them. Not hard to understand.



Political views are not protected under Oregon's Public Accommodation laws and therefore a black baker can legally reject a white supremacist's order.  However a gay baker cannot refuse equal service to a Christian because of their religion - that is Federal and State law.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 29, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Okay then if I have my concealed carry permit, and a business owner doesn't want guns in his store. I am by law legally able to carry it. Right?



Sure you can carry it.  

Just not on his property unless the State has a law that provides that business owners must permit weapons on their property.

However weapons carry is not a factor in Public Accommodation laws.


>>>>


----------



## MsnBama (Jul 29, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > I think if a white supremacists walks into a black bakers shop and ask him to cater an event. The black man has the very right to tell him no. If a queer does the same, the baker has the right to say no. If either walks in and wants to buy off the shelf than yes sell it to them. Not hard to understand.
> ...



Already tried to explain this. Good luck. He's thick in the head.


----------



## Seawytch (Jul 29, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



I'm delighted that's what you believe. That and $3 will get you a cup of coffee. The LAW says in all 50 states at the Federal level, that I cannot discriminate against a Christian. Get rid of THAT law before you go after state laws, eh?


----------



## Seawytch (Jul 29, 2015)

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Exact same analogy. Redheads can't marry each other just like you don't believe gays should marry each other. They could still marry, just not who they want to. Same argument you are making. Dumb isn't it?


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 29, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Okay then if I have my concealed carry permit, and a business owner doesn't want guns in his store. I am by law legally able to carry it. Right?
> ...


Not if they lease the building. They own the business, not the building.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 29, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


You don't understand.

Public accommodations laws are authorized by the Commerce Clause, they're necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures enacted to ensure the integrity of the local markets and all other interrelated markets, where to deny service to a patron based solely because of who he is, is disruptive to the markets.

Not all public accommodations laws are the same; indeed, some jurisdictions' public accommodations laws have no provision for sexual orientation, where business owners in such jurisdictions are at liberty to refuse service to gay patrons.

Carrying a concealed firearm in a business whose owner prohibits firearms on his property could be a provision of a public accommodations law; however, in most (if not all) jurisdictions the issue is addressed via state gun laws. In Florida, for example, a business owner cannot prohibit a patron from keeping a firearm in his car when the patron's car is located on the business owner's property. In fact, Florida law prohibits business owners from even inquiring as to whether or not a patron has a firearm in his car.


----------



## Seawytch (Jul 29, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Okay using your same logic why would a queer go into a christian bakery and demand him bake them a cake?



Nobody did that. The couple that walked into Sweet Cakes went into a bakery to buy a cake. Where in the name "Sweet Cakes" is "Christian" implied?

The same bakery was willing to bake an atheist cake, a divorced cake and a cake celebrating stem cell research.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 29, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



Sure they can.

When you lease a building, unless access control is specified in the lease contract, then the business has access control to the property.  Typically lease agreements provide access by the owner to the property for inspection purposes to ensure the property is maintained in good order and then it may require an appointment unless it's a case of emergency (fire, crime, that sort of thing).

The owner does not grant access to customers of the business.

Kind of like renting an appointment.  The apartment manager does not say who can come and go from an apartment you might lease, you so as the renter.  However the manager can have access by appointment to inspect the premises.

>>>>


----------



## kaz (Jul 29, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Word games.  Nothing in the Constitution says that government has to be gender blind.  All men and all women, gay or straight, could enter into a man/woman government marriage and they then had the same rights.  That was the appropriate job for the courts.  They decided to throw the Constitution aside and rewrite it because they didn't like it.


----------



## kaz (Jul 29, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



No, Bob and Joan could both enter into a man/woman government marriage.  Nowhere does the Constitution say the law has to be gender blind.  You're terrible at word parsing


----------



## kaz (Jul 29, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Your post is dumb and you suck at analogies.  Straight people can't marry the same sex either, your analogy is just wrong.  Maybe someone you know can explain it to you.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 29, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



Logic is not your strong point is it?

By law you are allowed to carry your gun.
Also by law, a business owner can impose restrictions within the law. 

Unless your state law require's business's to allow person's carrying guns on their property- then a business can exclude you.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 29, 2015)

kaz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...



And the courts have found that same gender couples are protected by the 14th Amendment- and they do have a right to get married.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 29, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


Marriage in the eyes of God and marriage in eyes of the law are not the same and never have been.  From a legal standpoint using civil union as substitute for legal marriage would mean unequal treatment under the law.  A civil union  will not provide the same privileges and responsibilities as a legal marriage.


----------



## Seawytch (Jul 29, 2015)

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Actually it's your argument that has failed...twice now at the SCOTUS level.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 29, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


'Separate but equal' is just as repugnant to the Constitution as 'civil unions.'

And there is no 'mess,' had the states simply obeyed the 14th Amendment when their gay residents sought to enter into marriage contracts there would have been no need to get the courts – including the Supreme Court – involved.


----------



## deltex1 (Jul 29, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> If it's not a choice then the hatred and fear the homophobes have of gay people becomes just that, fear and hatred.  It also makes the Bible dead wrong as then it is no longer a sin, it's people being as God created them.  Open the door to religion being bullshit on something that fundamental and all hell breaks loose...


I for one neither hate nor fear them.  Just shut up about it.


----------



## Seawytch (Jul 29, 2015)

deltex1 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > If it's not a choice then the hatred and fear the homophobes have of gay people becomes just that, fear and hatred.  It also makes the Bible dead wrong as then it is no longer a sin, it's people being as God created them.  Open the door to religion being bullshit on something that fundamental and all hell breaks loose...
> ...



Stop discriminating and we will.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 29, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


never understood that whole paying for my marriage thing, explain how that works. Gays getting married does not cost me or make me money. In actuality, I might actually save because of insurance liabilities if they pay for their own health insurance.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 29, 2015)

MsnBama said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Because he wants a cake?
> ...


no, they are just afraid that the gay bakery adds splooge to the frosting.

 Sorry, Im going to hell, I know it. LOL


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 29, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


They don't own the property, so no they cannot deny my legal right to carry.


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 29, 2015)

Flopper said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


Well anyway marriage means nothing now, so your kind has done it's job.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 29, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



Sure they can.

Google Scholar

In the above cite a city leased public property to a private entity to hold an event.  The private entity barred firearms.  A challenge was made on the idea that the private entity could not bar firearms from the event on property leased by the city.

They lost.

*************************************

Here is a second examination of the question, this time by well known conservative Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli of Virginia.

http://www.oag.state.va.us/Opinions and Legal Resources/Opinions/2010opns/10-009-Greason.pdf


***********************************


Now it's your turn, I've presented two sources in support of what I've said.  

Now in these cases is was the government leasing the property and the entity executing the lease could bar firearms as they control access to property during the terms of the lease.

Your counter evidence?  (Not saying there isn't "a" state, maybe Texas for example, but as a general principal the leaser controls access to business property during the term of the lease.)


>>>>


----------



## Flopper (Jul 29, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> MsnBama said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


No, when you open a business and get a licences it is to serve the public.  And the public means everyone, those you approve of and those you don't.  For a black businessman to reject customers as a white supremacists is just as wrong as a devout Christian rejecting gay customers.

*Discrimination is wrong and there are no exceptions. *Discrimination is being prejudice against a person based on there their appearance, not their actions.  That person could be a good customer, an asset to the community.  Most of the world's problems are caused directly or indirection by treating people not as individuals but as gays, blacks, Muslims, Christians, Mexicans,  or whatever without really considering the merits of individual and that is exactly what a business owner is doing when he denies service to a person because of the color, religion, ethnic background, or sexual preference.


----------



## SuperDemocrat (Jul 30, 2015)

Teddy Pollins said:


> Is it an actual question for anybody else? I feel that saying it is a choice somehow implies that something is fundamentally wrong with homosexual activity. If you were born loving dudes or one day woke up to find you only wanted to sleep with men, I fail to understand how either can justify persecution. Of course this applies to lesbians as well.
> Having choice or not homosexuality has no sense...



It makes a difference because if it is a choice then you can debate the morality of that choice.   

I'll teach people to be gay...I bend them over and shove my dick in there ass.  That ought to show those faggots...wait...that doesn't seem right.


----------



## idb (Jul 30, 2015)

SuperDemocrat said:


> Teddy Pollins said:
> 
> 
> > Is it an actual question for anybody else? I feel that saying it is a choice somehow implies that something is fundamentally wrong with homosexual activity. If you were born loving dudes or one day woke up to find you only wanted to sleep with men, I fail to understand how either can justify persecution. Of course this applies to lesbians as well.
> ...


A question of morality implies that their 'choice' has a possible effect on other people.
How does you - or anyone else - fantasising about sticking your dick in someone's arse affect other people?


----------



## Seawytch (Jul 30, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Well anyway marriage means nothing now, so your kind has done it's job.



"Your kind"? What "kind" would that be, fellow Americans? Because I'm now legally married in all 50 states, your marriage means nothing? That wasn't much of a marriage. 

Marriage means a great deal to most people still.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 30, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Well anyway marriage means nothing now, so your kind has done it's job.
> ...


Congratulations. !


----------



## kaz (Jul 30, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



And?


----------



## kaz (Jul 30, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



If you don't let gays get government marriage, they don't pay for their own health insurance, if you let them get a government marriage they do



Um...OK?

Do you think gay government marriage cut down on gays robbing banks too?


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 30, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Well anyway marriage means nothing now, so your kind has done it's job.
> ...


Right marriage has been redefined to mean anything. If blood relatives want to marry, sure. Oh, he is in love with his dog. Get married. Marriage once stood for something, now it's a joke. Oh by the way my marriage produced a son with out help from a 3rd person. Can yours?


----------



## Seawytch (Jul 30, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



Nope, not redefined at all. Marriage still means the same exact thing, it just means it to gay couples too. 





> If blood relatives want to marry, sure.



Blood relatives could already marry in some states. 1st cousins can marry. That was way before June 26th. 





> Oh, he is in love with his dog. Get married.



When was that ruling Captain Hyperbole? 


> Marriage once stood for something, now it's a joke.


Marriage still does. Don't blame gays because you have a bad marriage. My marriage to my partner of 20 years means a great deal to us. It's not affected by your failed marriage at all. 


> Oh by the way my marriage produced a son with out help from a 3rd person. Can yours?



Nope, but neither can millions of straight Americans that use assisted reproductive technology. I still have two gorgeous children that are legally and, more importantly, emotionally, the children of my wife and I. (I also had three babies for a gay male couple as a gestational surrogate) Can you do that?


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 30, 2015)

kaz said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


A family insurance plan is cheaper than two individual plans.
 what does gay marriage have to do with robbing banks? Did they have to rob banks to afford their insurance before they were married?
 I dont follow the lack of logic on your part.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 30, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


Marriage still stands for the same thing
 two people that love each other, want to be there for each other to share their lives, hopefully make each other happy, and yes, have a legal bond that expresses all of this to the world. God forbid they might even want to adopt an Asian child and call themselves a family, might even get a dog, but I doubt they will include the dog on their marriage license.
 as far as marrying animals? pretty sure thats not in the picture, and to be honest, its this type of hyperbole from both sides on many different issues that will cause people to discount what people have to say about the ills of gay marriage.
 Interesting fact, Im married, I was married before gay marriage became legal any where, I was married before the first gays got married, Im still married now even though gays are getting married. You know its really hard to believe but, my marriage has not changed one bit since gays started getting married, Ive lost no rights and nothing in my world has changed other than seeing happy couples that just a few years back had to hide their relationship. I expect I will continue living regardless of gay marriage.

 On the other side of the coin, I do think that a Christian business owner (such as the baker) should have the right not to be included in gay weddings if it is really against their religion and morals. Let the public decide if they want to frequent these places of business. Sooner or later it will all work out. Can you even imagine any business turning down a mixed race couple for marriage accommodations today? hard to believe it happened in the 60s and to some extent the 70s.

 bottom line, Just accept that it now is, and will be forever. Might just ease a lot of pain to go ahead and celebrate their marriages instead of letting it eat away at your ass.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 30, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> A family insurance plan is cheaper than two individual plans.
> what does gay marriage have to do with robbing banks? Did they have to rob banks to afford their insurance before they were married?
> I dont follow the lack of logic on your part.



I can't speak industry wide, but for us:

EE only coverages is around $700 per month in total premium
EE + Spouse is $1484 ($84 More than 700*2)

EE + Family is $2100 per month ($1400 over the cost of the single EE)


The above is total premium including employer + employee.  The exact premium was rounded for privacy but the differential costs are correct.

Because it costs significantly more to cover a spouse, we do not allow spousal coverage if the spouse is (a) employed and (b) that employer offers health insurance.  If (a) and (b) are true, the spouse must pick up their own health insurance through their employer.

>>>>


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 30, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > A family insurance plan is cheaper than two individual plans.
> ...


Mine is actually lower with two. Odd.
I have United Health Care, I wonder if its different with different companies.
 when I say lower I mean that (using your numbers) if 1 was 700, then the two might be 1200


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 30, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Well congratulations you sacrificing three of your siblings for a social experiment. You know the liberal experiment with welfare turned out so well. Also abortion hasn't been a positive influence on society. In 1973 abortion wouldn't  of become legal if it was known what liberals are doing today with unborn babies. So far liberal experiments has been a failure. So congratulations!


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 30, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Just wait the world is getting sick. There will be a push for marrying animals and liberals will cave on it. If it will get them votes.


----------



## kaz (Jul 30, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...


Whiff.  Get someone you know to explain my post to you
A family insurance plan is cheaper than two individual plans.
what does gay marriage have to do with robbing banks? Did they have to rob banks to afford their insurance before they were married?


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 30, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


 Liberal experiment? 
 are you really that ignorant to insult another person on that level? Maybe you should see how that "experiment" is going before putting it down. I personally know some hetero couples that I wouldn't trust my dog to, but you sound as if you would rather have a baby placed with them instead of what most likely is a loving home. Consider this, at this point in time when people are looking at kids raised by gay couples, do you think that gay couples would take any chance with those children that could show negative results to be used by people that think its wrong?
 The only downside I see is that the child might get some bullying in school because of it, but the same could be said by single parent kids, adopted kids, kids of alcoholics or drug addicts.


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 30, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


We will see in the next generation. Kids are already screwed up as it is. Why experiment with them even more?


----------



## mdk (Jul 30, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



Get a grip.


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 30, 2015)

mdk said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...


I'm not the one that will cave, you get a grip. I say five years from now, someone will marry an animal and your kind will be calling us animalphobes.


----------



## Seawytch (Jul 30, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



What are you talking about? My siblings? I have one brother...he's childless.

Are you talking about the surrogate children? They aren't my siblings or my children's siblings. Look up gestational surrogate. 

Sorry captain non sequitur but you'll have to start a thread on welfare and women's reproductive choices if you want to get trounced on those issues as well.


----------



## Seawytch (Jul 30, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



 Is the sky falling where you are?


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 30, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


Going to require a change in the constitution since animals are not covered. Then once they are covered we cant eat them any more, and they will be eligible for kibble stamps and dog house allowances. Then we have the problem with the migratory birds, are they American? south American? North American? do they have duel citizenship? will they automatically be citizens if their illegal immigrant mother hatches them in a tree in the U.S? will this make the mother an automatic citizen? Weapons, do we make antlers and venom illegal and force those that have them to subject to a mental test and register to carry concealed venom? What if driving is determined to be a right, do I have to share the highway with bears in Civics? gerbils in KIA's.
 Do you have any idea how long it will take to work all of this out?


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 30, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...


It did rain yesterday.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 30, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Off topic but Im curious.
 do you have contact with the children and do they know who you are to them, or did you all think it would be better if the children were not aware that you were the actual mother.
 Im curious because I have some lesbian friends that at one time were hinting that I help them with having a child. The conversation passed so I never brought it up again. I thought it could end up being the end of our friendship.


----------



## mdk (Jul 30, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



My kind? Too funny. Your pearl clutching drama is quite comical though.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 30, 2015)

mdk said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...


Ease up on him you damn Zoophobe.
 LOL


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 30, 2015)

Im sorry for making fun of the animal thing, but I really dont see it as something thats going to happen.
 I do however see polygamy coming back, but again, being married, I tend to feel more sorrow than disgust at those that would have more than one wife. There is only so much bitching about the garbage that one man can take.
 I also see health care costs going up for those with more than one wife, depression, exhaustion (if lucky) suicide etc.. maybe even obesity when all the wives start trying to outdo each other in the kitchen. And then there are the trips to the ER when he leaves the toilet seat up in a house full of menstruating women.


----------



## MathewSmith (Jul 30, 2015)

All persons of good will should oppose any proposal to give legitimacy to adoption of children by homosexual couples. Not only does it give legitimacy to an unnatural relationship, which is the true end of the activists promoting such laws, but it places children at risk for the sake of a radical and destructive agenda.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 30, 2015)

MathewSmith said:


> All persons of good will should oppose any proposal to give legitimacy to adoption of children by homosexual couples. Not only does it give legitimacy to an unnatural relationship, which is the true end of the activists promoting such laws, but it places children at risk for the sake of a radical and destructive agenda.


Im old enough to remember those same things being said about the children of interracial marriages. never happened. The only noticeable outcome from interracial children is that some of the most beautiful women have come from those marriages. White features, darker skin tone, just pure perfection.


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 30, 2015)

MathewSmith said:


> All persons of good will should oppose any proposal to give legitimacy to adoption of children by homosexual couples. Not only does it give legitimacy to an unnatural relationship, which is the true end of the activists promoting such laws, but it places children at risk for the sake of a radical and destructive agenda.


Maybe they cou


Seawytch said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...


Yeah those two would be great parents parading around like that.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 30, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> > All persons of good will should oppose any proposal to give legitimacy to adoption of children by homosexual couples. Not only does it give legitimacy to an unnatural relationship, which is the true end of the activists promoting such laws, but it places children at risk for the sake of a radical and destructive agenda.
> ...


 are you saying that you cant find a picture of a male and female doing something wrong or offensive, Im sure I can dig up some crack whore pictures. 
 You get a picture of two guys at what appears to be a gay pride event and pretend they dress like that all the time, but you overlook the crack whore that is smoked up all the time and forgets she even has kids.
 Now who would make the better parent.

 ( of course, I would have to be pretty smoked up to go out in public like the two guys you showed so you never know.)


----------



## kaz (Jul 30, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



You always know quickly the ones who know they aren't doing well, they are the ones who realize they need to state how well they are doing as even they realize the discussion isn't supporting that


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 30, 2015)

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


who said they were doing well?


----------



## mdk (Jul 30, 2015)




----------



## kaz (Jul 30, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



They did.  Try reading my post again, I answered that


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 30, 2015)

kaz said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


maybe you quoted the wrong post? nobody said they were doing well, they just explained that the children were not her siblings.


----------



## Seawytch (Jul 30, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



I'm not the "actual mother" to start with. It wasn't my egg, they used donor eggs. And, yes, I do know the family and the kids all know I carried them. My kids call them "womb mates". 

We live 3000 miles away so we don't see each other often but we're all aware of each other.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 30, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Didnt mean to pry, I was just curious.


----------



## Seawytch (Jul 30, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> > All persons of good will should oppose any proposal to give legitimacy to adoption of children by homosexual couples. Not only does it give legitimacy to an unnatural relationship, which is the true end of the activists promoting such laws, but it places children at risk for the sake of a radical and destructive agenda.
> ...



How many parents run around naked at Mardi Gras? A lot I'll bet. 

Here's actual parents at pride


----------



## Seawytch (Jul 30, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...



No problem. I'm quite proud of being a surrogate and have no problem talking about it.


----------



## kaz (Jul 30, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> maybe you quoted the wrong post? nobody said they were doing well, they just explained that the children were not her siblings.



Here you go, maybe you are the one who got confused on the discussion because she certainly did



Seawytch said:


> Sorry captain non sequitur but you'll have to start a thread on welfare and women's reproductive choices if you want to get trounced on those issues as well.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 30, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


As far as the issue of denial of service, I think it's the principal we are discussing.  If the baker can deny service to a gay couple because he considers it an issue of morality, then why shouldn't a grocery, a doctor, a hotel, a restaurant, a landlord or any business be able to do the same. Is that what we really want, a nation where 40% of the people worry that they may be denied a meal, a hotel room or any other product or service because of their race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual preference. There are many countries in the world where minorities only patronize businesses that are safe for their kind.  Hopefully, that will never be the case in America.


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 30, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > MathewSmith said:
> ...


Most of the queers at a parade are dressed like that and they also bring their children to it. A crack whore gets her baby taken, but you celebrate children being raised around things that go on in those parades.


----------



## Seawytch (Jul 30, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



Really? Most? How many have you been to because I've been to SF twice, once as a parade marcher with my children. We saw nothing we wouldn't see at the beach...we'll probably better "put together"

Beach..






Pride


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 30, 2015)

kaz said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > maybe you quoted the wrong post? nobody said they were doing well, they just explained that the children were not her siblings.
> ...


I saw that, I just don't see it in any way bragging about how well she is doing. she simply pointed out that an alternative thread to discuss your opinion might be better suited.


----------



## Seawytch (Jul 30, 2015)

kaz said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > maybe you quoted the wrong post? nobody said they were doing well, they just explained that the children were not her siblings.
> ...



I didn't say I was trouncing him...but trounced he has been.


----------



## kaz (Jul 30, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



The idea government can compel any of it's citizens into actions such as doing business with each other is an absolute abomination to liberty.  This again is why you are authoritarian leftists.  An actual liberal would never consider granting such an abhorrent power to government


----------



## kaz (Jul 30, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...



You are actually eight, aren't you?


----------



## kaz (Jul 30, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...



Trouncing him is not "in any way bragging about how well she is doing."  Noted


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 30, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


I went to Baltimore pride this last weekend with some gay friends, other than some off the wall individuals in the parade, I honestly only saw one that I would have considered too far out there.
 unless you consider a pride tee-shirt a problem.
 How many prides have you been to? or do you just base your information on the pictures


----------



## Bombur (Jul 30, 2015)

The people that want to hate on gay people will find excuses to hate on gay people. They will try and find the "worst" examples they can so they can act like all gay people act that way while completely ignoring all of the problems straight people have with raising children.

Is hate a choice or are people just brainwashed to hate?


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 30, 2015)

kaz said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


No its not. Its telling him that he is wrong and she would be happy to correct him in a thread devoted to that. How is it telling him how well she is doing? I was not able to pick up anything about her work or financial status, her marital status, nothing, not even if she is perfectly toned or obese.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 30, 2015)

Bombur said:


> The people that want to hate on gay people will find excuses to hate on gay people. They will try and find the "worst" examples they can so they can act like all gay people act that way while completely ignoring all of the problems straight people have with raising children.
> 
> Is hate a choice or are people just brainwashed to hate?


Who is to say they are not born that way.


----------



## Bombur (Jul 30, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > The people that want to hate on gay people will find excuses to hate on gay people. They will try and find the "worst" examples they can so they can act like all gay people act that way while completely ignoring all of the problems straight people have with raising children.
> ...



Yeah, their hate may not even be their fault! 

Welcome to the party of personal responsibility.


----------



## kaz (Jul 30, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...



Saying she is trouncing him is not bragging how well she's doing, you already told me that and I noted it with all due consideration deserving of your bizarre claim


----------



## Seawytch (Jul 30, 2015)

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Can't discuss the topic can you?


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 30, 2015)

Bombur said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...


If you can be born gay, I see no reason that one cant be born to dislike gays. Some dogs will turn and bite another dog for sniffing his butt, its natural for animals to hate different things.


----------



## kaz (Jul 30, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Why do you need to deflect from topics by saying stupid shit like that you're trouncing them?


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 30, 2015)

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


I agree, we should all stay on topic by commenting that animal marriage is next up.
 Didnt see you arguing that point.
 Its ok, you can climb out of your closet any time now. Gay is now finally being recognized and accepted by civilized humans.


----------



## kaz (Jul 30, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I actually think straights and gays should be treated the same.  I oppose all government marriage, Sparky.  You can stay in the closet


----------



## Seawytch (Jul 30, 2015)

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Why aren't you calling out the anti gay bigot that was trying to take it off topic in the first place? 

I said he's being trounced, not that I'm doing it. MaryPatriot and WorldWatcher were doing a fine job of it.


----------



## MsnBama (Jul 30, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



Huh?

This doesn't make sense. If "kids are already screwed up as it is" wouldn't that lead one to believe something is broken already? If kids are screwed up as it is, they're screwed up because they're straight parents screwed them up. People are flawed, ALL people, and all parents fail their children in some way or another neither gender nor sexual orientation have a damn thing to do with it. 

Furthermore, there are plenty of examples of children who were raised by homosexual parents who are wonderful members of society now as adults. Respectfully, get your head out of your ass. Same sex couples have just as much ability to raise outstanding members of society as heterosexual couples.

Zach Wahls is a perfect example:


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 30, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



Then again- you say all sorts of stupid stuff.

The only one who appears to be pushing for marrying animal are you and your fellow travellers.


----------



## MsnBama (Jul 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



I dunno....after enduring divorce proceedings once in my lifetime....a dog wouldn't have been a bad alternative. LOL


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 30, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> MathewSmith said:
> 
> 
> > All persons of good will should oppose any proposal to give legitimacy to adoption of children by homosexual couples. Not only does it give legitimacy to an unnatural relationship, which is the true end of the activists promoting such laws, but it places children at risk for the sake of a radical and destructive agenda.
> ...



As would these folks....


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 30, 2015)

MathewSmith said:


> All persons of good will should oppose any proposal to give legitimacy to adoption of children by homosexual couples. Not only does it give legitimacy to an unnatural relationship, which is the true end of the activists promoting such laws, but it places children at risk for the sake of a radical and destructive agenda.



How about in the alternative all persons of goodwill oppose any proposal to give legitimacy to bigots like yourself by allowing you to adopt children?

Clearly you don't care about the children abandoned by their heterosexual parents- 100,000 children at any time are awaiting adoption in the United States. 33,000 of them will wait 3 or more years to be adopted.

You prefer that those children never have parents- rather than have parents who are homosexuals. You would prefer that these kids age out of the system and be dumped onto the streets rather than have parents who are homosexuals.

We should be keeping kids away from you.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 30, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



And the homophobe meltdown continues.......


----------



## kaz (Jul 31, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



What post?


----------



## Seawytch (Jul 31, 2015)

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



The one I responded to that got your panties in a twist. JkBigot wanted to talk about welfare and abortion. Do pay attention, dear.


----------



## kaz (Jul 31, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Wow, so you've been crying about it since yesterday?  Since the post made you lose it like that, obviously you can find it faster than I can.  Here's a hanky, try to calm down now


----------



## Seawytch (Jul 31, 2015)

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



No. I made my point and moved on. You've kept it alive by sniveling about my trouncing comment.


----------



## kaz (Jul 31, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Ouch, and the bullet hits the bone, you're really upset out this.  Cracks me up, I was trying to get under your skin.  Mission accomplished.

And actually, you asked me my opinion on a poster, when I asked which post, you whined, bitched and ran away


----------



## Flopper (Jul 31, 2015)

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...


Of all the restrictions governments place on businesses as to what they sell, where they can sell, how they advertise, what they pay their employees, benefits they must provide employees, customer and employee accommodations; requiring businesses that are open to the public do business with the public is probably the least onus.


----------



## kaz (Jul 31, 2015)

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



How do you weigh one abomination to liberty versus another?


----------



## Flopper (Jul 31, 2015)

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Society through laws weights the value of the lost of a liberty to one party versus the gain of liberty of another party.  In regard to refusal of services, the lost of a business's freedom to choose who in the public they will serve has been resolved with civil rights legislation over the last fifty years.

Businesses are primarily places of public accommodation. That means they are in business to accommodate the needs of the public, not to render moral judgment on their customers.  They are licensed to serve the public and actively invite and seek the patronage of the public.

The right to refuse service exist only on a piece cardboard.  It's not a constitutional right nor is it an “unalienable rights".  It's a right contrived by those who seek to punish those who are different for personal reasons.


----------



## kaz (Aug 1, 2015)

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



So why can you quit your job without getting government approval for your reasons to do so if "businesses are primarily places of public accommodation?"  Why is it your employer can be forced by government guns to serve who government wants them to serve, but you aren't held to that standard with your employer?   You are both working for money.  

I own a business to make a living, just like you work for $$$.  You should be free to work for who you want for whatever reason you want and not work for anyone you don't want to work for.  That starting a company meant that I gave up my liberty to do what I want for who I want is preposterous.  You are free, your employer is a slave to government.  You just keep telling yourself that's liberty.  Actually, it's authoritarian leftism.

The reality, Holmes is this is strictly about government power.  The businesses that don't want customers are almost non-existent and their competitors are more than happy to serve their customers.  The Montgomery bus system actually ... opposed ... the Jim Crow laws forcing blacks to the back of the bus and to give up their seats to whites.   Why?  Blacks were their best and most loyal customers.  They weren't stupid, you are deluded


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Aug 1, 2015)

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


WTF???
 I actually not only cant find a point to argue on a KAZ post, but I also agree with it?

 Going back to bed now, no way this day is going to go right for me... wait, back to bed, maybe that what Satan wants me to do.. 
 I have no moral bearing to steer by now.
 Retract that post KAZ or I will report it for something.


----------



## kaz (Aug 1, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Good job, you found personal liberty on this issue


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Aug 1, 2015)

kaz said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


I had personal liberty on this issue, a baker should be allowed to refuse service to anyone they want. Refuse to enough, or to the wrong people and the business will fail. But the business owner should have the choice.
 unless it has to do with medical or some other item required to maintain life. If for example a gay couple walks into Wal-Greens and one is bleeding, the store should not be able to refuse them bandages and anti-biotics to take care of the wound. 
 A cake is really a non issue and this whole thing went too far.


----------



## kaz (Aug 1, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...



Yes, I meant you have personal liberty on this issue.  I am saying that's why you agreed with me on this since you sort of said wow, how did that happen?  It happened because you believed in personal liberty on this, that's what I was saying.  Any time you support personal liberty, you'll be on my side


----------



## kaz (Aug 1, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Society through laws weights the value of the lost of a liberty to one party versus the gain of liberty of another party.  In regard to refusal of services, the lost of a business's freedom to choose who in the public they will serve has been resolved with civil rights legislation over the last fifty years



On this point, you are protecting NO ONE's liberty.  No one has the right to force someone else to bake them a cake, so as you trample on the liberty of business owners you are doing it not for anyone's liberty.

If I bake a cake for my family, that is my choice and none of your business, fuck off.

If I bake a cake for a sick friend that is my choice and none of your business, fuck off.

That I bake a cake for money doesn't change that it is my choice and none of your business, fuck off


----------



## Flopper (Aug 1, 2015)

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


As you said, the businesses that don't want customers are almost non-existent, so there should be no problem with requiring that businesses serve the public.  After all, it's in their best interest to so.

In a more perfect world there would be no need for civil rights laws because businesses would welcome all customers, employers would judged employees only on their merit, and governments would be blind to race and ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and religion.  However, the world is far from perfect and some people will allow their prejudices to make life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness impossible for others.

I think that people that routinely practice discrimination don't every consider the real impact of their actions. When a person is snubbed or turned away by a merchant or refused a job due to discrimination, they feel they are being treated unfairly which results in hatred and resentment that they pass on to others.  It's all magnified by the media which makes it even worse not better.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 1, 2015)

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Society through laws weights the value of the lost of a liberty to one party versus the gain of liberty of another party.  In regard to refusal of services, the lost of a business's freedom to choose who in the public they will serve has been resolved with civil rights legislation over the last fifty years
> ...


Once your cake baking becomes a business and it's open to the public, then you are required to serve the public in accordance with the law.


----------



## kaz (Aug 1, 2015)

Flopper said:


> As you said, the businesses that don't want customers are almost non-existent, so there should be no problem with requiring that businesses serve the public.  After all, it's in their best interest to so.



No, businesses do not serve "the public," we serve OUR customers.  Our customers are people who pay us, don't abuse our staff, dress appropriately when they enter our business, fit our business model, are profitable, etc.  If you enter my business, my staff will decide if you fit our customer base.

As for your standard there should be "no problem with requiring" businesses to serve the public (who we don't serve), let's pass a law by your reasoning requiring flushing the toilet, your standard is "so there should be no problem with requiring" us to do so.  Most people do flush the toilet, what's the harm?  Actually, there are three problems with it:

1)  It's not a legitimate power of government.  No one has the right to require legally toilets be flushed just like no one has the right to force someone to build them a cake.  Positive rights are an oxymoron, you have no right to compel anyone to do things for you, you only have the right to compel them to not do things to you that you don't want them to do.

2)  Frivolous lawsuits.   A jackass gets into a party at your house, you kick him out.  The next day you get a lawsuit, you didn't flush your toilet.  That's why he left your party.

3)  General enforcement.  Well now, the government wants to make sure you flush your toilet, it's the law, they are just enforcing the law.  So now there are more laws to verify you flush your toilet and flushing the toilet is access to your home which then is access to all sorts of other things they want to verify and monitor

And a law requiring flushing the toilet is absolutely as ridiculous as a law requiring anyone to bake a cake.  Here's a far easier solution in the incredibly unlikely event that happens.  Walk across the street to their competitor...


----------



## kaz (Aug 1, 2015)

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



That is why you are an authoritarian leftist and I am a classic liberal.  No liberal would ever support government compelling it's citizens to implement social policy, liberalism and positive rights are mutually exclusive.

Walk across the street


----------



## Flopper (Aug 1, 2015)

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > As you said, the businesses that don't want customers are almost non-existent, so there should be no problem with requiring that businesses serve the public.  After all, it's in their best interest to so.
> ...


You are completely within your rights to deny service to anyone that abuses your staff or does not follow your dress code. You are also within your rights to reject any customer that does not meet your business model as long as *that model does not violate anti-discrimination laws. *However, when you start making assumptions about customers based on their apperance, you are on danger grounds both legally and socially.

Your statement that no one has the right to compel you to do things for others is absolutely absurd.  The government certainly has the right to compel you to report your income and that of your employees for tax purposes, take steps need to meet health codes, zoning codes, building codes and other local ordinances plus a wide array of state and federal laws that require that you do things for the benefit of customers, employees and the community.

What you seem to advocate is a nation in which you are free to do anything you choose. That type of society began dying thousands of years ago.  There are places on earth that come pretty close to what you desire, however I don't think you would want to live there.  In our society we are all very dependent on others. That means laws and regulation and lots of them.  The more dependent we become on others the more regulations there will be.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Aug 1, 2015)

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


The whole problem is that we are dependent on each other. Liberals cant wipe their own ass unless someone else is there to help them.
 the solution to our societies problems is to depend on ourselves and not each other.
 as far as not dealing with gays, if it is a religious reason then its legal. Religion was protected long before gays were.


----------



## kaz (Aug 1, 2015)

Flopper said:


> You are completely within your rights to deny service to anyone that abuses your staff or does not follow your dress code. You are also within your rights to reject any customer that does not meet your business model as long as *that model does not violate anti-discrimination laws. *However, when you start making assumptions about customers based on their apperance, you are on danger grounds both legally and socially.



Who I do business with is up to me, fuck off.   It's none of your business.   Again, that is why you are an authoritarian leftist.  I am a liberal, a true liberal.  A true liberal when denied service walks across the street and gives their business to their competitor.  An authoritarian leftist runs to the government, wah, make them!

A funny thing on the appearance thing.  We had a young man walking back and forth up and down the street in front of our business.  He had his pants down his ass as is popular.  I wasn't in the office when it happened, but my staff felt uncomfortable like he was casing us and called the cops.  They came but he was gone by then.  A few days later he walked in.  We do graphic design and promotional/marketing.  Turns out he's a rapper and he bought a bunch of crap from us.  He asked if we take cash, LOL, and pre-paid for everything.  He was apparently a nice kid.  No idea why he was walking back in forth down the street prior to that, I guess they didn't want to ask him.

I do business with anyone other than the thing about how they treat my staff and that sort of thing.  We have a $5 minimum to drive off the B2C market we don't want rather than telling them no.   We do business with conservative churches as well as Democrat candidates and Planned Parenthood.  I am a complete color bigot, I only do business with one.  Green.  I totally advocate my competitors discriminating, more work for us!

It's still our choice, not yours, Stalin.  Fuck off



Flopper said:


> Your statement that no one has the right to compel you to do things for others is absolutely absurd.  The government certainly has the right to compel you to report your income and that of your employees for tax purposes, take steps need to meet health codes, zoning codes, building codes and other local ordinances plus a wide array of state and federal laws that require that you do things for the benefit of customers, employees and the community.



Our tax system is clearly an abomination to freedom.  As for the codes you listed, I am a liberal leaning libertarian, and I am OK with local governments having many of those powers for the safety of their communities, but protecting neighbors from each other's actions is an entirely different thing than simply using guns to force citizens to do business with each other, which is an abomination in every way to liberalism.  It's pure leftist authoritarianism.



Flopper said:


> What you seem to advocate is a nation in which you are free to do anything you choose. That type of society began dying thousands of years ago.  There are places on earth that come pretty close to what you desire, however I don't think you would want to live there.  In our society we are all very dependent on others. That means laws and regulation and lots of them.  The more dependent we become on others the more regulations there will be.



That's completely vague.  I am an extremist with negative rights.  Positive rights are pure government oppression.  I've been saying that, Holmes.  Sure, you should be able to "do anything you chose."  When you violate someone else's right to do the same, then it's a legitimate power of government to get involved.  That has nothing to do with PA laws, that is simply government coercing it's citizens


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Aug 1, 2015)

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > You are completely within your rights to deny service to anyone that abuses your staff or does not follow your dress code. You are also within your rights to reject any customer that does not meet your business model as long as *that model does not violate anti-discrimination laws. *However, when you start making assumptions about customers based on their apperance, you are on danger grounds both legally and socially.
> ...


What it is, is Political Correctness erasing the constitution.
 I dont think any one that owns a business should be forced to accommodate gays or anyone else they dont want to do business with.
 Me personally? I would have baked the cake, brought it to the reception and kissed the bride, or groom, or both if I couldnt figure out who was who.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 1, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Nonsense.

There is no such thing as 'political correctness,' it's a myth contrived by the right in an effort to conceal their fear and disdain for free and open debate in a free and democratic society.

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional as authorized by the Commerce Clause, where state and local governments are authorized to regulate markets.

Public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation are likewise just and Constitutional, where business owners aren't being 'forced' to do anything 'against' their religion; indeed, business owners are subject to all manner of Constitutional regulatory measures, such as paying a minimum wage and ensuring safe working conditions for employees – public accommodations laws are no different, and to whine about such laws being 'un-Constitutional' is ignorant and unfounded.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Aug 1, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Yes there is political correctness, and its the left trying to curb free speech.
 as far as the interstate commerce clause, it has nothing to do with the bakers and their cake.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 1, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


People are very dependent on each other and the institution that comprise our society..  Whether it's a problem or not is not really important because that is simple the way the world is today and it's not going to change.  We dependent on others for the food we eat, the highways we drive on, our jobs, our entertainment, our protection, our healthcare, our education and most everything we do throughout the day. And with dependency comes laws and regulations.  It's unavoidable.

If you think saying it makes it legal, then you are disillusion.


----------



## kaz (Aug 2, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



LOL, the PC crowd just wants a "free and open debate."  You're just a leftist political hack.

And you have every right to be left alone, you have no right to demand anything from others.  Stop being so greedy and lazy and take care of your own bad self instead of asking Uncle Bama to do it for you


----------



## kaz (Aug 2, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



And that makes it make sense that you can't wipe your own ass unless someone helps you?

PA laws are just shallow excuses for the exertion of raw government power, they serve no other purpose.  Businesses are looking for customers, not to drive them away.  And the rare idiot who does is doing you a favor by telling you to spend your money in a business not owned by a dick


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 2, 2015)

Teddy Pollins said:


> Is it an actual question for anybody else? I feel that saying it is a choice somehow implies that something is fundamentally wrong with homosexual activity. If you were born loving dudes or one day woke up to find you only wanted to sleep with men, I fail to understand how either can justify persecution. Of course this applies to lesbians as well.
> Having choice or not homosexuality has no sense...



It doesn't matter

If you see human sexual behavior as a continuum just like all other human behaviors then it's no surprise that a certain precentage og the population exhibits homosexual behavior

It matters not if that manifests because of biology or choice and that does not factor in the psychological reasons for homosexuality


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Aug 2, 2015)

kaz said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...


Tell me again why we dont agree with each other in certain threads? LOL


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Aug 2, 2015)

Skull Pilot said:


> Teddy Pollins said:
> 
> 
> > Is it an actual question for anybody else? I feel that saying it is a choice somehow implies that something is fundamentally wrong with homosexual activity. If you were born loving dudes or one day woke up to find you only wanted to sleep with men, I fail to understand how either can justify persecution. Of course this applies to lesbians as well.
> ...


who cares if its choice or not.
 Until someone can come up with a real and solid reason that homosexuality hurts them as a heterosexual, I just cant wrap my thoughts around making gays second class citizens. Because one thinks its icky, or against their religion has no bearing on them unless being gay becomes a forced thing. ( dont think thats going to happen)
 Besides, if its religion, Jesus said he came for the sinner not the self righteous. Now, when judgement day comes along which side do you want to be standing on, the gay side with the gays and their supporters where Jesus is? or the self righteous side where Jesus isnt?
 As what I like to think of as a real Christian, that is full of Biblical sin, Im going to be standing in the gay group.


----------



## Silhouette (Aug 2, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> *1*. There is no such thing as 'political correctness,' it's a myth contrived by the right in an effort to conceal their fear and disdain for free and open debate in a free and democratic society.
> 
> *2*. Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional as authorized by the Commerce Clause, where state and local governments are authorized to regulate markets.
> 
> *3*. Public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation are likewise just and Constitutional,


 
1. Then how come the LGBT blogger crew here at USMB do nothing but spam threads they don't like (ones that probe into their ilk too far), berate other posters for having opposing opinions on a regular basis and call anyone who disagrees with them a "hater"...and in the real world file lawsuits against anyone who opposes their cult?  Free and open debate MY ASS. 

2.  PA laws may be necessary when it comes to actual classes of people.  However, race and sexual behaviors aren't even in the same ballpark.  This false premise is used over and over and over and over again with the hopes that enough repetition will make a lie the truth.

3. Which sexual orientations?  All of them?  Or just your favorites?  We are talking about behaviors so it's really hard to nail down...and hence the reason behaviors are not a class of people.  That must be overturned or the right to majority rule (on behaviors, not race) is over Constitutionally.

All the PA laws in the world cannot do one thing: they cannot override the 1st Amendment.  You might want to give the 9th Amendment a quick read and get back to me..


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 2, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Teddy Pollins said:
> ...



I don't know what you're all hot and bothered about

The very first line of my post was

_*It doesn't matter*_


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Aug 2, 2015)

Skull Pilot said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


I agreed with you, call it embellishing 
 some people just get butt hurt over the smallest things.
ok, maybe small things and butt hurt shouldnt be on a post about homosexuals.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 3, 2015)

kaz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...


What makes sense is dealing with the real world, not some pipe dream of rugged individualists living without government or community.


----------



## kaz (Aug 4, 2015)

Flopper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



If someone doesn't like you because you're a flopper, walking across the street to their competitor is a "pipe dream of rugged individualists living without government or community."  You running to government to say "wah, I want THEM to make me the cake" is just reality, got it.

BTW, your view that community = government is just butt stupid.  I totally believe in community, libertarian is based on that.  You think rejecting government doing it for you is  rejection of "community?"  Wow, you need therapy


----------



## dblack (Aug 4, 2015)

Teddy Pollins said:


> Is it an actual question for anybody else? I feel that saying it is a choice somehow implies that something is fundamentally wrong with homosexual activity. If you were born loving dudes or one day woke up to find you only wanted to sleep with men, I fail to understand how either can justify persecution. Of course this applies to lesbians as well.
> Having choice or not homosexuality has no sense...



It's important, to some, because of our incoherent conception of free will and its relationship with moral accountability.


----------



## kaz (Aug 4, 2015)

Teddy Pollins said:


> Is it an actual question for anybody else? I feel that saying it is a choice somehow implies that something is fundamentally wrong with homosexual activity. If you were born loving dudes or one day woke up to find you only wanted to sleep with men, I fail to understand how either can justify persecution. Of course this applies to lesbians as well.
> Having choice or not homosexuality has no sense...



Not giving gays government validation and tax breaks is "persecution."  Liberals are so sad and weak, if you had to make it on your own without achievers to leach on you would just starve to death


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Aug 4, 2015)

kaz said:


> Teddy Pollins said:
> 
> 
> > Is it an actual question for anybody else? I feel that saying it is a choice somehow implies that something is fundamentally wrong with homosexual activity. If you were born loving dudes or one day woke up to find you only wanted to sleep with men, I fail to understand how either can justify persecution. Of course this applies to lesbians as well.
> ...


 Liberals are all about the cause, as long as someone else is paying for it and they are the ones getting it.


----------

