Can The Govt FORCE You To Promote A Choice That Goes Against Your Religion? The Fight Continues...

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, the power to enact laws in good faith that comport with the Constitution and its case law.

Hey C, as long as you're here, do you care to comment on g5000's earlier claim that the "Supreme Court has said you must have a rational reason for discriminating against someone."? As I said, I've seen nothing that broad. All that I know of is that the Court has upheld laws that prohibit certain, politically-unpopular reasons. Do you have any case law that shows different?

Yes, Romer v. Evans is a very good example of a state measure, Colorado’s Amendment 2, prohibiting gay Americans from using the state’s anti-discrimination laws, that was struck down because it lacked a rational basis and proper legislative end.

“We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause[.]”

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

 

[dblack]

The Supreme Court has said you must have a rational reason for discriminating against someone.

Where did you get that idea? I've seen nothing at all that broad.

It’s poorly worded, not very accurate, but in essence correct.]In order for government to place restrictions on our rights and protected liberties, any measure which seeks to do so must be rationally based, be supported by objective, documented evidence, and the restriction must pursue a legitimate legislative end.

Which explains why the Supreme Court struck down measures that prohibited same-sex couples to marry, because those measures sought to restrict the due process and equal protection rights of gay Americans in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Measures which sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law were not rationally based, there was no objective, documented evidence in support of such measures, and the measures pursued no legitimate legislative end – the measures sought solely to disadvantage gay Americans for no other reason than who they are – which government may not do.

What? I think you misread. We're not talking about the government discriminating. We're talking about power of government to prohibit individuals from discriminating.

 

[dblack]

No, the power to enact laws in good faith that comport with the Constitution and its case law.

Hey C, as long as you're here, do you care to comment on g5000's earlier claim that the "Supreme Court has said you must have a rational reason for discriminating against someone."? As I said, I've seen nothing that broad. All that I know of is that the Court has upheld laws that prohibit certain, politically-unpopular reasons. Do you have any case law that shows different?

Yes, Romer v. Evans is a very good example of a state measure, Colorado’s Amendment 2, prohibiting gay Americans from using the state’s anti-discrimination laws, that was struck down because it lacked a rational basis and proper legislative end.

“We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause[.]”

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

Again, you're talking about equal protection. I'm in favor of that. But we're discussing the power of government to suppress unpopular biases in society, not the requirement that government treats everyone equally.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Supreme Court has said you must have a rational reason for discriminating against someone.

Where did you get that idea? I've seen nothing at all that broad.

What he said was overly broad but close.

No one is trying to shut you up, unfortunately. Your religious freedom does not extend to discriminating against others if you are in business.

So then a gay artist can't refuse on principle to print a billboard for a Christian that reads "Homosexuality is a sin unto God". Right? He can be fined or jailed for refusing to do that.

If the gay artist provides art for billboards- no he cannot turn it down just because he disapproves of the religious beliefs of the customer.

He would be acting just like the baker- and violating the law the same way.

So then it's time to put that one to a legal test. Christians? Know any gay graphic art companies in your town?

I look forward to that personal add.

"Christian couple looks for gay graphic artists for a good time"

The Supreme Court has said you must have a rational reason for discriminating against someone.

Where did you get that idea? I've seen nothing at all that broad.

What he said was overly broad but close.

I don't see how. That's a popular misconception of how discrimination laws work, but it's not the reality.

I guess what stuns me is that so many people are ready to grant this kind of power to government in the midst of an election that presents of the real possibility of a fascist taking the reins.

The Commerce Clause affords government the authority to regulate markets, both with regard to local markets and all interrelated markets (Wickard v. Filburn).

Public accommodations laws are regulatory measures authorized by Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where to allow businesses open to the general public to deny services to patrons based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is disruptive to the local market, and government is at liberty to prohibit that disruptive behavior (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US).

Public accommodations laws are no different than laws requiring the payment of a minimum wage, laws that protect the safety of employees, and laws that safeguard the health and well-being of consumers and the environment – regulatory measures which are just, proper, and Constitutional.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The government has the power to make discrimination illegal. That should be obvious.

It should be obviously insane.

Nevertheless, you're right. The government has the power to do whatever we let them get away with.

That's the core principle behind democratic government. The power resides with the People.

Sure. But how much power? The power to decide whether an individual's personal preferences are rational or not?

No, the power to enact laws in good faith that comport with the Constitution and its case law.

And should the power to enact laws in good ... yada, yada ... include the power to punish people for behaving irrationally? Or the power to decide, in the first place, which behavior is rational and which isn't?

No one is being ‘punished’ for ‘acting irrationally.’

In fact, no one is being ‘punished’ at all.

Public accommodations laws and the Commerce Clause jurisprudence which authorizes such measures are civil – not criminal – law.

Moreover, no decision is being made by government as to what is or is not ‘rational,’ the rational basis level of judicial review applies solely to government and the laws government enacts, not private persons or organizations.

 

[dblack]

The Commerce Clause affords....

Uh huh... Commerce Clause.... General Welfare ... necessary and proper ... got it. You good with the Donald deciding whether you are rational or not?

Back to my initial question, where has the Court said people have to have a rational reason to discriminate? Granted, that would be the only way to equally apply the concept, but the government has made no attempt to do that. They've merely banned a few unpopular reasons. Anything else is fine.

 

[rightwinger]

The Commerce Clause affords....

Uh huh... Commerce Clause.... General Welfare ... necessary and proper ... got it. You good with the Donald deciding whether you are rational or not?

Back to my initial question, where has the Court said people have to have a rational reason to discriminate? Granted, that would be the only way to equally apply the concept, but the government has made no attempt to do that. They've merely banned a few unpopular reasons. Anything else is fine.

The court allows people to discriminate....you are free to hate anyone you wish
But once you enter the public domain as a business, the business has to treat everyone equitably

 

[dblack]

It should be obviously insane.

Nevertheless, you're right. The government has the power to do whatever we let them get away with.

That's the core principle behind democratic government. The power resides with the People.

Sure. But how much power? The power to decide whether an individual's personal preferences are rational or not?

No, the power to enact laws in good faith that comport with the Constitution and its case law.

And should the power to enact laws in good ... yada, yada ... include the power to punish people for behaving irrationally? Or the power to decide, in the first place, which behavior is rational and which isn't?

No one is being ‘punished’ for ‘acting irrationally.’

In fact, no one is being ‘punished’ at all.

Public accommodations laws and the Commerce Clause jurisprudence which authorizes such measures are civil – not criminal – law.

Oh gawd, here we go with the usual song and dance equivocating on terms. If government slaps you with a penalty for doing something, you're being punished.

Moreover, no decision is being made by government as to what is or is not ‘rational,’ the rational basis level of judicial review applies solely to government and the laws government enacts, not private persons or organizations.

Pull your head out of your law book, C. We're not talking about 'the rational basis level of judicial review'. We're talking about the claim that individuals must have a 'rational' reason to discriminate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Commerce Clause affords....

Uh huh... Commerce Clause.... General Welfare ... necessary and proper ... got it. You good with the Donald deciding whether you are rational or not?

Back to my initial question, where has the Court said people have to have a rational reason to discriminate? Granted, that would be the only way to equally apply the concept, but the government has made no attempt to do that. They've merely banned a few unpopular reasons. Anything else is fine.

The funniest thing about you is that you apparently have no clue as to what an outlier you are compared to normal Americans.

 

[Silhouette]

"Normal Americans" are what most of us grew up with. And that ain't what's going on so you're going to see some blowback.

 

[Silhouette]

The court allows people to discriminate....you are free to hate anyone you wish
But once you enter the public domain as a business, the business has to treat everyone equitably

So a Satanist has a legal right to force a Christian baker to make a cake that says "Lucifer is the Best!"? Or does he just have a right to buy a blank cake and decorate it that way himself? Or just not say a word about his religion and order a dozen doughnuts?

In the upcoming legal battles, the different levels of participation in the offensive behavior will be addressed. This isn't a case of the artists refusing to serve gays at all, in just regular non-suggestive art. It is a case of the LGBT cult forcing them to iconize and enable blasphemy to their own Christian religion. A gay wanting a picture of a dozen roses on a table in still art is a bit different from them wanting a picture of two men getting married. The court isn't just going to give that last point a brush away of the hand. You'd better believe they're going to ponder it. Because of the 1st Amendment.

Essentially, PA laws are tantamount to the government establishing a religion that others must follow. There is nothing intrinsic about LGBT other than behavior and dogma. It is not static like a race. It walks, talks and acts like a religious cult. And the government cannot force Christians to enable it or to promote it or practice it.

 

[rightwinger]

The court allows people to discriminate....you are free to hate anyone you wish
But once you enter the public domain as a business, the business has to treat everyone equitably

So a Satanist has a legal right to force a Christian baker to make a cake that says "Lucifer is the Best!"? Or does he just have a right to buy a blank cake and decorate it that way himself? Or just not say a word about his religion and order a dozen doughnuts?

In the upcoming legal battles, the different levels of participation in the offensive behavior will be addressed. This isn't a case of the artists refusing to serve gays at all, in just regular non-suggestive art. It is a case of the LGBT cult forcing them to iconize and enable blasphemy to their own Christian religion. A gay wanting a picture of a dozen roses on a table in still art is a bit different from them wanting a picture of two men getting married. The court isn't just going to give that last point a brush away of the hand. You'd better believe they're going to ponder it. Because of the 1st Amendment.

Essentially, PA laws are tantamount to the government establishing a religion that others must follow. There is nothing intrinsic about LGBT other than behavior and dogma. It is not static like a race. It walks, talks and acts like a religious cult. And the government cannot force Christians to enable it or to promote it or practice it.

If you make a cake for one group you have to do it for all

 

[Silhouette]

If you make a cake for one group you have to do it for all

It's not that cut and dried. Should a black baker be fined or jailed for refusing to print "KKK is the way!" on a cake with a bunch of hooded figures iced onto it?

You're going to find there's going to be a debate about what "group" means and what its origins are. The clarification on the origins of LGBT is going to come to the fore in the coming months and years. And it will be exposed for the cult it is. At that point, everything will change legally as to what are "rights" for cult members/rebellious behavioralists vs actual static classes like race.

 

[dblack]

The Commerce Clause affords....

Uh huh... Commerce Clause.... General Welfare ... necessary and proper ... got it. You good with the Donald deciding whether you are rational or not?

Back to my initial question, where has the Court said people have to have a rational reason to discriminate? Granted, that would be the only way to equally apply the concept, but the government has made no attempt to do that. They've merely banned a few unpopular reasons. Anything else is fine.

The funniest thing about you is that you apparently have no clue as to what an outlier you are compared to normal Americans.

Heh... no, I'm quite aware how few people see it this way. I'm just planting seeds.

 

[emilynghiem]

That's the crux of the problem, the notion that the freedom to conduct business isn't every bit as important as the freedom to practice religion.

Congress shall make no laws respecting religion therefore ALL businesses must obey public accommodation laws

Dear Skull Pilot
1. but both the LGBT and the Christian beliefs against same sex marriage
are both CREEDS..

Nope- simply untrue

Creed

• a statement of the basic beliefs of a religion
  
  
• : an idea or set of beliefs that guides the actions of a person or group

There is no LGBT creed- as there is no LGBT religion, nor is there any unifying idea or set of beliefs within the LGBT community other than they are entitled to be treated exactly the same before the law.

Dear Syriusly

1. Someone's creed does not have to be based on organized religion or else people are not equal.
The atheist who has a private belief or creed
should be equally protected by law as someone who happens to be a member of a larger group.

Otherwise you are discriminating by creed, by affiliation depending on which ones count or not!

2. LGBT beliefs are indeed "an idea or set of beliefs that guides the action of a person or group"

EX: People who BELIEVE same sex marriage is equal to traditional marriage
ARE acting on that belief to guide them.

This is a CREED. it is not proven scientifically that homosexual orientation
is determined genetically as race and is not a choice of BEHAVIOR.

The Christians cannot prove it is a behavioral choice either,
so BOTH Sides remain neither proven nor disproven.

BOTH remain faith based.
Thus both are CREEDS.

No- one is faith based, one is not.

LGBT Americans who believe that they have the same Constitutional rights as straight Americans.

If you want to call that a 'creed' then that is a 'creed' that all Americans have- the 'creed' of supporting the rights of Americans.

Creed

• a statement of the basic beliefs of a religion
  
  
• : an idea or set of beliefs that guides the actions of a person or group

Your claim that homosexuals all have the same 'creed' is frankly nonsensical.

I didn't say that people had all the same creeds.
Where did you get that, Syriusly?

I'm saying that the people advocating their LGBT beliefs
are under the same limitations as anyone else with beliefs, religions or CREEDS.
It doesn't have to be the same for all people to be protected as a Creed.

The atheist who is not part of any group, can argue for their own Creed or belief
and that is equally protected by law as anyone who belongs to a larger association.
Otherwise, it is discrimination by creed to only protect people who belong to a bigger group.

But whatever it is a person believes, no person or groups CANNOT abuse
govt to endorse their faith-based beliefs
and penalize others for not complying with their beliefs.

You cannot abuse govt to FORCE anyone to CHANGE their beliefs
for the convenience of someone else's beliefs. That's what's causing the problems here.

All beliefs about homosexuality, transgender identity, same sex or traditional marriage
should be treated the same, and not penalize people for their beliefs about these.

That isn't happening with these laws.
The rulings and ordinances go "too far" and start penalizing
and imposing on "other people" unequally. So the conflicts
in BELIEFS should be resolved by consensus so that the
policies are fair and inclusive to all people of all beliefs.

Homosexual orientation and transgender identity
are not based on genetics like race,
but can be treated as spiritually determined or a personal belief
someone has equal right to exercise and practice, on the same
level as Christianity or any other faith-based belief,
under the same limitations that govt cannot be abused to impose
these beliefs on others by establishing them by law.

 

[emilynghiem]

Congress shall make no laws respecting religion therefore ALL businesses must obey public accommodation laws

Dear Skull Pilot
1. but both the LGBT and the Christian beliefs against same sex marriage
are both CREEDS..

Nope- simply untrue

Creed

• a statement of the basic beliefs of a religion
  
  
• : an idea or set of beliefs that guides the actions of a person or group

There is no LGBT creed- as there is no LGBT religion, nor is there any unifying idea or set of beliefs within the LGBT community other than they are entitled to be treated exactly the same before the law.

Dear Syriusly

1. Someone's creed does not have to be based on organized religion or else people are not equal.
The atheist who has a private belief or creed
should be equally protected by law as someone who happens to be a member of a larger group.

Otherwise you are discriminating by creed, by affiliation depending on which ones count or not!

2. LGBT beliefs are indeed "an idea or set of beliefs that guides the action of a person or group"

EX: People who BELIEVE same sex marriage is equal to traditional marriage
ARE acting on that belief to guide them.

This is a CREED. it is not proven scientifically that homosexual orientation
is determined genetically as race and is not a choice of BEHAVIOR.

The Christians cannot prove it is a behavioral choice either,
so BOTH Sides remain neither proven nor disproven.

BOTH remain faith based.
Thus both are CREEDS.

No- one is faith based, one is not.

LGBT Americans who believe that they have the same Constitutional rights as straight Americans.

If you want to call that a 'creed' then that is a 'creed' that all Americans have- the 'creed' of supporting the rights of Americans.

Creed

• a statement of the basic beliefs of a religion
  
  
• : an idea or set of beliefs that guides the actions of a person or group

Your claim that homosexuals all have the same 'creed' is frankly nonsensical.

There is no constitutional protection for a CREED, but there is for RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND THE PRACTICE THEREOF.

Dear easyt65
So you are saying that atheists who have no organized religion
aren't equally protected for whatever they consider their "free exercise of religion"
as a Christian or Hindu who belongs to an organized religion, really?

How are we supposed to treat the Atheist and Christian equally
under law, if free exercise of religion only applies to the Christian's beliefs
and not the beliefs of the Atheist?

Are you really going to interpret it that literally?
To discriminate and only protect beliefs of citizens who happen to belong to an identified religion with a title?

Am I hearing this right? I mean, that's fine, please answer honestly if that's your belief.

If there are literalists like you and CCJ who have to have the law spell it out,
maybe we do need a clarification passed, some kind of footnote appended
to the First Amendment and make it clear that
"free exercise of religion" refers to ANY person's beliefs or creed
regardless if they are a member of an organization or not.

Are you saying the law needs to specify this "in writing"
before you will respect the religious freedom of an atheist
equally as a Christian or any other member of a religious organization.

If this is legally necessary, let's go for it.
I personally want to spell out how to handle political beliefs.
Clearly being a Constitutionalist is a belief now, that needs to be protected "in writing"
from people who don't believe in limited govt by consent of the governed, separation of powers, due process of law before depriving citizens of liberties,
checks and balances, no taxation without representation, or equal inclusion
and protection of the laws for people of all parties and beliefs.

 

[emilynghiem]

I think one should have to prove such a god is real before it can be considered by the government to be warranted of consideration.

Why should faith be used to stop someone from being who they're?

That's right, Matthew, you don't have to prove faith-based beliefs, which is impossible anyway in the case of either God or homosexuality being natural or unnatural. Neither the beliefs for or against can be proven or disproven, but depend on what each person believes for themselves.

The problem is not with LGBT beliefs being faith based, that's actually the best way
to defend them legally since this does not have to be proven, as you said.

The problem is treating those beliefs with priority over Christian beliefs,
and penalizing the Christians for not changing their beliefs to accommodate the LGBT.

In public schools, the students are allowed to pray and have free exercise of religion,
but the schools and admin cannot institute prayers or other faith-based policies for the school and students.
Now if the community affected CONSENT to any such event, sure, they have the right to CHOOSE
that but can't be FORCED to by govt or public institutions.

So why not hold the LGBT bathroom policies in schools to the same standards.
If the students agree to a policy and everyone affected CONSENTS then no problem, that's not being imposed.

But just like with prayers or other faith-based activities,
the school cannot endorse one set of beliefs or policies biased toward one person or group's beliefs
and PENALIZE or punish another person, group or set of beliefs.

Either resolve the policy issue by consensus, such as agreeing on neutral/unisex or singlestalled units,
or separate policies or funding, If people have to fund separate schools to resolve their issues over
creation/evolution, prayer and Bibles, God and how to teach history, sex ed, etc., then so be it.

Because these involve people's beliefs, they either need to agree by free choice,
keep their beliefs out of the public institutions, or separate policies or funding as needed to prevent imposing
on each other. I recommend conflict resolution to resolve disputes by mediation and consensus.

If need be, if we cannot resolve the issues of prolife and prochoice funding of health care provisions,
and issues over benefits for same sex couples, for inmates who aren't allowed to work
and are paid for by taxpayers, etc. then I would recommend separating taxes for social programs
by party so people can pay for what they believe, religiously and politically, and not be forced to
fund policies that contradict their beliefs. Social programs are not what federal govt is designed for,
so it is better to keep these local and private for people to decide for themselves; but if people cannot
organize enough collective resources on their own, through nonprofits schools churches businesses etc,
then why not use political parties to organize this democratically to create and fund programs for members.

 

[emilynghiem]

I completely disagree. The Constitution protects my religious freedom. If you are a LGBT and want some artwork done, your desire for that artwork does not supersede my religious freedom. I do not impose my religious beliefs on you, and you do not try to force me to do something that violates my religious beliefs.

"I reserve the right to NOT provide a service." This actually was once an acceptable sign / practice for businesses, but Liberals seek to impose their will on others, IMO. It isn't just about getting LGBT 'accepted' as a norm, but they are also trying to FORCE others to 'participate in/support it', even if it is against their religious beliefs that are protected UN-CONDITIONALLY under the Constitution.

There are other artists who would gladly take your business. There are other bakeries that would gladly take your business. But that's not good enough. 'THAT' one refuses to do so, so we MUST FORCE them to do so against their will. While 'I' may not want to support your lifestyle / choices due to 'my' religious beliefs 'I' respect your right to be a LGBT and to have rights, 'you' demonstrate 'you' have no respect for 'my' religious beliefs and Constitutional Rights.

'Evil' (as I define in this saying as someone who wants to impose their will on others) teaches 'tolerance' until they are in a position to oppress, silence, and eliminate any opposition to their beliefs."
- We are seeing that today more and more. This oppression of Constitutionally protected rights of religious freedom, to me, is an example of that.

I also believe you and I may disagree on this issue, and that is ok....

No one is trying to shut you up, unfortunately. Your religious freedom does not extend to discriminating against others if you are in business.

It doesn't have to you fucking idiot. A NON religious business also has a right to discriminate.

The government is NOT empowered to make people be nice to each other. If it is please show me where.

Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. You don't have the right to discriminate in business and haven't been able to for over 50 years. (Title II of CRA)

We know what it means that you're just getting upset about it now.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dear Seawytch the argument is that govt is being abused to go "too far" and discriminate
the other way, against business owners with Christian beliefs against same sex marriage.

There are no rules against Christian beliefs.

Business owners have been obligated to follow public accommodation laws now for 50 years.

Christian business owners have never gotten special exemptions.

Dear Syriusly
The LGBT advocates are asking for their beliefs to be named specifically as a protected creed.

You don't see Christians, Buddhists, Hindus or Muslims asking to impose their
beliefs and penalize others for dissenting and objecting to govt endorsing that.

A close equivalent that is consistently refused is the Christian push to recognize
Right to Life as a belief in the case of unborn children. Since this is faith-based,
govt cannot base laws on that argument, much less penalties if other people believe otherwise.

So if the Christians aren't getting their "right to life for unborn children" endorsed
by law when this is faith based, why should LGBT advocates get govt to impose
their beliefs about orientation and gender where it is faith-based ie not proven by science,
even to the point of PENALIZING people if they don't agree with that behavior in public.

Is the difference because the LGBT people can speak for themselves
so they can lobby for their beliefs to be imposed on others.
But the unborn children cannot lobby for their beliefs,
and it is only other citizens expressing this as a belief?

If so, then let's just have the LGBT people speak for themselves.
And anyone who is lobbying on behalf of LGBT beliefs
should be treated as right to life people lobbying on behalf of unborn children.

Are we treating these faith-based beliefs equally?
We reject the right to life where it goes too far into territory that is faith based
and not agreed on by all citizens so govt cannot make laws in those areas.
Why can't the same criteria be enforced for LGBT beliefs that people reject as going too far
and violating the equal rights of others to consent to policies that affect them and other people.

 

[mdk]

If you make a cake for one group you have to do it for all

It's not that cut and dried. Should a black baker be fined or jailed for refusing to print "KKK is the way!" on a cake with a bunch of hooded figures iced onto it?

You're going to find there's going to be a debate about what "group" means and what its origins are. The clarification on the origins of LGBT is going to come to the fore in the coming months and years. And it will be exposed for the cult it is. At that point, everything will change legally as to what are "rights" for cult members/rebellious behavioralists vs actual static classes like race.

What dressing does this inane word salad come with? lol. I am sure there is going to be a huge debate about your made up standards of behavioralists (?) and your legal prattle about static classes. It's going to roll back all the advances in the gay rights movement any day now. Just you wait and see...

Good thing your failure rate when it comes to legal predictions is the stuff of legend around here.

 

[emilynghiem]

If you make a cake for one group you have to do it for all

It's not that cut and dried. Should a black baker be fined or jailed for refusing to print "KKK is the way!" on a cake with a bunch of hooded figures iced onto it?

You're going to find there's going to be a debate about what "group" means and what its origins are. The clarification on the origins of LGBT is going to come to the fore in the coming months and years. And it will be exposed for the cult it is. At that point, everything will change legally as to what are "rights" for cult members/rebellious behavioralists vs actual static classes like race.

What dressing does this inane word salad come with? lol. I am sure there is going to be a huge debate about your made up standards of behavioralists (?) and your legal prattle about static classes. It's going to roll back all the advances in the gay rights movement any day now. Just you wait and see...

Good thing your failure rate when it comes to legal predictions is the stuff of legend around here.

Dear mdk I'm willing to bet that public perception of
both LGBT and Christian beliefs about homosexuality
WILL change -- when spiritual healing is proven by medical research
to heal cancer, drug addictions, schizophrenia, and even abusive relationships.
And that these same methods have been used by people who
report changing their orientation. When the truth comes out,
and is established scientifically and isn't just faith-based testimonies,
more people will understand what is behind Christian beliefs.

When it is agreed that some people heal and come out straight,
others come out homosexual or transgender, and no one rule
applies to all cases, then that will explain why some people were
arguing some people cannot change and others argue they can.
Both are true in certain cases, but false in others. So both
sides are right to defend their beliefs, and wrong to exclude others
with equally valid experiences. The whole truth is greater than the sum of the parts.
It takes all sides to represent the bigger picture that will expand individual perceptions.