Do we have a right to not be discriminated against

[Foxfyre]

The policies are those voted for by the majority. That's a democracy
Then it's not a contract. No valid contract has ever been approved by a majority vote. A valid contract requires the explicit consent of everyone who is bound by its terms.

I'm not talking about whatever contract you guys are talking about, I honestly don't know what that conversation is about.

I'm talking about the requirements that determine whether a contract is valid. The so-called "social contract" doesn't meet the test.

Bripat, do you know how many different definitions there are for contract?

1. Agreement
2. A binding legal agreement
3. Marriage
4. A kind of document
5. The number of tricks you expect to take in a hand of bridge
6. What the Mafia puts out on you if you make them mad.
7. Bringing on oneself such as contracting pneumonia
8. To accept a specific job (what contractors do)
9. To make smaller or closer together

There are probably more but that's off the top of my head.

And social contract is none of those but is a two word term meaning the agreement by which a group of people or society organizes itself for mutual benefit.

We all know that the kind of contract we are discussing is a binding legal agreement, and that means that the Constitution doesn't fit the bill. It certainly isn't binding on me since I didn't agree to it.

If you are admitting that this so-called "social contract" isn't a binding legal agreement, then fine. But then, what the hell is it? Why use the word "contract" if you don't mean a binding legal agreement? The answer is because that's what you want people to think. In other words, you're trying to con them.

.

Wow. Sociology professors, debate coaches, poli-sci instructors, and history teachers all over the country need to wise up then because they all know and use the term.

 

[Conservative65]

Then you expect any business to contract with the kkk if they demand it, any muslim restaurant to cater a Christian wedding and serve pork because they demand it, anyone with a gun that has a permit for open carry to be served, if they demand it? All against the beliefs of the business owner.

I expect a business to sell what it normally sells. A pizza place would be expected to sell pizza. A wedding cake bakery would be expected to sell wedding cakes.

Its really not that complicated. You're overthinking it.

Including the homosexual bakers who refused to put a particular phrase on a product they normally sell because they didn't like what was on it?

Is USMB discriminating illegally if they refuse to let you put certain things in your posts?

No. When you join USMB, you agree to the terms and conditions which include. "We reserve the rights to remove or modify any Content".

Illegal discrimination occurs when the protections specified in legislation for a protected group are violated.

I thought faggots only wanted equal rights? Guess they want special rights.

 

[Conservative65]

Then you expect any business to contract with the kkk if they demand it, any muslim restaurant to cater a Christian wedding and serve pork because they demand it, anyone with a gun that has a permit for open carry to be served, if they demand it? All against the beliefs of the business owner.

I expect a business to sell what it normally sells. A pizza place would be expected to sell pizza. A wedding cake bakery would be expected to sell wedding cakes.

Its really not that complicated. You're overthinking it.

Including the homosexual bakers who refused to put a particular phrase on a product they normally sell because they didn't like what was on it?

Is USMB discriminating illegally if they refuse to let you put certain things in your posts?[/QUOT

The USMB moderators are very inconsistent with their applications of things. One of the black members who thinks he's God's gift to white women made a statement about how he would slap my wife on the ass, she would laugh, and there was nothing I could do about it. Nothing. I agreed that his mother was statistically more likely to have given birth to a bastard than not and get suspended for 3 weeks.

 

[Conservative65]

Then you expect any business to contract with the kkk if they demand it, any muslim restaurant to cater a Christian wedding and serve pork because they demand it, anyone with a gun that has a permit for open carry to be served, if they demand it? All against the beliefs of the business owner.

I expect a business to sell what it normally sells. A pizza place would be expected to sell pizza. A wedding cake bakery would be expected to sell wedding cakes.

Its really not that complicated. You're overthinking it.

Including the homosexual bakers who refused to put a particular phrase on a product they normally sell because they didn't like what was on it?

What product you choose to sell, and who you choose to sell to are two entirely different issues.

CVS no longer sells cigarettes. By your demented reasoning, they are liable for discriminating against smokers.

Seems your example is demented. If a store doesn't sell a product, no one is being discriminated against. If a faggot cake maker still makes cakes and refuses to do one because of WHAT is on it, he is discriminating against the person wanting it.

What it boils down to with you faggot lovers is that you think, much like the spoiled brat faggots themselves, is that they should never be told "No" yet it's OK for one of them to say "no" if they don't want to be held to the same standards.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Then you expect any business to contract with the kkk if they demand it, any muslim restaurant to cater a Christian wedding and serve pork because they demand it, anyone with a gun that has a permit for open carry to be served, if they demand it? All against the beliefs of the business owner.

A caterer can set the menu for people to choose from.

No one is forced to offer pork. If a vegetarian catering company provided food for any wedding they would not have to offer a meat dish because the consumer knew what he was getting when he hired them.

Now do I as an employer who owns a store that sells beer and bacon be forced to hire a muslim who refuses to handle beer and bacon?

 

[Dragonlady]

And the blacks who were told they wouldn't be served at the lunch counter could just go to another restaurant, huh?

Honestly? Yeah. And they were well within their rights to start a black-only restaurant as well (though the white supremacist social structure of the time would have wrongly denied them the ability to exercise that right).

In full honesty I just wouldn't really have a problem wandering into, say, a black-only store and being informed that I wasn't going to be served there. That's because the business owner has the right to refuse to make a contract with me. If my business isn't wanted there, then I can take it elsewhere. If they reject enough customers then they'll go out of business. That's how capitalism works. I'm not going to throw a temper tantrum and cry about it to every activist group I can find so they can rain legal hell and shut the business down, force the owner's family into the gutter, and gloat about my victory for justice and tolerance while I piss on them all for it. I'm just not liberal like that, you know?

I would rather have someone tell me honestly that they don't like me and don't want to serve me, so that I can take my money and give it to someone else, rather than have them pretend just for my money, and quite likely do a less-than-outstanding job.

Frankly, if bigoted Neanderthals want to segregate themselves into little like-minded communities away from the rest of us, I have no problem with that. Have at. I have no desire to force them to intermingle with and pollute the rest of society.

When forced to co-mingle with those they fear, most learn how stupid their prejudices are. Off by themselves, their bigotry remains.

Fear and ignorance thrive in segregation because you have no exposure to the "other" to learn how wrong your position is.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not talking about whatever contract you guys are talking about, I honestly don't know what that conversation is about.

I'm talking about the requirements that determine whether a contract is valid. The so-called "social contract" doesn't meet the test.

Bripat, do you know how many different definitions there are for contract?

1. Agreement
2. A binding legal agreement
3. Marriage
4. A kind of document
5. The number of tricks you expect to take in a hand of bridge
6. What the Mafia puts out on you if you make them mad.
7. Bringing on oneself such as contracting pneumonia
8. To accept a specific job (what contractors do)
9. To make smaller or closer together

There are probably more but that's off the top of my head.

And social contract is none of those but is a two word term meaning the agreement by which a group of people or society organizes itself for mutual benefit.

We all know that the kind of contract we are discussing is a binding legal agreement, and that means that the Constitution doesn't fit the bill. It certainly isn't binding on me since I didn't agree to it.

If you are admitting that this so-called "social contract" isn't a binding legal agreement, then fine. But then, what the hell is it? Why use the word "contract" if you don't mean a binding legal agreement? The answer is because that's what you want people to think. In other words, you're trying to con them.

.

Wow. Sociology professors, debate coaches, poli-sci instructors, and history teachers all over the country need to wise up then because they all know and use the term.

Perhaps, and they are all full of shit. They're all on the government payroll and justify the government's authority to control you is their main job.

 

[bripat9643]

And the blacks who were told they wouldn't be served at the lunch counter could just go to another restaurant, huh?

Honestly? Yeah. And they were well within their rights to start a black-only restaurant as well (though the white supremacist social structure of the time would have wrongly denied them the ability to exercise that right).

In full honesty I just wouldn't really have a problem wandering into, say, a black-only store and being informed that I wasn't going to be served there. That's because the business owner has the right to refuse to make a contract with me. If my business isn't wanted there, then I can take it elsewhere. If they reject enough customers then they'll go out of business. That's how capitalism works. I'm not going to throw a temper tantrum and cry about it to every activist group I can find so they can rain legal hell and shut the business down, force the owner's family into the gutter, and gloat about my victory for justice and tolerance while I piss on them all for it. I'm just not liberal like that, you know?

I would rather have someone tell me honestly that they don't like me and don't want to serve me, so that I can take my money and give it to someone else, rather than have them pretend just for my money, and quite likely do a less-than-outstanding job.

Frankly, if bigoted Neanderthals want to segregate themselves into little like-minded communities away from the rest of us, I have no problem with that. Have at. I have no desire to force them to intermingle with and pollute the rest of society.

When forced to co-mingle with those they fear, most learn how stupid their prejudices are. Off by themselves, their bigotry remains.

Fear and ignorance thrive in segregation because you have no exposure to the "other" to learn how wrong your position is.

ROFL! The claim that "diversity" is beneficial for a society has been proven wrong time and time again. Wherever multiple cultures inhabit a single country the result is always constant strife and even civil war. We see this in India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Rwanda, Iraq, France, England, South Africa, USA, Ukraine and Chechnya. On the other hand, where do we domestic peace and tranquillity? Japan, and all of Northern Europe, Canada. In other words, in countries where there is only a single culture.

The "diversity is beneficial" theory is bullshit.

 

[Dana7360]

Then you expect any business to contract with the kkk if they demand it, any muslim restaurant to cater a Christian wedding and serve pork because they demand it, anyone with a gun that has a permit for open carry to be served, if they demand it? All against the beliefs of the business owner.

Yes the kkk has a right to conduct legal business in America. They have the right to buy goods and services.

No I wouldn't force a muslim business to serve pork but ONLY if they don't serve pork at all to anyone. Which I'm sure there's no pork and never will be any pork in a muslim restaurant. So not serving anyone any pork is legal. Just like any restaurant that doesn't have many certain dishes of food on their menu. If they have pork on their menu then yes they should serve it to everyone.

Yes since it's not discrimination. The business is asking ALL guns to be left outside. Not just some guns. If the business allows one gun they must allow all. So if the business doesn't allow any guns that's not discrimination.

 

[Dana7360]

Businesses are private. Why we're even asking this question tells us how corrupt and liberalized we've become.

Yet they are considered Public Accommodation. Why is it wrong for states to enact PA laws?

They're private. Do you understand? Privately owned.

Public accommodations laws are government intrusions into private property. You will love the day that Big Brother compels you not to deny anyone entry into your home, won't you.

It maybe a private business but they're conducting business with and in the public.

The person who owns the business didn't use their own money to pave the roads, establish the police department or establish the fire department. That business owner is using public services and infrastructure to conduct business. The public pays for all of that so the public can establish laws governing business.

When a person applies for and receives a license from the state to conduct business in the public, they sign papers that says they will abide by all business laws.

My home isn't a business open to the public.

Finally, the constitution says that congress can regulate business.

So if you don't want to regulate business you're violating the constitution and our laws.

 

[Dana7360]

Oh, the legality of PA laws is well established legally. Business is commerce. And commerce is well within the authority of the state to regulate.

You say otherwise. Um.....who gives a shit? Legally speaking, you're nobody. Your agreement or disagreement with well established legal precedent is irrelevant. That you're 'unpersuaded' is equally meaningless.

Then why are you bothering to discuss it?

To dispel pseudo-legal gibberish.

Heh.. ok. Well, while we're at it let's dispel the nonsensical notion that the commerce clause is anything more than a convenient excuse when it comes to anti-discrimination laws. The intent of these laws is to target unpopular prejudice, not to regulate trade.

Ok so lets say you live in one of the countless very small towns in rural America. It's so small there's only one store, one gas station and one post office. That's it. It's so rural that it's hundreds of miles to another small town or any town.

Lets also say that you're gay. You want food to eat but the person who owns the store won't let you inside because you're gay.

Where are you going to get food?

Or you want to get married but the only catering service, bakery and florist shop are inside the grocery store that you're not allowed to enter. You have no other options beyond that one store in your very small town.

Where are you going to get food to serve your guests at the reception? Where are you going to get a cake? Where are you going to get the flowers for your wedding?

 

[Dana7360]

Yes. A sale is a contract between a seller and a buyer. You have the right not to enter into a contract with someone, even if you're fighting your ass off to rescind that right. You still have it. I can't force you to sell me your vehicle. Should you own a bakery and refuse to sell me a muffin, then your reasons honestly don't matter. You chose to withhold your consent to that agreement. I could take it to some activist group and leave your reputation as a merchant and human being as shattered and pissed on as the business they will have shut down, but I wouldn't. That would be a violation of your rights and a pretty shitty thing to do. I'll leave destroying people's lives over a temper tantrum to the left.

And we can regulate commerce to say that you have to have a good faith and fair dealings clause implied in every contract. You don't even negotiation with a person because of something unrelated to the deal, then you are not bargaining in good faith. That's the law, discrimination laws are just an extension of that idea.

The constitution doesn't authorize any such regulations.

Liberal turds keep inventing rules that just don't exist.

Nonsense. The constitution authorizes the regulation of commerce. The federal government has interstate commerce regulation authority. With the States possessing intrastate commerce authority.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Here is what the word "commerce" meant when the Constitution was signed:

Roland Original Understanding of the Commerce Clause

As originally understood, interstate "commerce" did not include primary production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It did not include services, securities, or communication. Nor did it include manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of anything. It did not include anything that might have a "substantial effect" on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to the actual transfers of ownership and possession.
​

That doesn't include Pizza restaurants.

It includes 'sales'. Unless the Pizza restaurants are giving away their product, commerce includes them.

I find it very interesting that the person you're replying to used someone else's OPINION of what the commerce clause means. Not the actual clause from the constitution. Which is one simple sentence:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[3]

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

I see no exclusions. Which means all commerce.

I'm not surprised that the person you're replying to doesn't know what the word commerce means nor that a restaurant selling food is commerce.

Conservatives sure love to redefine the meaning of words to be whatever that conservative wants. Not it's actual meaning.

 

[Papageorgio]

Oh, the legality of PA laws is well established legally. Business is commerce. And commerce is well within the authority of the state to regulate.

You say otherwise. Um.....who gives a shit? Legally speaking, you're nobody. Your agreement or disagreement with well established legal precedent is irrelevant. That you're 'unpersuaded' is equally meaningless.

Then why are you bothering to discuss it?

To dispel pseudo-legal gibberish.

Heh.. ok. Well, while we're at it let's dispel the nonsensical notion that the commerce clause is anything more than a convenient excuse when it comes to anti-discrimination laws. The intent of these laws is to target unpopular prejudice, not to regulate trade.

Ok so lets say you live in one of the countless very small towns in rural America. It's so small there's only one store, one gas station and one post office. That's it. It's so rural that it's hundreds of miles to another small town or any town.

Lets also say that you're gay. You want food to eat but the person who owns the store won't let you inside because you're gay.

Where are you going to get food?

Or you want to get married but the only catering service, bakery and florist shop are inside the grocery store that you're not allowed to enter. You have no other options beyond that one store in your very small town.

Where are you going to get food to serve your guests at the reception? Where are you going to get a cake? Where are you going to get the flowers for your wedding?

Great a what if scenario that won't happen. I love these, I agree with your point, your analogy is just stupid.

 

[Dana7360]

None of the commandments address gay people. Jesus Christ get your act together.

You speak in strict terms of "the 10 commandments", his teaching have many commandments which speak against homosexuality.

Or are you such a dumb fucking fag, you want to argue the bible doesn't teach against homosexuality??

Really? Where in the christian bible does jesus christ say anything about homosexuality?

Please quote the text, chapter and verse.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

None of the commandments address gay people. Jesus Christ get your act together.

You speak in strict terms of "the 10 commandments", his teaching have many commandments which speak against homosexuality.

Or are you such a dumb fucking fag, you want to argue the bible doesn't teach against homosexuality??

Really? Where in the christian bible does jesus christ say anything about homosexuality?

Please quote the text, chapter and verse.

Hebrew Bible
Main article: Homosexuality in the Hebrew Bible

This article relies too much on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. (January 2015)
Leviticus 18 and 20
Main article: Leviticus 18
See also: Abomination (Bible)
Chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus, which form part of the Holiness code and list prohibited forms of intercourse, contain the following verses:

• "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."[1]

• "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."[2]

The two verses have historically been interpreted by Jews and Christians as clear blanket prohibitions against homosexual acts. More recent interpretations focus on its context as part of the Holiness Code, a code of purity meant to distinguish the behavior of Israelites from the Canaanites.[3]

Sodom and Gomorrah
Main article: Sodom and Gomorrah


Lot prevents sodomites from raping the angels, Heinrich Aldegrever, 1555
The story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis does not explicitly identify homosexuality as the sin for which they were destroyed. Most interpreters find the story of Sodom and a similar one in Judges 19 to condemn the violent rape of guests, rather than homosexuality,[4] but the passage has historically been interpreted within Judaism and Christianity as a punishment for homosexuality due to the interpretation that the men of Sodom wished to rape the angels who retrieved Lot.[4]

While the Jewish prophets spoke only of lack of charity as the sin of Sodom,[5] the exclusively sexual interpretation became so prevalent that the name "Sodom" became the basis of the word sodomy, still a legal synonym for homosexual and non-procreative sexual acts, particularly anal or oral sex.[6]

While the Jewish prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos and Zephaniah refer vaguely to the sin of Sodom,[5] Ezekiel specifies that the city was destroyed because of its commission of social injustice:[4]

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.[7]

The Talmudic tradition of between c. 370 and 500 also interprets the sin of Sodom as lack of charity, with the attempted rape of the angels being a manifestation of the city's violation of the social order of hospitality;[8] as does Jesus in the New Testament, for instance in Matthew 10:14–15 when he tells his disciples that the punishment for houses or towns that will not welcome them will be worse than that of Sodom and Gomorrah.[5][9]

Later traditions on Sodom's sin, such as Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, considered it to be an illicit form of heterosexual intercourse.[10] In Jude 1:7 the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are stated to have been "giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh,"[11] which may refer to homosexuality or to the lust of mortals after angels.[4] Jewish writers Philo (d. AD 50) and Josephus (37 – c. 100) were the first to assert unambiguously that homosexuality was among the sins of Sodom.[10] By the end of the 1st century Jews commonly identified the sin of Sodom with homosexual practices.[12]

David and Jonathan and Ruth and Naomi
Main article: David and Jonathan § Homoeroticism
The account of the friendship between David and Jonathan in the Books of Samuel has been interpreted by traditional and mainstream Christians as a relationship only of affectionate regard, but has been interpreted by some authors as of a sexual nature.[13][14]

One relevant Bible passage in this respect is 1 Samuel 18:1:

• And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. (KJV)[15]

Another relevant passage is 2 Samuel 1:26, where David says:

• I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. (KJV)[16]

The story of Ruth and Naomi in the Book of Ruth is also occasionally interpreted as the story of a lesbian couple.[17] For example, see “Finding Our Past: A Lesbian Interpretation of the Book of Ruth,” by Rebecca Alpert, which was included in Reading Ruth: Contemporary Women Reclaim a Sacred Story, edited by J. A. Kates and G.T. Reimer (1994). [18]

New Testament
Main article: Homosexuality in the New Testament
Romans 1
“ For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.[19] ”
This passage has been debated by some 20th and 21st-century interpreters both in terms of its relevance today and in terms of its actual prohibition: while Christians of several denominations have historically maintained that this verse is a complete prohibition of all forms of homosexual activity,[20] some 20th and 21st-century authors contend the passage is not a blanket condemnation of homosexual acts, suggesting, among other interpretations, that the passage condemned heterosexuals who experimented with homosexual activity[5][21] or that Paul's condemnation was relative to his own culture, in which homosexuality was not understood as an orientation and in which being penetrated was seen as shameful.[21] These interpretations are in a minority.[5][21]

Other epistles
In the context of the broader immorality of his audience, Paul the Apostle wrote in the First Epistle to the Corinthians,

“ Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.[22] ”
The Greek word arsenokoitai (ἀρσενοκοῖται) in verse 9 has challenged scholars for centuries, and has been variously rendered as "abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJV), "sodomites" (YLT), or "men who have sex with men" (NIV). Greek ἄῤῥην / ἄρσην [arrhēn / arsēn] means "male", and κοίτην [koitēn] "bed," with a sexual connotation.[23] Paul's use of the word in 1 Corinthians is the earliest example of the term; its only other use is in a similar list of wrongdoers given (possibly by the same author) in 1 Timothy 1:8–11: In the letter to the Corinthians, amid the list of those who will not inherit the kingdom of God, Paul uses two Greek words: malakoi and arsenokoitai. Malakoi is a common Greek word meaning, of things subject to touch, "soft" (used in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 to describe a garment); of things not subject to touch, "gentle"; and, of persons or modes of life, a number of meanings that include "pathic".[24] Nowhere else in scripture is it used to describe a person. Bishop Gene Robinson says the early church seemed to have understood it as a person with a "soft" or weak morality; later, it would come to denote (and be translated as) those who engage in masturbation, or "those who abuse themselves"; all we actually, factually, know about the word is that it means soft.[25]

“ But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.[26] ”
Most scholars hold that Paul had two passages of the Book of Leviticus, 18:22 and 20:13, in mind when he used the word ἀρσενοκοῖται, which may be of his coinage.[4] with most commentators and translators interpreting it as a reference to male same-sex intercourse.[27] However, John Boswell states that it "did not connote homosexuality to Paul or his early readers", and that in later Christian literature the word is used, for instance, by Aristides of Athens (c. 138) clearly not for homosexuality and possibly for prostitution, Eusebius (d. c. 340) who evidently used it in reference to women, and in the writings of 6th-century Patriarch John IV of Constantinople, known as John the Faster. In a passage dealing with sexual misconduct, John speaks of arsenokoitia as active or passive and says that "many men even commit the sin of arsenokoitia with their wives".[28] Although the constituent elements of the compound word refer to sleeping with men, he obviously does not use it to mean homosexual intercourse and appears to employ it for anal intercourse, not generic homosexual activity.[29] Particulars of Boswell's arguments are rejected by several scholars in a way qualified as persuasive by David F. Greenberg, who declares usage of the term arsenokoites by writers such as Aristides of Athens and Eusebius, and in the Sibylline Oracles, to be "consistent with a homosexual meaning".[30] A discussion document issued by the House of Bishops of the Church of England states that most scholars still hold that the word arsenokoites relates to homosexuality.[31] Another work attributed to John the Faster, a series of canons that for various sins provided shorter though stricter penances in place of the previous longer penances, applies a penance of eighty days for "intercourse of men with one another" (canon 9), explained in the Pedalion as mutual masturbation - double the penalty for solitary masturbation (canon 8) - and three years with xerophagy or, in accordance with the older canon of Basil the Great, fifteen without (canon 18) for being "so mad as to copulate with another man" – ἀρρενομανήσαντα in the original – explained in the Pedalion as "guilty of arsenocoetia (i.e., sexual intercourse between males)" – ἀρσενοκοίτην in the original. According to the same work, ordination is not to be conferred on someone who as a boy has been the victim of anal intercourse, but this is not the case if the semen was ejaculated between his thighs (canon 19). These canons are included, with commentary, in the Pedalion, the most widely used collection of canons of the Greek Orthodox Church,[32] an English translation of which was produced by Denver Cummings and published by the Orthodox Christian Educational Society in 1957 under the title, The Rudder.[33][34][35]

Some scholars consider that the term was not used to refer to a homosexual orientation, but see it as referred instead to activities.[36][37]

Other scholars have interpreted arsenokoitai and malakoi (another word that appears in 1 Corinthians 6:9) as referring to weakness and effeminacy or to the practice of exploitative pederasty.[38][39]

Matthew 8; Luke 7
Further information: Homosexuality in the New Testament § Pais and Healing the centurion's servant
In Matthew 8:5–13 and Luke 7:1–10, Jesus heals a centurion's servant who is dying. According to James Neill, the Greek term "pais" used for the servant in Matthew's account almost always had a sexual connotation.[40] In support of this view, he remarks that the word pais, along with the word "erasthai" (to love) is the root of the English word "pederasty".[40] He sees in the fact that, in Luke's parallel account, the centurion's servant is described as "valued highly"[41] by the centurion an indication of a homosexual relationship between the two, and says that the Greek word "doulos" (a slave) used of him in Luke's account suggests he may have been a sex slave.[40] Daniel A. Helminiak writes that the word pais was sometimes given a sexual meaning.[42] Donald Wold states that its normal meaning is "boy", "child" or "slave" and its application to a boy lover escapes notice in the standard lexica of Liddell and Scott and Bauer.[43] The Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell and Scott registers three meanings of the word παῖς (pais): a child in relation to descent (son or daughter); a child in relation to age (boy or girl); a slave or servant (male or female). In her detailed study of the episode in Matthew and Luke, Wendy Cotter dismisses as very unlikely the idea that the use of the Greek word "pais" indicated a sexual relationship between the centurion and the young slave.[44] Neill himself compares the meanings of Greek "pais" to those of French "garçon", which, though also used to mean "waiter", "most commonly means 'boy'".

Matthew's account has parallels in Luke 7:1–10 and John 4:46–53. There are major differences between John's account and those of the two synoptic writers, but such differences exist also between the two synoptic accounts, with next to nothing of the details in Luke 7:2–6 being present also in Matthew.[45] The Commentary of Craig A. Evans states that the word pais used by Matthew may be that used in the hypothetical source known as Q used by both Matthew and Luke and, since it can mean either son or slave, it became doulos (slave) in Luke and huios (son) in John.[45] Writers who admit John 4:46–53 as a parallel passage generally interpret Matthew's pais as "child" or "boy", while those who exclude it see it as meaning "servant" or "slave".[46]

Theodore W. Jennings Jr. and Tat-Siong Benny Liew write that Roman historical data about patron-client relationships and about same-sex relations among soldiers support the view that the pais in Matthew's account is the centurion's "boy-love" and that the centurion did not want Jesus to enter his house for fear the boy would be enamoured of Jesus instead. D.B. Saddington writes that while he does not exclude the possibility, the evidence the two put forward supports "neither of these interpretations",[47] with Stephen Voorwinde saying of their view that "the argument on which this understanding is based has already been soundly refuted in the scholarly literature"[46] and Wendy Cotter saying that they fail to take account of Jewish condemnation of pederasty.[44] Others interpret Matthew's pais merely as a boy servant, not a male lover, and read nothing sexual into Luke's "valued highly".

Matthew 19:12
In Matthew 19:12, Jesus speaks of eunuchs who were born as such, eunuchs who were made so by others, and eunuchs who choose to live as such for the kingdom of heaven.[48] Jesus' reference to eunuchs who were born as such has been interpreted as having to do with homosexual orientation; Clement of Alexandria, for instance, is citing in his book "Stromata" (chapter III,1,1[49]) an earlier interpretation from Basilides on it that some men, from birth, are naturally averse to women and should not marry.[50] "The first category - those eunuchs who have been so from birth - is the closest description we have in the Bible of what we understand today as homosexual."[51]

Acts 8
Main article: Ethiopian eunuch
The Ethiopian eunuch, an early gentile convert encountered in Acts 8, has been described as an early gay Christian, based on the fact that the word "eunuch" in the Bible was not always used literally, as in Matthew 19:12.[51][52] Commentators generally suggest that the combination of "eunuch" together with the title "court official" indicates a literal eunuch—not a homosexual—who would have been excluded from the Temple by the restriction in Deuteronomy 23:1.[53][54]

The Bible and homosexuality - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Ravi]

Jesus doesn't care if someone is gay.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes. A sale is a contract between a seller and a buyer. You have the right not to enter into a contract with someone, even if you're fighting your ass off to rescind that right. You still have it. I can't force you to sell me your vehicle. Should you own a bakery and refuse to sell me a muffin, then your reasons honestly don't matter. You chose to withhold your consent to that agreement. I could take it to some activist group and leave your reputation as a merchant and human being as shattered and pissed on as the business they will have shut down, but I wouldn't. That would be a violation of your rights and a pretty shitty thing to do. I'll leave destroying people's lives over a temper tantrum to the left.

And we can regulate commerce to say that you have to have a good faith and fair dealings clause implied in every contract. You don't even negotiation with a person because of something unrelated to the deal, then you are not bargaining in good faith. That's the law, discrimination laws are just an extension of that idea.

The constitution doesn't authorize any such regulations.

Liberal turds keep inventing rules that just don't exist.

Nonsense. The constitution authorizes the regulation of commerce. The federal government has interstate commerce regulation authority. With the States possessing intrastate commerce authority.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Here is what the word "commerce" meant when the Constitution was signed:

Roland Original Understanding of the Commerce Clause

As originally understood, interstate "commerce" did not include primary production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It did not include services, securities, or communication. Nor did it include manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of anything. It did not include anything that might have a "substantial effect" on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to the actual transfers of ownership and possession.
​

That doesn't include Pizza restaurants.

It includes 'sales'. Unless the Pizza restaurants are giving away their product, commerce includes them.

Wrong, asshole. Selling a pizza isn't an exchange that crosses state borders.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

None of the commandments address gay people. Jesus Christ get your act together.

You speak in strict terms of "the 10 commandments", his teaching have many commandments which speak against homosexuality.

Or are you such a dumb fucking fag, you want to argue the bible doesn't teach against homosexuality??

Really? Where in the christian bible does jesus christ say anything about homosexuality?

Please quote the text, chapter and verse.

What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

by Matt Slick

The Bible doesn't speak of homosexuality very often; but when it does, it condemns it as sin. Let's take a look.

• Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
• Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
• 1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
• Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

Homosexuality is clearly condemned in the Bible. It undermines God's created order where He made Adam and Eve, a man and a woman, to carry out his command to fill and subdue the earth (Gen. 1:28). Homosexuality cannot carry out that mandate. In addition, it undermines the basic family unit of husband and wife which is the God-ordained means of procreation. And, believe it or not, it is also dangerous to society. (See, Is homosexuality dangerous?)

Unlike other sins, homosexuality has a heavy judgment administered by God Himself upon those who commit it and support it. This judgment is that those who practice it are given over to their passions and believe its lie, which means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins.

"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error," (Romans 1:26-27).

As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing, will not seek forgiveness, and will not repent. They will die in their sins and face God's righteous condemnation.

But their rebellion against God does not stop there. Those thus judged also promote it and condemn others who don't approve of their behavior.

"...and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them," (Rom. 1:32).

So, in their "hearty approval" of homosexuality, they encourage others to accept their practice; and thus their sin spreads. In this, they will reject the ways of God and stand in opposition to Christ's redemptive work on the cross. Without Jesus, they will have no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, they will have no salvation. Without salvation, there is only damnation in eternal Hell. We don't want this for anyone.

What Does the Bible Say About Homosexuality CARM Homosexuality

 

[bripat9643]

Oh, the legality of PA laws is well established legally. Business is commerce. And commerce is well within the authority of the state to regulate.

You say otherwise. Um.....who gives a shit? Legally speaking, you're nobody. Your agreement or disagreement with well established legal precedent is irrelevant. That you're 'unpersuaded' is equally meaningless.

Then why are you bothering to discuss it?

To dispel pseudo-legal gibberish.

Heh.. ok. Well, while we're at it let's dispel the nonsensical notion that the commerce clause is anything more than a convenient excuse when it comes to anti-discrimination laws. The intent of these laws is to target unpopular prejudice, not to regulate trade.

Ok so lets say you live in one of the countless very small towns in rural America. It's so small there's only one store, one gas station and one post office. That's it. It's so rural that it's hundreds of miles to another small town or any town.

Lets also say that you're gay. You want food to eat but the person who owns the store won't let you inside because you're gay.

Where are you going to get food?

Or you want to get married but the only catering service, bakery and florist shop are inside the grocery store that you're not allowed to enter. You have no other options beyond that one store in your very small town.

Where are you going to get food to serve your guests at the reception? Where are you going to get a cake? Where are you going to get the flowers for your wedding?

When have gays ever lived in such a place? Gays always move to places that are gay friendly, like San Francisco. Your scenario is utterly implausible.

 

[bripat9643]

And we can regulate commerce to say that you have to have a good faith and fair dealings clause implied in every contract. You don't even negotiation with a person because of something unrelated to the deal, then you are not bargaining in good faith. That's the law, discrimination laws are just an extension of that idea.

The constitution doesn't authorize any such regulations.

Liberal turds keep inventing rules that just don't exist.

Nonsense. The constitution authorizes the regulation of commerce. The federal government has interstate commerce regulation authority. With the States possessing intrastate commerce authority.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Here is what the word "commerce" meant when the Constitution was signed:

Roland Original Understanding of the Commerce Clause

As originally understood, interstate "commerce" did not include primary production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It did not include services, securities, or communication. Nor did it include manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of anything. It did not include anything that might have a "substantial effect" on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to the actual transfers of ownership and possession.
​

That doesn't include Pizza restaurants.

It includes 'sales'. Unless the Pizza restaurants are giving away their product, commerce includes them.

I find it very interesting that the person you're replying to used someone else's OPINION of what the commerce clause means. Not the actual clause from the constitution. Which is one simple sentence:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[3]

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

I see no exclusions. Which means all commerce.

I'm not surprised that the person you're replying to doesn't know what the word commerce means nor that a restaurant selling food is commerce.

Conservatives sure love to redefine the meaning of words to be whatever that conservative wants. Not it's actual meaning.

As I tried to explain to the other moron, in those days the word "commerce" doesn't mean what it means today. Apparently you believe we shouldn't care about the meaning of words when we determine what the Constitution says. I won't bother to explain how stupid a concept that is, but the intelligent members of this forum understand.