Do we have a right to not be discriminated against

[Papageorgio]

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.

The commerce clause is for interstate transactions, not intrastate transactions.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

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.

The commerce clause is for interstate transactions, not intrastate transactions.

Commerce Clause
The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”

The Constitution enumerates certain powers for the federal government; the Tenth Amendment provides that any powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the states. Congress has often used the Commerce Clause to justify exercising legislative power over the activities of states and their citizens, leading to significant and ongoing controversy regarding the balance of power between the federal government and the states.

The Commerce Clause has historically been viewed as both a grant of congressional authority and as a restriction on states’ powers to regulate. The “dormant” Commerce Clause refers to the prohibition, implied in the Commerce Clause, against states passing legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce. The meaning of the word "commerce" is a source of much of the controversy. The Constitution does not explicitly define the word. Some argue that it refers simply to trade or exchange, while others claim that the founders intended to describe more broadly commercial and social intercourse between citizens of different states. Thus, the interpretation of "commerce" affects the appropriate dividing line between federal and state power.

The Commerce Clause has been used to justify the use of federal laws in matters that do not on their face implicate interstate trade or exchange. Early on, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to regulate interstate commerce encompassed the power to regulate interstate navigation. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824). In 1905, the Court used the Commerce Clause to halt price fixing in the Chicago meat industry, when it ruled that Congress had authority to regulate the local meat market under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. It found that business done even at a purely local level could become part of a continuous “current” of commerce that involved the interstate movement of goods and services. Swift and Company v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905). Despite these decisions, the Commerce Clause could still effectively be used to limit the federal government’s power, as the early years of the New Deal demonstrated.

With the advent of the New Deal, the powers of the federal government expanded into realms—such as regulation of in-state industrial production and worker hours and wages—that would not necessarily be considered “commerce” under the definitions set forth in Gibbons and Swift. As a result, prior to 1937, the Court exercised its power to strike down New Deal legislation as applied to certain plaintiffs. It found in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. US that the National Industrial Recovery Act was unconstitutional as applied to a poultry seller who bought and sold chicken only within the state of New York. 295 U.S. 495 (1935). The Court also found the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act unconstitutional. Carter v. Carter Coal Corp., 298 U.S. 238 (1936). Following his reelection, President Roosevelt responded to these attacks on his legislation by proposing what is known as the “Court-packing plan,” which would have expanded the size of the Supreme Court from nine to up to fifteen justices. Although the plan was defeated and the composition of the Court soon changed, the proposal was credited with changing the Court’s view on New Deal legislation. Beginning with the landmark case of NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., the Court recognized broader grounds upon which the Commerce Clause could be used to regulate state activity—most importantly, that activity was commerce if it had a “substantial economic effect” on interstate commerce or if the “cumulative effect” of one act could have an effect on such commerce. 301 U.S. 1 (1937).

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed segregation and prohibited discrimination against African-Americans, was passed under the Commerce Clause in order to allow the federal government to charge non-state actors with Equal Protection violations, which it had been unable to do up to that point because of the Fourteenth Amendment’s limited application to state actors. The Supreme Court found that Congress had the authority to regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. 379 U.S. 241 (1964). It also ruled that the federal civil rights legislation could be used to regulate a restaurant, Ollie’s Barbeque, a family-owned restaurant in Birmingham, Alabama because, although most of Ollie’s customers were local, the restaurant served food which had previously crossed state lines. Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 274 (1964).

In 1995, the Rehnquist Court again restricted the interpretation of the Commerce Clause in Lopez v. United States. 514 U.S. 549 (1995). The defendant in this case was charged with carrying a handgun to school in violation of the federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990. The defendant argued that the federal government had no authority to regulate firearms in local schools, while the government claimed that this fell under the Commerce Clause since possession of a firearm in a school zone would lead to violent crime, thereby affecting general economic conditions. The Chief Justice rejected this argument, and held that Congress only has the power to regulate the channels of commerce, the instrumentalities of commerce, and action that substantially affects interstate commerce. He declined to further expand the Commerce Clause, writing that “[t]o do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do.”

The federal government’s power was further restricted in the landmark case of Morrison v. United States, which overturned the Violence Against Women Act for its reliance on the Commerce Clause in making domestic violence against women a federal crime. 529 U.S. 598 (2000). Taken together, Lopez and Morrison have made clear that while the Court is still willing to recognize a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, if it does not find activity substantial enough to constitute interstate commerce it will not accept Congress's stated reason for federal regulation.

Commerce Clause Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute

 

[dblack]

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.

You rely on all the same public services as the business. Your rights as a property owner should be the same.

 

[norwegen]

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.

You rely on all the same public services as the business. Your rights as a property owner should be the same.

Liberals, Democrats, atheists, and other mental midgets are under the impression that a business open to the public can no longer be selective, that it can no longer reserve the right to refuse service.

Our national character has changed.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

The business owner pays taxes like everybody else, however, and owes no more obligation to others for those roads, the fire department, etc. than anybody else owes obligation to others. That is not sufficient reason for the social contract to include regulation of business but some other purpose for the general welfare must be a factor.

Again I have no problem with an ordinance that a business open to the public be required to accommodate all those who follow the business owner's rules and come in to buy the product he normally has for sale. That is not an oppressive or restrictive expectation as a condition of the license to do business.

I have a HUGE problem however with the business owner being required to accommodate special requests of customers for no other reason than they are a protected class. I do not believe in protected classes. I would expect a gay couple to invite whomever they wanted to their wedding and have full right to have that wedding without interference or disruption by those who might disapprove of it just as I would expect a heterosexual couple to have that right.

And I would expect a baker to be able to accept special orders that he/she wished to accommodate and to refuse special orders that he/she did not wish to accommodate.

And, nobody, gay/straight/black/white/polka dot or whatever, should be forced to participate in an event or activity that offends his/her moral values or in which he/she does not wish to participate.

And

 

[Dana7360]

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

Please quote the text, chapter and verse.[/QUOTE]

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[/QUOTE]



The first part of your post is the old testament and has nothing to do with jesus.

The passages you posted from the new testament don't say anything in regard to what jesus said about homosexuals. You're using quotes from people who aren't jesus to rationalize discrimination.

However, none of those passages says that jesus said that homosexuals should be discriminated. Nor does it say that jesus said that anyone who makes a cake or sells goods or services to a homosexual is actually taking part in homosexual activity and it says nothing about denying goods or services to homosexuals.

However I just want to know, did you stop wearing clothes made from 2 different materials? Do you eat shellfish? Do you stay away from women who are on their cycle? Do you shave your beard? Do you do any business on Sunday? Do you eat any animal that doesn't have completely split hooves and chews it's cut? Do you wear eye glasses?

Those are also rules in the old testament. However when I was a christian I was taught that the old testament isn't what christians follow. They follow jesus and that's the new testament. Jesus said what you've done for the least of your brothers and sisters you've done for me.

So while you may believe that it's against the bible to be homosexual, there's no place in the bible that jesus says you can't do business with them. There's no place in the bible that jesus says it's ok to discriminate against them. Nor is there any place in the bible that jesus said much of anything about homosexuals.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes it is my entitled right not to be discriminated against if I am a law abiding citizen.

Nope. Law-abiding or not, citizen or not, you do not have a right to have me like you or pretend to like you. Regardless of my reason for doing so.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I mean, hurting someone's feelings isn't really inflicting harm on them though. I can call you a dumbass. It might rain on your day a bit, but honestly how are you any worse off than before in any real practical sense? Especially if you chose to ignore me and declined to give the insult any bite. Even if you didn't, you'd still get over it and be none the worse for the wear.

The issue is that some people don't get over it. Some people have underlying problems, whether that be depression or something else. I think this may be an issue of having a free market in the first place; denying people service isn't keeping the idea of a free market. I think anyone should be able to buy anything legally from anyone that is legally selling.

"Free market" means free of government interference. You believe it means a market with government interference. The term "government regulated free market" is an oxymoron.

No, I believe that a free market means that anyone can buy anything legally. I also believe that it's the government's duty to protect it's citizens from baseless discrimination that is not protected by freedom of speech. If those two overlap, oh well.

Well, it doesn't mean that. Sorry to have to burst your misinformed bubble.

You were right, they can't say anything about the free market that is actually true.

To be clear, they don't really say much about anything that is actually true.

 

[Dana7360]

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.

The commerce clause is for interstate transactions, not intrastate transactions.

The supreme court has ruled that in this day and age there is nothing that's 100% made in one place.

Sure they put things together in one place but the components came from all over the nation and the world.

It was in a case of a woman in California who was growing medical marijuana. She was prosecuted using the commerce act.

Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While medical marijuana is legal in California, she was prosecuted in the bush boy years. The prosecution said that she used goods that were from all over the nation and world to grow that marijuana so the federal government could prosecute her for distributing medical marijuana.

Unless you know for sure that everything you're using including fertilizer is 100% manufactured in your state alone the federal commerce clause can be used.

Here's a clue, NOTHING is 100% manufactured in one place or one state alone. So the commerce clause can be applied.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Nope.

So businesses have no right to refuse service to a potential customer based on their beliefs, except when those beliefs are the same as yours? Isn't it just a little hypocritical to condemn a bakery run by someone with a deep moral conviction that homosexuality is wrong for refusing to participate in the planning of a homosexual marriage then afford a Muslim owned business the right not to serve pork because they have a deep moral conviction that eating pigs is a sin? Don't get me twisted here either. I totally understand the argument that business owners have no right to freedom of association. I don't agree with it but I can respect it. I just can't respect hypocrisy.

If a business had a deep religious conviction to not serve black people, is that okay? You say no now but back in 1965, that was a legitimate view people had.

Discrimination laws were established so that people could receive the services they needed without being discriminated against.

And to your example, if the Muslim owned business sells pork, I expect them to sell pork to every customer in the store. If you cater weddings, you cater weddings equally. That's your job.

Okay? Not okay, per se, but do I think they have a right to exercise their beliefs even if I find them noxious.

People always come up with, "What if it were blacks?" like that's supposed to be some radically different trump card. No idea why.

I think it has something to do with hundreds of years of black people being owned and enslaved by white people.

Boo fucking hoo. You wanna dig back hundreds of years in history? All of our ancestral peoples were enslaved by someone at some time. Exactly what is the point of "Get the fuck over it"? What number of years has to pass before we can say, "Not relevant now?"

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

The first part of your post is the old testament and has nothing to do with jesus.

The passages you posted from the new testament don't say anything in regard to what jesus said about homosexuals. You're using quotes from people who aren't jesus to rationalize discrimination.

However, none of those passages says that jesus said that homosexuals should be discriminated. Nor does it say that jesus said that anyone who makes a cake or sells goods or services to a homosexual is actually taking part in homosexual activity and it says nothing about denying goods or services to homosexuals.

However I just want to know, did you stop wearing clothes made from 2 different materials? Do you eat shellfish? Do you stay away from women who are on their cycle? Do you shave your beard? Do you do any business on Sunday? Do you eat any animal that doesn't have completely split hooves and chews it's cut? Do you wear eye glasses?

Those are also rules in the old testament. However when I was a christian I was taught that the old testament isn't what christians follow. They follow jesus and that's the new testament. Jesus said what you've done for the least of your brothers and sisters you've done for me.

So while you may believe that it's against the bible to be homosexual, there's no place in the bible that jesus says you can't do business with them. There's no place in the bible that jesus says it's ok to discriminate against them. Nor is there any place in the bible that jesus said much of anything about homosexuals.

You wanna deal in red-letter Christianity? Knock yourself out, but please remember that you have no more right or ability to impose your cherry-picking view of the Bible on us than you do a secular view. We're talking about what other people believe, not what you've decided, in your infinite wisdom, that they should believe.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?

I'm trying to get my head around the general point of view that discrimination should be illegal. I'm not sure we have much clarity on what it means, other than ad hoc provisions regarding specific circumstances.

Why must it be the job of the government? Why does society seemingly lack the common decency to treat everyone equally on its own?

Because human beings suck. They've always sucked, they're always going to suck, and no amount of legislation is going to make them suck less.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think I've changed my stance. It should probably be in the best interest of the people that a business be allowed to serve whoever they want. Doesn't mean I won't think down of them, though.

I would ask that you readjust that stance. I do think it reasonable that any person who is dressed reasonably appropriately and who conducts himself reasonably appropriately should be able to walk into any business and buy whatever the business normally has for sale.

But I don't think the business should be forced to provide a product they would not normally sell and believe to be morally wrong just because the customer asks for it. Putting crosses on the buns the Sunday School class ordered for Easter Sunday is not the same thing as putting swaztikas on the cup cakes the white supremacist group wants for its rally. A business owner should be able to do one and not be required to do the other.

And no group should be so special that they should be able to require a business to accommodate their special order that the business owner does not wish to accommodate.

I still don't get your rationale on this, Foxy. Unless a business has contracted with government to provide a public service I see no reason why they should be obligated to ensure equal access. That's certainly not the way it works now, with the exception of those who fall under the protected classes.

Although as a practical matter, 99% of businesses would serve anyone who came in and blended with the rest of their clientele in dress and behavior. They really are in business to make money, not to make a statement.

If that is true and I agree with you that it is, how many bakeries did the gay couple have to go through before they found the Christian?

Fuck if I know, and why is it relevant? Given that they said, if memory serves, that they've made purchases at that bakery before, I think the chances are good they already had an idea that the owners held those beliefs, and deliberately targeted them to make a point.

 

[Conservative65]

I think I've changed my stance. It should probably be in the best interest of the people that a business be allowed to serve whoever they want. Doesn't mean I won't think down of them, though.

I would ask that you readjust that stance. I do think it reasonable that any person who is dressed reasonably appropriately and who conducts himself reasonably appropriately should be able to walk into any business and buy whatever the business normally has for sale.

But I don't think the business should be forced to provide a product they would not normally sell and believe to be morally wrong just because the customer asks for it. Putting crosses on the buns the Sunday School class ordered for Easter Sunday is not the same thing as putting swaztikas on the cup cakes the white supremacist group wants for its rally. A business owner should be able to do one and not be required to do the other.

And no group should be so special that they should be able to require a business to accommodate their special order that the business owner does not wish to accommodate.

I still don't get your rationale on this, Foxy. Unless a business has contracted with government to provide a public service I see no reason why they should be obligated to ensure equal access. That's certainly not the way it works now, with the exception of those who fall under the protected classes.

Although as a practical matter, 99% of businesses would serve anyone who came in and blended with the rest of their clientele in dress and behavior. They really are in business to make money, not to make a statement.

If that is true and I agree with you that it is, how many bakeries did the gay couple have to go through before they found the Christian?

Fuck if I know, and why is it relevant? Given that they said, if memory serves, that they've made purchases at that bakery before, I think the chances are good they already had an idea that the owners held those beliefs, and deliberately targeted them to make a point.

It's obvious to someone that is willing to look that they targeted that particular bakery knowing the beliefs they had.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think I've changed my stance. It should probably be in the best interest of the people that a business be allowed to serve whoever they want. Doesn't mean I won't think down of them, though.

I would ask that you readjust that stance. I do think it reasonable that any person who is dressed reasonably appropriately and who conducts himself reasonably appropriately should be able to walk into any business and buy whatever the business normally has for sale.

But I don't think the business should be forced to provide a product they would not normally sell and believe to be morally wrong just because the customer asks for it. Putting crosses on the buns the Sunday School class ordered for Easter Sunday is not the same thing as putting swaztikas on the cup cakes the white supremacist group wants for its rally. A business owner should be able to do one and not be required to do the other.

And no group should be so special that they should be able to require a business to accommodate their special order that the business owner does not wish to accommodate.

I still don't get your rationale on this, Foxy. Unless a business has contracted with government to provide a public service I see no reason why they should be obligated to ensure equal access. That's certainly not the way it works now, with the exception of those who fall under the protected classes.

Although as a practical matter, 99% of businesses would serve anyone who came in and blended with the rest of their clientele in dress and behavior. They really are in business to make money, not to make a statement.

If that is true and I agree with you that it is, how many bakeries did the gay couple have to go through before they found the Christian?

The fact is the gay people had apparently been trading at this bakery for some time with no problems. It was not the gay women the bakery refused but participation in a gay wedding that the business owner couldn't condone.

I do think though that it is no mistake that the activists do go from business to business trying to find one that will choose not to participate in whatever activity and then they make an example of that business. These kinds of incidents have been cropping up far too frequently lately to be pure coincidence.

In this case, it might have been a coincidence. It may really have been a bakery they'd purchased from before, they liked the product, and so it happened to be the first bakery they went to. Odds are funny that way.

Nevertheless, I can tell you that my city has an LGBT Chamber of Commerce, and I"ll bet hard money Seattle, as a much bigger and more liberal city, certainly has an equivalent. It would have been little to no effort at all to obtain a whole list of gay and gay-friendly bakery owners. But they needed to make a big public stink to calm their outraged ruffled panties and make a point.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

And again we return to the point that it is NOT YOUR PLACE TO DECIDE what is and isn't wrong for others, or what they need to learn, or what environment they need to conduct their lives in.

The truth is that we ALL segregate ourselves into little communities of like-minded people, to some degree. Everyone I associate with is intelligent and geeky and has very nerdy interests and hobbies. I have as little exposure as I can possibly manage to the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy in the population. And I have no desire to learn to tolerate them, nor would it be your place to decide that I need to.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Oh, Christ, the ever-present whackjob leftist hypothetical.

Let me ask you: If you're gay, why in God's name do you live in a tiny little town hours away from anything else, populated by people who don't like you? Are you a moron? And are other people obligated to change themselves to suit you just because you're too pig-stupid to live in a more hospitable area? Frankly, you deserve any misery you get if you search out a place like that to live.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Go find my post about red-letter Christianity, and internalize it. I don't like repeating myself.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

In this case, it might have been a coincidence. It may really have been a bakery they'd purchased from before, they liked the product, and so it happened to be the first bakery they went to. Odds are funny that way.

Nevertheless, I can tell you that my city has an LGBT Chamber of Commerce, and I"ll bet hard money Seattle, as a much bigger and more liberal city, certainly has an equivalent. It would have been little to no effort at all to obtain a whole list of gay and gay-friendly bakery owners. But they needed to make a big public stink to calm their outraged ruffled panties and make a point.

Well yeah. This was never actually about cake or pizzas. This is about creating a controversy, claiming a victory, and forcing universal acceptance of homosexuality through legal harassment.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

And again we return to the point that it is NOT YOUR PLACE TO DECIDE what is and isn't wrong for others, or what they need to learn, or what environment they need to conduct their lives in.

The truth is that we ALL segregate ourselves into little communities of like-minded people, to some degree. Everyone I associate with is intelligent and geeky and has very nerdy interests and hobbies. I have as little exposure as I can possibly manage to the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy in the population. And I have no desire to learn to tolerate them, nor would it be your place to decide that I need to.

But you do tolerate the stupid, lowbrow, and trashy. You aren't demanding that they do things the way you would choose for yourself. You don't have to appreciate them. You don't have to like them. But you tolerate them because you do not try to punish them for being who and what they are and you leave them in peace.

Isn't that what tolerant is in a nutshell? Not interfering with the choices others make no matter how stupid or how wrong? Allowing them their peace?

 

[Katzndogz]

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?

Oh, Christ, the ever-present whackjob leftist hypothetical.

Let me ask you: If you're gay, why in God's name do you live in a tiny little town hours away from anything else, populated by people who don't like you? Are you a moron? And are other people obligated to change themselves to suit you just because you're too pig-stupid to live in a more hospitable area? Frankly, you deserve any misery you get if you search out a place like that to live.

For that matter where will you get guests for your hypothetical wedding?