Do You Support LGBT Or Not?

[Syriusly]

Kim Davis doesn't get use the power of her elected office to deny citizens their rights based on her religious beliefs. Funny how she never stopped divorces from occurring as a result of her faith. Apparently God's law has sorts of exemptions when it becomes an inconvenience.

Davis did sue and she was rebuffed every step of the way. Gay marriage is still legal in KY and gays can still marry in her county. Too bad, so sad.

I didn't think Kim Davis was Catholic. Most protestant religions allow divorce if differences cannot be reconciled, for peace. In fact, wasn't the Church of England formed to allow Henry VIII to divorce? Yes, I think it was. A man and wife dividing because they hate each other is less of an affront to God than ransacking the nuclear family altogether and calling one of two men "mom".. Lying is worse than divorce.

Really?

You really don't have a clue regarding the Bible- do you?

Luke 16:18 Jesus specifically condemns divorce and remarriage:
Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

Kim Davis has been married 3 times.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that a Christian should not sign a wedding certificate for a gay couple.

Davis also violated Romans 13- which you are as ignorant of.

 

[mdk]

Kim Davis doesn't get use the power of her elected office to deny citizens their rights based on her religious beliefs. Funny how she never stopped divorces from occurring as a result of her faith. Apparently God's law has sorts of exemptions when it becomes an inconvenience.

Davis did sue and she was rebuffed every step of the way. Gay marriage is still legal in KY and gays can still marry in her county. Too bad, so sad.

I didn't think Kim Davis was Catholic. Most protestant religions allow divorce if differences cannot be reconciled, for peace. In fact, wasn't the Church of England formed to allow Henry VIII to divorce? Yes, I think it was. A man and wife dividing because they hate each other is less of an affront to God than ransacking the nuclear family altogether and calling one of two men "mom".. Lying is worse than divorce.

What does the Bible say about it? Divorce is a sin. I am not surprised that sin is exempt, though. All these stupid standards of yours only apply to queers. The instant it effects you or another straight couple an exemption is granted. Good thing none of us are bound by your or Davis's foolishness.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I don't have any problem with PA laws, equal rights for gays, etc. My problem is when I am called a "bigot" or other nasty names because I don't accept that a biological man is really a woman. That imposes on MY freedom of thought. I don't buy into this transgender nonsense. I strongly believe it is a mental illness/body dysmorphic syndrome, and some of them that I have seen in real life or talked to on message boards for myself are obviously just batshit crazy.

So you think it's a mental illness.

You know that under the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008) makes it illegal to discriminate in places of Public Accommodation due to a mental disability.


By the way, those cover behaviors, not beliefs. Business owners are free to believe as they wish, it is only discriminatory behaviors that are covered.


>>>>

 

[ChrisL]

I don't have any problem with PA laws, equal rights for gays, etc. My problem is when I am called a "bigot" or other nasty names because I don't accept that a biological man is really a woman. That imposes on MY freedom of thought. I don't buy into this transgender nonsense. I strongly believe it is a mental illness/body dysmorphic syndrome, and some of them that I have seen in real life or talked to on message boards for myself are obviously just batshit crazy.

So you think it's a mental illness.

You know that under the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008) makes it illegal to discriminate in places of Public Accommodation due to a mental disability.


By the way, those cover behaviors, not beliefs. Business owners are free to believe as they wish, it is only discriminatory behaviors that are covered.


>>>>

Like I said, they shouldn't be discriminated against. That doesn't mean I or anyone else has to accept them as being "normal."

What are "cover" behaviors? What's a cover behavior?

 

[Silhouette]

Like I said, they shouldn't be discriminated against. That doesn't mean I or anyone else has to accept them as being "normal."

What are "cover" behaviors? What's a cover behavior?

The laws that cover behaviors. Homosexuality is a fixated behavior. Addiction to this or that substance is a fixated behavior. Addiction to anorexia is a fixated behavior. Behaviors don't have coverage/protection under the Constitution. That's why there aren't any "gay people". Just as there aren't "heroin people" or "anorexia people". There are only people doing these things. They have protections outlined in the Constitution. Their behaviors do not. Those fall under the regulation of the separate states.

The USSC determining that "behaviors are equal to race" was an addition to the Constitution, not an interpretation of it. And if you remember your American Gov. class in high school, you remember that the Court does not have the power to create additions to the Constitution. Only Congress does. And they haven't done that for behaviors. And, there isn't even the hint of an intent in that regard in the original document as of this time last year, before Obergefell.

The only exception is that if LGBT got federal recognition as a religion. All that is left is "country of origin" (fixed, you can never change where you came from), sex (you can never change your sex...sorry crooked MDs, you know it's true) and "race" (which you can never change). Gay can and does change (Anne Heche). Heroin addiction can and does change (recovered individuals), anorexia can and does change (recovered individuals).

Does that make it any clearer?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I don't have any problem with PA laws, equal rights for gays, etc. My problem is when I am called a "bigot" or other nasty names because I don't accept that a biological man is really a woman. That imposes on MY freedom of thought. I don't buy into this transgender nonsense. I strongly believe it is a mental illness/body dysmorphic syndrome, and some of them that I have seen in real life or talked to on message boards for myself are obviously just batshit crazy.

So you think it's a mental illness.

You know that under the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008) makes it illegal to discriminate in places of Public Accommodation due to a mental disability.


By the way, those cover behaviors, not beliefs. Business owners are free to believe as they wish, it is only discriminatory behaviors that are covered.


>>>>

Like I said, they shouldn't be discriminated against. That doesn't mean I or anyone else has to accept them as being "normal."

What are "cover" behaviors? What's a cover behavior?

Sorry typo, should have been "covered behaviors". "Covered behaviors" are spelled out in the applicable law and can be federal or vary by state. But pretty much all of them required the behavior of "full and equal access to goods and services", denying goods and services is a behavior (or an act) if you will. It has no impact on what the person believes.

Let's use a coffee shop for example.

** The owner can not approve of interfaith marriage (that is an option), they cannot deny equal access to goods and services (that is a behavior or an act) to people because they are of different faiths and are married.

** The owner can not approve of interracial marriage (that is an option), they cannot deny equal access to goods and services to same sex couples (that is a behavior or an act).

** The owner can not approve of immigration and believe in the purity of the white race (that is an option), they cannot deny equal access to goods and services based on the race or ethnicity of the individual (that is a behavior or an act).

** The owner can not approve of deformed or sick humans, they cannot deny equal access to goods and services (that is a behavior or an act) to people with physical or mental handicaps (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 as amended in 2008).​

>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

>>>>

Let's use a coffee shop for example.

** The owner can not approve of interfaith marriage (that is an option), they cannot deny equal access to goods and services (that is a behavior or an act) to people because they are of different faiths and are married.

** The owner can not approve of interracial marriage (that is an option), they cannot deny equal access to goods and services to same sex couples (that is a behavior or an act).

** The owner can not approve of immigration and believe in the purity of the white race (that is an option), they cannot deny equal access to goods and services based on the race or ethnicity of the individual (that is a behavior or an act).

** The owner can not approve of deformed or sick humans, they cannot deny equal access to goods and services (that is a behavior or an act) to people with physical or mental handicaps (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 as amended in 2008).

**************
​

1. ** Religion (of which homosexuality and all the other things under "LGBT" have not gotten official federal recognition for)

2. ** Race (which is not equal to the behavior of homosexuality wanting access to marriage. Race still provides both a mother and father, husband and wife where children are involved)

3. ** Country of origin (people doing homosexuality occur in all races from every country, because it is a fad, an acquired behavior).

4. ** Disabled has nothing to do with behaviors.


The USSC just inserted that behaviors have protection without any language whatsoever in the Constitution to support that.. There is none. There simply isn't. Not even the implication. Worse still, ONLY homosexual behaviors are "protected" (by fiat by the USSC) but not polygamy and others that the majority also rejected.

This is going to come out in clarification. Enjoy your judicial overreach and fiat while it lasts...

 

[iamwhatiseem]

LGBT....what is that..."Long Baths?
I prefer showers

 

[ChrisL]

I don't have any problem with PA laws, equal rights for gays, etc. My problem is when I am called a "bigot" or other nasty names because I don't accept that a biological man is really a woman. That imposes on MY freedom of thought. I don't buy into this transgender nonsense. I strongly believe it is a mental illness/body dysmorphic syndrome, and some of them that I have seen in real life or talked to on message boards for myself are obviously just batshit crazy.

So you think it's a mental illness.

You know that under the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008) makes it illegal to discriminate in places of Public Accommodation due to a mental disability.


By the way, those cover behaviors, not beliefs. Business owners are free to believe as they wish, it is only discriminatory behaviors that are covered.


>>>>

Like I said, they shouldn't be discriminated against. That doesn't mean I or anyone else has to accept them as being "normal."

What are "cover" behaviors? What's a cover behavior?

Sorry typo, should have been "covered behaviors". "Covered behaviors" are spelled out in the applicable law and can be federal or vary by state. But pretty much all of them required the behavior of "full and equal access to goods and services", denying goods and services is a behavior (or an act) if you will. It has no impact on what the person believes.

Let's use a coffee shop for example.

** The owner can not approve of interfaith marriage (that is an option), they cannot deny equal access to goods and services (that is a behavior or an act) to people because they are of different faiths and are married.

** The owner can not approve of interracial marriage (that is an option), they cannot deny equal access to goods and services to same sex couples (that is a behavior or an act).

** The owner can not approve of immigration and believe in the purity of the white race (that is an option), they cannot deny equal access to goods and services based on the race or ethnicity of the individual (that is a behavior or an act).

** The owner can not approve of deformed or sick humans, they cannot deny equal access to goods and services (that is a behavior or an act) to people with physical or mental handicaps (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 as amended in 2008).​

>>>>

Well, I believe my post said just the OPPOSITE of this. So why are you addressing my post with this? I said that I personally do not have to accept this as "normal" and I don't.

 

[Syriusly]

Like I said, they shouldn't be discriminated against. That doesn't mean I or anyone else has to accept them as being "normal."

What are "cover" behaviors? What's a cover behavior?

The laws that cover behaviors. Homosexuality is a fixated behavior.

Religion is a behavior. Marriage is a behavior.

You hate homosexuals- not a behavior.

 

[Syriusly]

[

The USSC just inserted that behaviors have protection without any language whatsoever in the Constitution to support that.. There is none. There simply isn't. Not even the implication. Worse still, ONLY homosexual behaviors are "protected" (by fiat by the USSC) but not polygamy and others that the majority also rejected.

This is going to come out in clarification. Enjoy your judicial overreach and fiat while it lasts...

There is no language in the Constitution which prohibits business owners from discriminating against customers- at all.

What prevents discrimination against blacks and jews and women by business's is the 1965 Civil Rights Act- the granddaddy of all public accommodation laws- passed by Congress.

In some states, the States have passed similar laws to protect other groups- including homosexuals and veterans.

You are ignorant and delusional.

 

[Silhouette]

Religion is a behavior. Marriage is a behavior.

You hate homosexuals- not a behavior.

Religion is a faith, specifically protected under the Constitution in the 14th and 1st Amendments. Marriage is a behavior and so is driving. Both are regulated at the state level. How do I know this? Because another deviant sex group, polygamists, still are able to be turned away by states without the fed stepping in to protect them.

Got anything else?

Oh, and you are ignorant and delusional. Does that make my points seem more important than yours now?

 

[Syriusly]

Religion is a behavior. Marriage is a behavior.

You hate homosexuals- not a behavior.

Religion is a faith, specifically protected under the Constitution in the 14th and 1st Amendments. Marriage is a behavior and so is driving. Both are regulated at the state level. How do I know this?

Because the voices in your head are telling you this?

Religion is a behavior- and marriage is a behavior- both are rights. Driving is a behavior and is not a right.

Business's have to follow the law- regardless of whether their own behavior is a right or not- and Christians don't get special exemptions from the law.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Your position is quite plain. You want bakers to have a right to refuse to bake a cake for a same sex marriage, but compell them by law to do so for all others. Even if they don't want to do so. You have to bake a cake for a Jewish wedding or an interfaith marriage regardless of your beleifs. Funny how those deeply held religious beliefs don't matter to hypocrites. Shut up and bake the wedding cake...unless it is for homos. lol

The problem is not just doing an act to aid another religion, as most Christian denominations no longer take issue with that.

The problem is that many denominations consider any act of aiding, abetting orcontributing to an immoral act to also be a sin.

So baking a cake for a philanderer is not a problem, but making a room reservation for him so he can meet up with his mistress is a problem.

I have worked with people I knew to be adulterers, philanderers, people engaged in fornication of various kinds, etc, and that is not a problem unless they ask or tell me to do something that aids them in their sinful activity.

Then the only acceptable answer is 'No'.

I cant help you dont grasp that distinction, but that doesnt make it any less real for practicing Christians.

 

[Silhouette]

The problem is not just doing an act to aid another religion, as most Christian denominations no longer take issue with that....The problem is that many denominations consider any act of aiding, abetting orcontributing to an immoral act to also be a sin....So baking a cake for a philanderer is not a problem, but making a room reservation for him so he can meet up with his mistress is a problem.

Correct. And that will ultimately be the legal distinction found on these cases. "Sir, may I have a room tonight?" "Sure, how many adults?" "Two". "Here are your keys".

instead of "Sir, I need a room for my prostitute and myself". "I'm sorry, you'll have to go somewhere else."

It's the knowledge of the sin and the invitation to participate that is the clear legal distinction.

 

[mdk]

Your position is quite plain. You want bakers to have a right to refuse to bake a cake for a same sex marriage, but compell them by law to do so for all others. Even if they don't want to do so. You have to bake a cake for a Jewish wedding or an interfaith marriage regardless of your beleifs. Funny how those deeply held religious beliefs don't matter to hypocrites. Shut up and bake the wedding cake...unless it is for homos. lol

The problem is not just doing an act to aid another religion, as most Christian denominations no longer take issue with that.

The problem is that many denominations consider any act of aiding, abetting orcontributing to an immoral act to also be a sin.

So baking a cake for a philanderer is not a problem, but making a room reservation for him so he can meet up with his mistress is a problem.

I have worked with people I knew to be adulterers, philanderers, people engaged in fornication of various kinds, etc, and that is not a problem unless they ask or tell me to do something that aids them in their sinful activity.

Then the only acceptable answer is 'No'.

I cant help you dont grasp that distinction, but that doesnt make it any less real for practicing Christians.

You're willing to turn a blind eye. Those that are not willing are forced nevertheless by the law. It appears some religious freedoms are more equal than others.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Your position is quite plain. You want bakers to have a right to refuse to bake a cake for a same sex marriage, but compell them by law to do so for all others. Even if they don't want to do so. You have to bake a cake for a Jewish wedding or an interfaith marriage regardless of your beleifs. Funny how those deeply held religious beliefs don't matter to hypocrites. Shut up and bake the wedding cake...unless it is for homos. lol

The problem is not just doing an act to aid another religion, as most Christian denominations no longer take issue with that.

The problem is that many denominations consider any act of aiding, abetting orcontributing to an immoral act to also be a sin.

So baking a cake for a philanderer is not a problem, but making a room reservation for him so he can meet up with his mistress is a problem.

I have worked with people I knew to be adulterers, philanderers, people engaged in fornication of various kinds, etc, and that is not a problem unless they ask or tell me to do something that aids them in their sinful activity.

Then the only acceptable answer is 'No'.

I cant help you dont grasp that distinction, but that doesnt make it any less real for practicing Christians.

You're willing to turn a blind eye. Those that are not willing are forced nevertheless by the law. It appears some religious freedoms are more equal than others.

The government should not be in the religious persecution racket. Unfortunately they are now.

 

[Silhouette]

Don't worry...the Courts have a little ironing to do on the bumps they created by not examining the etiology more closely of who it was they were writing new rights for to add to the Constitution. That clarity will come with NC vs the fed and the 13 states vs the fed...

 

[Kosh]

Taken from this very lengthy and popular discussion: Enough of this transgender nonsense.

This has NOTHING to do with same sex marriage or gays. This is about transgenders who are mentally disturbed people.

Yes but the Church carries as its moniker "LGBT". You can't reject some of their dogma just because it doesn't suit you. Who are you to determine which of "LGBT" is mentally disturbed and which isn't?

You're either all on board or you're the enemy. Which are you? Because I can assure you that if you were sitting in a room with gays talking down "a transgender's right to use the women's showers & restrooms" you would be socially-lynched in a New York minute.

"Lynch"...."New York"...both of them would be on board with ruining you for daring to speak your blasphemy...

So you're either on board with LGBT or you're not. If you are even partially on-board, do not ever dare to voice criticism about ANY component of LGBT. The consequences can be severe. Noow heear this!! DeBlasio bureaucrats to fine businesses that fail to use 'correct' gender pronouns

The far left only supports it when they need to round up the troops for an election, other than that they could care less..

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

You can be whatever you want to be, you just can't force others to except it.