CDZ I want to know why it is acceptable to exclude homosexuals

[dblack]

"constitutional right to freedom of conscience????"

what the fuckkkk all is that?

It's the only sane way for people to get along in society. The last thing we want is government telling us how or what to think.

my conscience tells me to murder the fuck outta someone if they're found to have molested my daughter.
guess what? thats murder.

Exactly, your conscience doesn't enter into it. It's the act of murder that is illegal. When it comes to discrimination laws it isn't the act of refusing to serve someone that is illegal. It's doing it for prohibited reasons.

public commerce is V-O-L-U-N-T-A-R-Y to provide services within.

And some of us want to keep it that way. Trading with people shouldn't mean that you sacrifice your basic human rights.

 

[Nosmo King]

Why do some people still believe that homosexuals should still be repressed. Would some have homosexuals return to closeted lives? Would they have them lose their jobs, their reputations, their credit worthiness? Would some people want a return of sodomy laws and criminalize homosexuals?

To what purpose?

Homosexuals are tax payers, property owners, business men and women, they serve our nation proudly. What makes them so worthy of scorn?

I don't want to discuss wedding vendors. I don't want to talk about 'agendas'. I want to talk about the rational behind the thoughts of exclusion, of disrespect, of denial of basic rights.

Why are the Gays so vilified by some folks?

Gays have always been in our community, our workplace, our schools, government, civic organizations, churches and yes, in our families. What makes your neighbors, your fellow citizens unworthy of the exact same rights other Americans enjoy?

Homosexuals are not committing crimes by simply being homosexual. For every bit of what is perceived as homosexual perversion, heterosexuals produce three more.

The question is: Why is it socially acceptable to regard the LGBT community as not worthy of civil rights?

Many people are bigoted. Gays are not the only target. And that bigotry comes from all over the political spectrum, in pretty much every direction.

Sometimes conflicting rights exist in the same space. I don't know why this obvious fact is never addressed.

A reasonable person doesn't want to force another person to provide a service for them against their will.

Forcing others to provide a service against their will only makes their will stronger. Perhaps there are other, more effective & intelligent ways to change hearts and minds.

.

So a reasonable person should accede to the whims of another anc accept second class status.


The tyranny of the minority.

 

[Mac1958]

Why do some people still believe that homosexuals should still be repressed. Would some have homosexuals return to closeted lives? Would they have them lose their jobs, their reputations, their credit worthiness? Would some people want a return of sodomy laws and criminalize homosexuals?

To what purpose?

Homosexuals are tax payers, property owners, business men and women, they serve our nation proudly. What makes them so worthy of scorn?

I don't want to discuss wedding vendors. I don't want to talk about 'agendas'. I want to talk about the rational behind the thoughts of exclusion, of disrespect, of denial of basic rights.

Why are the Gays so vilified by some folks?

Gays have always been in our community, our workplace, our schools, government, civic organizations, churches and yes, in our families. What makes your neighbors, your fellow citizens unworthy of the exact same rights other Americans enjoy?

Homosexuals are not committing crimes by simply being homosexual. For every bit of what is perceived as homosexual perversion, heterosexuals produce three more.

The question is: Why is it socially acceptable to regard the LGBT community as not worthy of civil rights?

Many people are bigoted. Gays are not the only target. And that bigotry comes from all over the political spectrum, in pretty much every direction.

Sometimes conflicting rights exist in the same space. I don't know why this obvious fact is never addressed.

A reasonable person doesn't want to force another person to provide a service for them against their will.

Forcing others to provide a service against their will only makes their will stronger. Perhaps there are other, more effective & intelligent ways to change hearts and minds.

.

So a reasonable person should accede to the whims of another anc accept second class status.


The tyranny of the minority.

Either side can can make that argument.

Or we could just give each other a little space.

.

 

[JoeMoma]

they aren't forced. They entered into commerce voluntarily duh

They probably started the business before same sex weddings were legal. So now that people are having same sex weddings they are just suppose to close up shop or else?

 

[jc456]

Why do some people still believe that homosexuals should still be repressed. Would some have homosexuals return to closeted lives? Would they have them lose their jobs, their reputations, their credit worthiness? Would some people want a return of sodomy laws and criminalize homosexuals?

To what purpose?

Homosexuals are tax payers, property owners, business men and women, they serve our nation proudly. What makes them so worthy of scorn?

I don't want to discuss wedding vendors. I don't want to talk about 'agendas'. I want to talk about the rational behind the thoughts of exclusion, of disrespect, of denial of basic rights.

Why are the Gays so vilified by some folks?

Gays have always been in our community, our workplace, our schools, government, civic organizations, churches and yes, in our families. What makes your neighbors, your fellow citizens unworthy of the exact same rights other Americans enjoy?

Homosexuals are not committing crimes by simply being homosexual. For every bit of what is perceived as homosexual perversion, heterosexuals produce three more.

The question is: Why is it socially acceptable to regard the LGBT community as not worthy of civil rights?

Many people are bigoted. Gays are not the only target. And that bigotry comes from all over the political spectrum, in pretty much every direction.

Sometimes conflicting rights exist in the same space. I don't know why this obvious fact is never addressed.

A reasonable person doesn't want to force another person to provide a service for them against their will.

Forcing others to provide a service against their will only makes their will stronger. Perhaps there are other, more effective & intelligent ways to change hearts and minds.

.

Why is it reasonable?

It's reasonable to allow someone to be like that at their house, not at your business though. Define why that's reasonable - I'd really like to see a rational answer.

Business is public commerce.

Public. Not private. Businesses are privately or publicly owned, but the operate under public accommodations laws and they volunteer themselves to be subject to these laws once they enter business - therefore, their rights are not infringed upon.

I'm not talking about laws, which can be fleeting.

I'm talking about human nature.

If you think it's reasonable for one person to force another to provide a service against their will, we'll just have to disagree.

I'd like to see bigotry and discrimination reduced, minimized, eliminated. I just don't think it's done through force, because I don't think that's how human nature works.

.

It's obviously how human nature works, because we're humans, we exist in nature, and we're doing it. There's no counter argument there, unless you exclude humans from human nature. So - g'luck on that point.

This question: "If you think it's reasonable for one person to force another to provide a service against their will" is a strawman. They are not forced to provide the service at all - they opened their business voluntarily, not by force. If you're going to eat off the publicly-funded plate (public infrastructure is utilized to patron your business), then treating the public under some common sense decency laws is nothing at all unreasonable.

I have yet to see a case where it's unreasonable, OR FORCED.

Force me to open a business, I'll tell you where to stick it.

Curious, no shoes no shirt no service. It's on most restaurant doors. So there are other reasons to not provide service.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It is evidently acceptable to people because some wandering nomads trying to eek out a meager existence in the desert 3000 years ago thought it was inky-poo, and so wrote it down. They knew precious little of the world, but knew they needed to produce lots of offspring in order to survive, so took measures to ensure that the precious seed needed to procreate was not wasted on activities that were not oriented towards procreation.

Any more questions?

 

[Nosmo King]

Why do some people still believe that homosexuals should still be repressed. Would some have homosexuals return to closeted lives? Would they have them lose their jobs, their reputations, their credit worthiness? Would some people want a return of sodomy laws and criminalize homosexuals?

To what purpose?

Homosexuals are tax payers, property owners, business men and women, they serve our nation proudly. What makes them so worthy of scorn?

I don't want to discuss wedding vendors. I don't want to talk about 'agendas'. I want to talk about the rational behind the thoughts of exclusion, of disrespect, of denial of basic rights.

Why are the Gays so vilified by some folks?

Gays have always been in our community, our workplace, our schools, government, civic organizations, churches and yes, in our families. What makes your neighbors, your fellow citizens unworthy of the exact same rights other Americans enjoy?

Homosexuals are not committing crimes by simply being homosexual. For every bit of what is perceived as homosexual perversion, heterosexuals produce three more.

The question is: Why is it socially acceptable to regard the LGBT community as not worthy of civil rights?

Many people are bigoted. Gays are not the only target. And that bigotry comes from all over the political spectrum, in pretty much every direction.

Sometimes conflicting rights exist in the same space. I don't know why this obvious fact is never addressed.

A reasonable person doesn't want to force another person to provide a service for them against their will.

Forcing others to provide a service against their will only makes their will stronger. Perhaps there are other, more effective & intelligent ways to change hearts and minds.

.

So a reasonable person should accede to the whims of another anc accept second class status.


The tyranny of the minority.

Either side can can make that argument.

Or we could just give each other a little space.

.

No. One side seeks to demean and discriminate, the other seeks equality.

 

[Nosmo King]

Why do some people still believe that homosexuals should still be repressed. Would some have homosexuals return to closeted lives? Would they have them lose their jobs, their reputations, their credit worthiness? Would some people want a return of sodomy laws and criminalize homosexuals?

To what purpose?

Homosexuals are tax payers, property owners, business men and women, they serve our nation proudly. What makes them so worthy of scorn?

I don't want to discuss wedding vendors. I don't want to talk about 'agendas'. I want to talk about the rational behind the thoughts of exclusion, of disrespect, of denial of basic rights.

Why are the Gays so vilified by some folks?

Gays have always been in our community, our workplace, our schools, government, civic organizations, churches and yes, in our families. What makes your neighbors, your fellow citizens unworthy of the exact same rights other Americans enjoy?

Homosexuals are not committing crimes by simply being homosexual. For every bit of what is perceived as homosexual perversion, heterosexuals produce three more.

The question is: Why is it socially acceptable to regard the LGBT community as not worthy of civil rights?

Many people are bigoted. Gays are not the only target. And that bigotry comes from all over the political spectrum, in pretty much every direction.

Sometimes conflicting rights exist in the same space. I don't know why this obvious fact is never addressed.

A reasonable person doesn't want to force another person to provide a service for them against their will.

Forcing others to provide a service against their will only makes their will stronger. Perhaps there are other, more effective & intelligent ways to change hearts and minds.

.

Why is it reasonable?

It's reasonable to allow someone to be like that at their house, not at your business though. Define why that's reasonable - I'd really like to see a rational answer.

Business is public commerce.

Public. Not private. Businesses are privately or publicly owned, but the operate under public accommodations laws and they volunteer themselves to be subject to these laws once they enter business - therefore, their rights are not infringed upon.

I'm not talking about laws, which can be fleeting.

I'm talking about human nature.

If you think it's reasonable for one person to force another to provide a service against their will, we'll just have to disagree.

I'd like to see bigotry and discrimination reduced, minimized, eliminated. I just don't think it's done through force, because I don't think that's how human nature works.

.

It's obviously how human nature works, because we're humans, we exist in nature, and we're doing it. There's no counter argument there, unless you exclude humans from human nature. So - g'luck on that point.

This question: "If you think it's reasonable for one person to force another to provide a service against their will" is a strawman. They are not forced to provide the service at all - they opened their business voluntarily, not by force. If you're going to eat off the publicly-funded plate (public infrastructure is utilized to patron your business), then treating the public under some common sense decency laws is nothing at all unreasonable.

I have yet to see a case where it's unreasonable, OR FORCED.

Force me to open a business, I'll tell you where to stick it.

Curious, no shoes no shirt no service. It's on most restaurant doors. So there are other reasons to not provide service.

Above and beyond public health and safety? No, there are no legitimate reasons to discriminate.

 

[Mertex]

Having said that, in every religion homosexuality is not your "everyday" sin. It is a "high sin" if you will.

Well, that is not true. In Christianity, sin is sin. There are not levels of sin, so you're wrong.

 

[jc456]

Having said that, in every religion homosexuality is not your "everyday" sin. It is a "high sin" if you will.

Well, that is not true. In Christianity, sin is sin. There are not levels of sin, so you're wrong.

you aren't christian if you posted this! sorry charlie. You lose.

 

[Mac1958]

Why do some people still believe that homosexuals should still be repressed. Would some have homosexuals return to closeted lives? Would they have them lose their jobs, their reputations, their credit worthiness? Would some people want a return of sodomy laws and criminalize homosexuals?

To what purpose?

Homosexuals are tax payers, property owners, business men and women, they serve our nation proudly. What makes them so worthy of scorn?

I don't want to discuss wedding vendors. I don't want to talk about 'agendas'. I want to talk about the rational behind the thoughts of exclusion, of disrespect, of denial of basic rights.

Why are the Gays so vilified by some folks?

Gays have always been in our community, our workplace, our schools, government, civic organizations, churches and yes, in our families. What makes your neighbors, your fellow citizens unworthy of the exact same rights other Americans enjoy?

Homosexuals are not committing crimes by simply being homosexual. For every bit of what is perceived as homosexual perversion, heterosexuals produce three more.

The question is: Why is it socially acceptable to regard the LGBT community as not worthy of civil rights?

Many people are bigoted. Gays are not the only target. And that bigotry comes from all over the political spectrum, in pretty much every direction.

Sometimes conflicting rights exist in the same space. I don't know why this obvious fact is never addressed.

A reasonable person doesn't want to force another person to provide a service for them against their will.

Forcing others to provide a service against their will only makes their will stronger. Perhaps there are other, more effective & intelligent ways to change hearts and minds.

.

So a reasonable person should accede to the whims of another anc accept second class status.


The tyranny of the minority.

Either side can can make that argument.

Or we could just give each other a little space.

.

No. One side seeks to demean and discriminate, the other seeks equality.

You think it's okay to force someone to provide a service against their will.

I don't.

If they're bigots, you're making them worse bigots.

.

 

[G.T.]

Why do some people still believe that homosexuals should still be repressed. Would some have homosexuals return to closeted lives? Would they have them lose their jobs, their reputations, their credit worthiness? Would some people want a return of sodomy laws and criminalize homosexuals?

To what purpose?

Homosexuals are tax payers, property owners, business men and women, they serve our nation proudly. What makes them so worthy of scorn?

I don't want to discuss wedding vendors. I don't want to talk about 'agendas'. I want to talk about the rational behind the thoughts of exclusion, of disrespect, of denial of basic rights.

Why are the Gays so vilified by some folks?

Gays have always been in our community, our workplace, our schools, government, civic organizations, churches and yes, in our families. What makes your neighbors, your fellow citizens unworthy of the exact same rights other Americans enjoy?

Homosexuals are not committing crimes by simply being homosexual. For every bit of what is perceived as homosexual perversion, heterosexuals produce three more.

The question is: Why is it socially acceptable to regard the LGBT community as not worthy of civil rights?

Many people are bigoted. Gays are not the only target. And that bigotry comes from all over the political spectrum, in pretty much every direction.

Sometimes conflicting rights exist in the same space. I don't know why this obvious fact is never addressed.

A reasonable person doesn't want to force another person to provide a service for them against their will.

Forcing others to provide a service against their will only makes their will stronger. Perhaps there are other, more effective & intelligent ways to change hearts and minds.

.

So a reasonable person should accede to the whims of another anc accept second class status.


The tyranny of the minority.

Either side can can make that argument.

Or we could just give each other a little space.

.

No. One side seeks to demean and discriminate, the other seeks equality.

You think it's okay to force someone to provide a service against their will.

I don't.

If they're bigots, you're making them worse bigots.

.

Then you should gladly buy their surrounding infrastructure with your own f****** money

 

[jc456]

Many people are bigoted. Gays are not the only target. And that bigotry comes from all over the political spectrum, in pretty much every direction.

Sometimes conflicting rights exist in the same space. I don't know why this obvious fact is never addressed.

A reasonable person doesn't want to force another person to provide a service for them against their will.

Forcing others to provide a service against their will only makes their will stronger. Perhaps there are other, more effective & intelligent ways to change hearts and minds.

.

So a reasonable person should accede to the whims of another anc accept second class status.


The tyranny of the minority.

Either side can can make that argument.

Or we could just give each other a little space.

.

No. One side seeks to demean and discriminate, the other seeks equality.

You think it's okay to force someone to provide a service against their will.

I don't.

If they're bigots, you're making them worse bigots.

.

Then you should gladly buy their surrounding infrastructure with your own f****** money

huh?

 

[Mac1958]

Many people are bigoted. Gays are not the only target. And that bigotry comes from all over the political spectrum, in pretty much every direction.

Sometimes conflicting rights exist in the same space. I don't know why this obvious fact is never addressed.

A reasonable person doesn't want to force another person to provide a service for them against their will.

Forcing others to provide a service against their will only makes their will stronger. Perhaps there are other, more effective & intelligent ways to change hearts and minds.

.

So a reasonable person should accede to the whims of another anc accept second class status.


The tyranny of the minority.

Either side can can make that argument.

Or we could just give each other a little space.

.

No. One side seeks to demean and discriminate, the other seeks equality.

You think it's okay to force someone to provide a service against their will.

I don't.

If they're bigots, you're making them worse bigots.

.

Then you should gladly buy their surrounding infrastructure with your own f****** money

Or you narcissists could decide not to demand to win every last goddamn situation and give people a little space.

The PC Police on one end, the Tea Party on the other, causing great damage, and you're too full of yourselves to see it.

.

 

[G.T.]

So a reasonable person should accede to the whims of another anc accept second class status.


The tyranny of the minority.

Either side can can make that argument.

Or we could just give each other a little space.

.

No. One side seeks to demean and discriminate, the other seeks equality.

You think it's okay to force someone to provide a service against their will.

I don't.

If they're bigots, you're making them worse bigots.

.

Then you should gladly buy their surrounding infrastructure with your own f****** money

huh?

The Government regulates commerce, per the Constitution. Yes?

Business' are patroned by customers utilizing the surrounding taxpayer funded infrastructure. And they're also trading in U.S. dollars, for their goods.

They voluntarily enter this agreement to use the Government, as the Government uses them. Yes?

The Government should not be in the business of sanctioning discrimination. If you feel a person voluntarily entering into this agreement is somehow being infringed upon, you are not thinking clearly and considering the entire set of information before you.

If it is within a person's set of morals to discriminate, then Government regulated commerce is not the place for them.

 

[G.T.]

So a reasonable person should accede to the whims of another anc accept second class status.


The tyranny of the minority.

Either side can can make that argument.

Or we could just give each other a little space.

.

No. One side seeks to demean and discriminate, the other seeks equality.

You think it's okay to force someone to provide a service against their will.

I don't.

If they're bigots, you're making them worse bigots.

.

Then you should gladly buy their surrounding infrastructure with your own f****** money

Or you narcissists could decide not to demand to win every last goddamn situation and give people a little space.

The PC Police on one end, the Tea Party on the other, causing great damage, and you're too full of yourselves to see it.

.

This is the CDZ. Try and control yourself from namecalling. Bring it to the flamezone, ill oblige you there if it's so important.

Freedom will win and usually does.

Unfortunately, you lot dont know what it means to engage in commerce and cannot seperate the two in your brains.

That doesnt make other people pc police. It makes them right.

 

[Mac1958]

Either side can can make that argument.

Or we could just give each other a little space.

.

No. One side seeks to demean and discriminate, the other seeks equality.

You think it's okay to force someone to provide a service against their will.

I don't.

If they're bigots, you're making them worse bigots.

.

Then you should gladly buy their surrounding infrastructure with your own f****** money

Or you narcissists could decide not to demand to win every last goddamn situation and give people a little space.

The PC Police on one end, the Tea Party on the other, causing great damage, and you're too full of yourselves to see it.

.

This is the CDZ. Try and control yourself from namecalling. Bring it to the flamezone, ill oblige you there if it's so important.

Freedom will win and usually does.

Unfortunately, you lot dont know what it means to engage in commerce and cannot seperate the two in your brains.

That doesnt make other people pc police. It makes them right.

I'll control myself by not being tempted to respond to your posts.

On ignore. Buh bye.

.

 

[G.T.]

Oh my. Loool

 

[jc456]

Either side can can make that argument.

Or we could just give each other a little space.

.

No. One side seeks to demean and discriminate, the other seeks equality.

You think it's okay to force someone to provide a service against their will.

I don't.

If they're bigots, you're making them worse bigots.

.

Then you should gladly buy their surrounding infrastructure with your own f****** money

huh?

The Government regulates commerce, per the Constitution. Yes?

Business' are patroned by customers utilizing the surrounding taxpayer funded infrastructure. And they're also trading in U.S. dollars, for their goods.

They voluntarily enter this agreement to use the Government, as the Government uses them. Yes?

The Government should not be in the business of sanctioning discrimination. If you feel a person voluntarily entering into this agreement is somehow being infringed upon, you are not thinking clearly and considering the entire set of information before you.

If it is within a person's set of morals to discriminate, then Government regulated commerce is not the place for them.

those have always been around and didn't have any bearing coming through history until there were liberals. huh?

 

[G.T.]

No. One side seeks to demean and discriminate, the other seeks equality.

You think it's okay to force someone to provide a service against their will.

I don't.

If they're bigots, you're making them worse bigots.

.

Then you should gladly buy their surrounding infrastructure with your own f****** money

huh?

The Government regulates commerce, per the Constitution. Yes?

Business' are patroned by customers utilizing the surrounding taxpayer funded infrastructure. And they're also trading in U.S. dollars, for their goods.

They voluntarily enter this agreement to use the Government, as the Government uses them. Yes?

The Government should not be in the business of sanctioning discrimination. If you feel a person voluntarily entering into this agreement is somehow being infringed upon, you are not thinking clearly and considering the entire set of information before you.

If it is within a person's set of morals to discriminate, then Government regulated commerce is not the place for them.

those have always been around and didn't have any bearing coming through history until there were liberals. huh?

Any movement in a positive direction is progression.

Discrimination decreases progressively looking at all of human history

Why?

We're smarter and more empathetic. Thats why. Old curmudgeon reasoning that doesnt pass a logical smell test is being phased out by wiser and more moral human beings.