If business ownrs should be forced to accomodate homosexuals?

[GreenBean]

Nope. Splain it to me.
How is it constitutionally acceptable, in the context of granting/refuing service in a commercial establishment, to violate one set of constitutional rights but not others?

Would you expect a Church to host a Satanic Weddiing -simply because it offers its hall for rent ?

Would you expect a Jewish Baker to bake a cake for a Nazi Gathering ?

Woud you expect a Gay Baker to bake a cake for a NARTH Gathering ?

Would you expect a Black Baker to bake a cake for a KKK gathering ?

I'm sorry - I missed the answer to my question. Could you repeat it?

Yes you certainly did - boing zoom right past ya.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]

I do better with discussion than debate.
Most solutions are not "one side or the other" being 100% right but require information from both sides to form something workable that solves the CONFLICTS separating them. This information comes out through discussion. "Debates" tend to divide, and
"inhibit the sharing" of vital information. http://www.houstonprogressive.org/CHRguide.html

As for BELIEFS
Yes I used to approach it as you do,
and believe that if all the "misinformation was corrected"
then misbeliefs could be corrected, too.

Then I found out some people cannot help their beliefs.

The same way friends who are Atheist cannot help the fact they don't personify God as a person, but look at life and the universal as "impersonal" forces of nature, life or truth.

I found out some people CANNOT help but see "natural laws" as a RELIGION
and these do not really exist. Thus they reject the PREMISE that govt is
based on natural laws.

I thought this could change by educating people on natural laws.

But the part that CANNOT be helped, is people do NOT have equal capacity or
connection to INVOKE authority DIRECTLY through natural laws
but BELIEVE in "going through govt" (or especially political party)
to make this connection with authority of law. Not EVERYONE can ever have the
same faith as a "Christian or Conservative" who feels and invokes that connection DIRECTLY
without going through their party, govt or other group, but DIRECTLY by the written law and spirit of it.

I found out many of my secular friends
do NOT believe people can "invoke law" and then have govt "reflect" that.
They believe that people and parties have to make GOVT invoke the authority
and pass laws FOR them, not the other way around. (Again I thought this could
change by demonstrating how consensus can be formed; but found out people
could not "choose to change their beliefs" about law, govt and consensus.)

I thought people could CHOOSE and CHANGE by getting over
their FEAR that other people have more power and can oppress them.

But how can you expect to force people to change their faith?
This becomes a circular argument.

You want them to have "faith in advance" that people can authorize govt directly ourselves by these "natural laws" in order to prove that it can be done afterwards.
If people don't have that faith to begin with, it cannot be forced.

I found out they CANNOT "help or choose" to change the fact
they don't trust or believe in this "natural law" business given by a "God of Nature"

They don't see it, believe it, or even view it as a "valid" religious choice, but some false abusive religion imposed for control purposes and cannot see it otherwise!

(I already found this was true with many secular/atheist thinkers who could not "believe in a personified God/Jesus"
even if they see other people have this kind of relationship or mechanism that works for them.
When I found out political beliefs cannot be helped or changed either, that's when it hit me why these conflicts cannot
be resolved. Because people are assuming that such beliefs are a choice and are trying to FORCE each other to CHANGE or give up their beliefs as invalid or "wrong anyway.")

The problem seems to be
The people who don't believe their opponents beliefs are real
But they know their beliefs are so real it's not a choice to them either.

Beliefs are a choice.

They know they can't change their beliefs
But assume the other side can because those are mistaken.

Both sides can.

Beliefs aren't inherent they are acquired. When beliefs go against reality that isan issue

I think you are mistaken here, peopleknow others beliefs are real.

They assume its false based on wrongful or unnatural thinkng
And dont count it equally as real valid or true as their own beliefs

Not all beliefs are equal. There is no such thing as unnatural thinking.

When both sides do this at the same time
They really think the other is messed up more.

I don't think you understand the principal of debate.

My point is the debates get thrown off by the emotions and distrust
preventing information from being shared.
If we don't address the division, the corrections won't ever be heard or get through.
So both sides remain CONVINCED the other side is wrong,
while both sides reject INFORMATION the other side has but won't listen.

Both sides can be right on some points and wrong on others
if they understood and let each other's sides correct the points
they do have information on.

I'm saying the whole process is set up to fail if
people cannot even communicate to get points on both sides made that are correct.

 

[emilynghiem]

Refusing service to a person because of his color violates his constitutional rights and is therefore not allowed.
Refusing service to a person because of his sexual orientattion violates his constitutional rights and is therefore not allowed.

Refusing service to a person because he is exercising his constitutional right to arms? Absolutely OK.

Refusing service to a person because of his sexual orientattion violates his constitutional rights should not be allowed.

Forcing a Christian, Moslem, Jew, Buddhist, Atheist to cater to, and by default participate in an event that violates their beliefs and morals violates their constitutional rights and should not be allowed.

Can you see the difference here ?

Nope. Splain it to me.
How is it constitutionally acceptable, in the context of granting/refusing service in a commercial establishment, to violate one set of constitutional rights but not others?

Where both people in such a conflict have EQUAL beliefs that are BOTH protected by law,
then neither side can force govt to impose on the other without violating Constitutional rights or protections of the "losing side."

The way I propose to uphold EQUAL Constitutional protections is to mediate, resolve the conflict, where neither side is violated and both get what they need to feel "represented/included."

Forgiveness cannot be imposed by govt but is a personal process and choice.
The people would have to agree to work together personally to form a solution outside of govt.

I would ask that if both people want to invoke their Constitutional protections, to respect the same of the other person's beliefs.
And mediate to find a solution that way where govt does not have to take sides.

NOTE: if those two parties cannot successfully mediate, I would ask help of the larger community on both sides, that does not
agree with either of the one-sided rulings that would result, to help form a solution and ask govt to endorse THAT instead.
(EX1: if people cannot agree on a policy for transgender use of restrooms, without either violating equal protections of
one side's rights or beliefs or the other's beliefs; then ask the community to raise the funds to install UNISEX restrooms that
are understood to be of people of either gender, and nobody else use that restroom if uncomfortable with it being UNISEX.
EX2: if people do not feel comfortable offering services with wedding or photography, then have a system set up where
businesses can refer certain jobs to subcontractors who agree to these, and not be considered rejection or discrimination.
So a company can still bake the cake or design the gown, but refer the tux, photography or attendance at services to others.
EX3: In order to screen customers in advance to prevent legal liabilities and costs, have clients fill out a form agreeing to
mediation and consensus on any conflicts that may arise, and agree to avoid any legal actions or expenses.
This way, if someone's intent is to harass and impose, they can be refused business on legal grounds, similar to agreeing to arbitration before conducting business.

Frankly I do not believe it is workable or ethical to have people use govt/courts to defend their constitutional beliefs if they don't respect the same of others.
Abusing legal defense, to me, is like abusing a firearm to defend one own's desire for property at the expense of someone's equal right to their property.
I would recommend mediation and consensus to prevent that from happening. With govt, I would require it where citizens believe and agree to those standards of law,
but citizens remain free to choose to follow those laws required of govt.)

 

[daws101]

I'm 100% in agreement there, Jake. Molesters should get life in prison. I will reveal a chink in my armor...I was molested by a professed "lesbian", as a child. She was my kindergarten teacher. She locked me in closets, wouldn't let me go to recess. For this reason I see homosexuals as perverts and liars.

If she was actually a lesbian, why did she suck my dick & rape me?

None of you know me in person, so I don't care that I tell you this.

So come on lefties, insult me, use what I said to belittle me. It's okay, at the end of the day you support lying perverts.

It does have an effect on my judgements, but it does not rule my life...that I was molested.

I am here to expose their lies, and nothing you folks say will stop me. Perversion is perversion..sexual deviancy IS just that.

Bring on the insults, folks. Just be original, please.

 

[TheJedi]

Can we please close this thread? The OPs flawed premise has been defeated multiple times and it serves no purpose at this point other than to flame bait.

 

[LockeJaw]

No it hasn't. Sorry Jedi

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I don't care HOW somebody became a homosexual......whether there is some sort of undiscovered "homo-gene" that people are born with, or whether homosexuality is a "choice" (which is what I believe).

As for businesses, I can understand the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign, but to deny service to somebody simply because you don't agree with their sexual preference, is going too far, IF the person is not "flaunting" their homosexuality or distracting other customers or misbehaving in some other way.

Interesting. Why is it supposedly illegal to discriminate against gays since they do not fit into any of the constitutionally protected classes?

Where does the constitution say we cannot discriminate based on people's behaviors?

Religion is a behavior lockefag. Should we be able to discriminate against religion?

Hey Headskin,whatever happened to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

How does one "accommodate" homosexuals? Help me out here ... do they require special food? Is there a different type of atmosphere that they need in order to live?

Do they "zip-up" on the other side????

I don't even begin to know who's gay in Mad Cabbie's taxi cab. As long as their money is straight, I'm cool.

 

[Seawytch]

 

[Seawytch]

whatever happened to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?

You never had it...at least not since, oh, around 1964.

Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor or Attitude?

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability.[...]

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.

In one more complicated case, a court held that a cemetery could exclude "punk rockers" from a private funeral service. A mother requested that the funeral service for her 17-year-old daughter be private and that admission to the service be limited to family and invited guests only. The cemetery failed to exclude punk rockers from the service. The punk rockers arrived in unconventional dress, wearing makeup and sporting various hair colors. One was wearing a dress decorated with live rats. Others wore leather and chains, some were twirling baton-like weapons, drinking, and using cocaine. The punk rockers made rude comments to family members and were generally disruptive of the service.

Ironically, the funeral business had attempted to rely on the Unruh Civil Rights Act, claiming that if they had denied access to the punk rockers, they would have been in violation of the Act. But the court held that the punk rockers' presence had deprived the deceased person's family of the services of the business establishment, which were meant to provide comfort to grieving family members. On that basis, the court stated that the funeral business could have legitimately denied access to the punk rockers.​

Know your localities public accommodation laws either before you decide to "open up shop" or before you decide to discriminate.

 

[emilynghiem]

This guy is truly - "A legend in his own Mind" - but I'll give hime one thing - he is very funny .

[Of course Jake - you do realize that I mean funny as in ha ha , not funny as in a tad queer - and yes I am calling you a clown. ]

Dear Greenbean: I deleted the copied part where you cited from PM.
I thought that wasn't allowed or proper etiquette. Did you get permission to take from PM and post in the forum? Please check and make sure this is okay?

I think people can make THEMSELVES look like clowns or asses, or assclowns,

People's words reflect on THEM
equally or more than whoever they are addressing.

If I speak ill of someone else personally, that shows MY perception and MY inability to resolve things.
It shows I am projecting my grievances onto someone else, and can make ME look bad.

If I criticize misconduct, with the same corrections that I apply to myself,
that shows fairness in addressing the PROBLEM not attacking a person or affiliation.

So this reflects back on the person speaking.

If you find Jake amusing, that shows you can enjoy the humor in something,
more than you are angry or offended or project blame.
So that speaks to your ability to see things in higher perspective.

I believe Jake has some bias against people by association in groups,
something being projected. However, once I work to pick apart what are the real objections and what are the real solutions,
Jake can follow that and answer with thoughtful feedback, putting aside the other misgivings against certain people or groups. So that shows more going on than just
superficial complaints against others. Jake can actually discuss in depth and does not need to play these superficial games attacking people on the outside based on group/labels.

I get this information in how Jake responds to me (when I actually say something that offers a clear point or solution).

So his responses equally reflect on Jake!

(and same to you, Greenbean. You and others may get into insulting and attacking each other outside the content and topics. But when you and I discuss finer points, we don't have any problem expressing where we agree or disagree, without any namecalling.

So this tells me about you, and isn't limited to just how you respond to other people.
How you reply, either in depth or superficially with side remarks, applies to you.

 

[emilynghiem]

How does one "accommodate" homosexuals? Help me out here ... do they require special food? Is there a different type of atmosphere that they need in order to live?

Do they "zip-up" on the other side????

I don't even begin to know who's gay in Mad Cabbie's taxi cab. As long as their money is straight, I'm cool.

According to the City of Houston's Equal Rights Ordinance,
provisions were put in allowing transgender persons to use the public restroom and showers of their identity, not their born gender.

And up to $5000 in fines could be issued for discrimination, such as "asking them questions," from how it was explained to me.

So this is contested as special rights, ie other people don't have such "protections" against asking them questions.

it depends if you see gender reassignment and cross dressing as a choice,
or if it is a natural practice of someone.

Similar to the debate if a person needs to wear a hijab or other head covering
as part of their "religious" practice. What if that interferes with public safety and rules?

Do we make exceptions for people whose practices impose inconvenience or safety issues?
Or is preventing exceptions a form of discriminating against that person with that practice?

Which personal/religious practices do we recognize as "protected by law,"
and which are treated as "choices" that aren't required, so "public rules and safety" trump private practices or preferences?

I think how a person dresses is optional not required:
if you choose to change physical gender that is a choice to make your physical match your personality.
(For full cases of changing gender all the way, it makes sense to me to change the status legally, like changing your name or nationality legally if that is what you are going to use instead.)

The problem is the state of Texas only recognizes the gender on the birth certificate.
If people could pass a test and be certified as the other gender legally, we wouldn't have this discussion or debate.
Any such transgender person would be legally certified as that gender to use that bathroom.

In the meantime, these individuals do not want to be harassed in public.
But the way the ordinance was written, it threatened fines and punishments on other people or businesses, but did not equally protect them from harassment for their beliefs.

So it came across as onesided and enforcing special rights without regard for public safety.

It was an ATTEMPT to recognize that people with gender changes are not to be discriminated against or harassed for their gender identity.
but it went too far with "accommodations" and started imposing and discriminating against the freedom and rights of others.

 

[emilynghiem]

Can we please close this thread? The OPs flawed premise has been defeated multiple times and it serves no purpose at this point other than to flame bait.

Dear TheJedi:
Not to worry Master.

Young Jedi Princess has great skill in turning flames of war
into a marshmallow roast and singing campfire songs. Kumbaya!

I am glad to take on any flamer or troller here, and have a
meaningful conversation. I enjoy the linguistic challenge of speaking
and interpreting troll talk or 88 languages otherwise unintelligible.

There is "intelligent life" in each person, waiting to be discovered.

If people want to "flame" others, there is some objection that isn't being addressed.
So if that objection is recognized, of course, anyone will talk about it with passion.
We need to hear what each other is really saying, and the nonsense will stop.

Either that, or bring on the beer and wine,
to get people talking and get this party started!!! Whoo-hoo!

 

[emilynghiem]

Interesting. Why is it supposedly illegal to discriminate against gays since they do not fit into any of the constitutionally protected classes?

Where does the constitution say we cannot discriminate based on people's behaviors?

Religion is a behavior lockefag. Should we be able to discriminate against religion?

Hey Headskin,whatever happened to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?

Dear LockeJaw, OldSchool and HWGA:
Where people are equal is on the level of BELIEFS.
So if people BELIEVE in X practice for treating people of cross gender/orientation,
and others BELIEVE in Y policy for how they conduct business.

These two BELIEFS should be recognized and protected equally by law.
That is where all people are equal, REGARDLESS what they THINK of each other's beliefs.

The problem is people are DISCREDITING and seeking to INVALIDATE each other's beliefs.

If they go into the process respecting BOTH beliefs as equal,
then only laws/policies will be made that respect both.

if they cannot agree, they should SEPARATE and not be under common jurisdiction
where they don't agree to accommodate for each other's beliefs.

Either agree to accommodate and how,
or agree to separate, like have separate districts under separate policies
and stay away from each other if they disagree that much religiously.

Some Hindus and Muslims, or Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses
have to stay out of each other's space because they don't respect each other's beliefs.

Same with this political belief conflict.

It has to be resolved by consent or else someone's belief is being
discriminated over the other by govt. It is NOT either/or but BOTH
need to be included.

If that can't be done, both sides need to separate and cannot be under
the same policy. Both their "religiously held beliefs" are equally protected by law.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear [MENTION=36177]LockeJaw[/MENTION] Is this your real testimony?
I'm sorry this happened to you, and I respect you for sharing so honestly and openly.
I am more impressed with you for talking about this and not shying away from debate.

Just because males commit rapes doesn't make ALL men sick rapists and creeps.
Just because heterosexual males molest family or students, doesn't mean
ALL heterosexuals to be out of control lust machines and sex driven sickos.

What causes this is a spiritual obsession/addiction/sickness where a person cannot control
their urges. It isn't limited to just homosexual, but by population and % alone,
OF COURSE the heterosexual population is going to have more molesters and rapists.

I understand now, due to your experience, why you understand it as a sick perversion.
Yes, in the case of a child molesting professional, this is a CRIMINAL SICKNESS.

But the same therapy that can treat or possibly cure this level of Criminal Sickness
works with both heterosexual and homosexual people. (the same methods of deep
spiritual healing that work with mental illness also work on physical diseases;
and if applied to all people around the sick person, then all the relationships can
also be healed using this same forgiveness therapy that removes all blocks to healing
and restores the natural flow of life energy, so minds/bodies heal themselves as designed.)

I am sorry this happened, and you suffered for it on so many levels.
I am grateful you survived it, and are willing to address it. (one of my friends
is still not able to talk about his rape experience and still holds resentment and fear)

I believe in pushing for medical research in criminal illness and spiritual healing,
and REQUIRING treatment and detention for people who are otherwise unsafe in public.

If I could work with you to push party platforms to SPECIFY public research and access for "spiritual healing for criminal illness and sexual abusers"
I think that is MORE beneficial and would prevent more cases of molestors running around free to cause public harm or risk.

The focus on homosexuality/conversion is distracting; the real issue is sexual abuse and crime, which is independent of gender and orientation.
The cases of male rapists and molesters are much more common; our prisons are filled already and there are more on the street.
Addressing this issue would help a lot more people; and the SAME research and therapy can also cure cases of cancer, schizophrenia,
and other diseases so many others would benefit from opening up these healing therapy practices to public knowledge and access.

Thank you, LockeJaw
I truly respect and appreciate your sharing and pushing on this issue
to recognize the serious side of sexual sickness. We can't just "kill people off"
who molest and rape; that never cured leprosy by locking up and killing lepers.
Focusing on known treatment and cures could lead to legal requirements
in the case of people who can be diagnosed in advance as dangerous until treatment is successful.
So we can do something about these crimes, if we focus there and not on fighting over orientation/homosexuality.

I'm 100% in agreement there, Jake. Molesters should get life in prison. I will reveal a chink in my armor...I was molested by a professed "lesbian", as a child. She was my kindergarten teacher. She locked me in closets, wouldn't let me go to recess. For this reason I see homosexuals as perverts and liars.

If she was actually a lesbian, why did she suck my dick & rape me?

None of you know me in person, so I don't care that I tell you this.

So come on lefties, insult me, use what I said to belittle me. It's okay, at the end of the day you support lying perverts.

It does have an effect on my judgements, but it does not rule my life...that I was molested.

I am here to expose their lies, and nothing you folks say will stop me. Perversion is perversion..sexual deviancy IS just that.

Bring on the insults, folks. Just be original, please.

It's not original, but the usual response is how many guys
would complain about being jumped by a sex crazed teacher?

Why is there a media bias that it's an outrage if the teacher is a man,
but if it's a woman, it's answered with cat calls and jokes about being hot for teacher?

I recognize this bias, too, I also am more horrified when it is a male molesting a female student. Because
I feel it instantly and personally; with males I have to "work" to understand their pain, and can't fully imagine the experience,
so it isn't as immediate as the reaction to a female victim I can relate to instantly. I am not perfectly fair either.

That's another reason I focus on treating the criminal "addiction and abuse," regardless of the situation.
As long as all the people heal who are involved and affected, that is the point and the process is still
about identifying the causes of the sickness in the criminal mind, and healing them and all their victims
through forgiveness therapy to remove the negative emotions and sick rage and feelings attached.

I can understand that process "equally for all people and cases" whether it's about healing
a drug addiction, sexual abuse, cancer, mood disorder, etc. So it makes more sense for me to focus there,
where the solutions offer equal help to everyone, in all cases that could possibly be cured that way.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Would you expect a Church to host a Satanic Weddiing -simply because it offers its hall for rent ?

Would you expect a Jewish Baker to bake a cake for a Nazi Gathering ?

Woud you expect a Gay Baker to bake a cake for a NARTH Gathering ?

Would you expect a Black Baker to bake a cake for a KKK gathering ?

I'm sorry - I missed the answer to my question. Could you repeat it?

Yes you certainly did - boing zoom right past ya.

Um... no. You avoided the question entirely.
Please do try again.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Refusing service to a person because of his sexual orientattion violates his constitutional rights should not be allowed.

Forcing a Christian, Moslem, Jew, Buddhist, Atheist to cater to, and by default participate in an event that violates their beliefs and morals violates their constitutional rights and should not be allowed.

Can you see the difference here ?

Nope. Splain it to me.
How is it constitutionally acceptable, in the context of granting/refusing service in a commercial establishment, to violate one set of constitutional rights but not others?

Where both people in such a conflict have EQUAL beliefs that are BOTH protected by law,
then neither side can force govt to impose on the other without violating Constitutional rights or protections of the "losing side."

The way I propose to uphold EQUAL Constitutional protections is to mediate, resolve the conflict, where neither side is violated and both get what they need to feel "represented/included."

Forgiveness cannot be imposed by govt but is a personal process and choice.
The people would have to agree to work together personally to form a solution outside of govt.

I would ask that if both people want to invoke their Constitutional protections, to respect the same of the other person's beliefs.
And mediate to find a solution that way where govt does not have to take sides.

NOTE: if those two parties cannot successfully mediate, I would ask help of the larger community on both sides, that does not
agree with either of the one-sided rulings that would result, to help form a solution and ask govt to endorse THAT instead.
(EX1: if people cannot agree on a policy for transgender use of restrooms, without either violating equal protections of
one side's rights or beliefs or the other's beliefs; then ask the community to raise the funds to install UNISEX restrooms that
are understood to be of people of either gender, and nobody else use that restroom if uncomfortable with it being UNISEX.
EX2: if people do not feel comfortable offering services with wedding or photography, then have a system set up where
businesses can refer certain jobs to subcontractors who agree to these, and not be considered rejection or discrimination.
So a company can still bake the cake or design the gown, but refer the tux, photography or attendance at services to others.
EX3: In order to screen customers in advance to prevent legal liabilities and costs, have clients fill out a form agreeing to
mediation and consensus on any conflicts that may arise, and agree to avoid any legal actions or expenses.
This way, if someone's intent is to harass and impose, they can be refused business on legal grounds, similar to agreeing to arbitration before conducting business.

Frankly I do not believe it is workable or ethical to have people use govt/courts to defend their constitutional beliefs if they don't respect the same of others.
Abusing legal defense, to me, is like abusing a firearm to defend one own's desire for property at the expense of someone's equal right to their property.
I would recommend mediation and consensus to prevent that from happening. With govt, I would require it where citizens believe and agree to those standards of law,
but citizens remain free to choose to follow those laws required of govt.)

How does any of this answer my question?

 

[LockeJaw]

yes this is my real testimony. My hope is that people will understand this is not some cut and dry civil rights issue. And Ive stated before, that I also have an uncle that is homosexual & a cousin who died of AIDS in the '90's who was homosexual. Neither one tried anything with me, so I am not saying ALL are prone to molesting children. The point is that we ought not pretend we have sexuality figured out to the point we say anything definitely that deviant forms of it are just fine & dandy. Sometimes it seems to me that pro-gay normailization types are just looking to live out their parents or grandparents lives & just decide that this fits the bill so they just support it..basically for self gratification. This issue is more important than that, it is NOT the same as interracial anything. It's an argument that has the building block of civilization involved..the traditional family & we need to admit as Americans that it is not as simple as people wish it were.

I'll address some of your other points, Emily. Just a little busy lately with business dealings.

Dear [MENTION=36177]LockeJaw[/MENTION] Is this your real testimony?
I'm sorry this happened to you, and I respect you for sharing so honestly and openly.
I am more impressed with you for talking about this and not shying away from debate.

Just because males commit rapes doesn't make ALL men sick rapists and creeps.
Just because heterosexual males molest family or students, doesn't mean
ALL heterosexuals to be out of control lust machines and sex driven sickos.

What causes this is a spiritual obsession/addiction/sickness where a person cannot control
their urges. It isn't limited to just homosexual, but by population and % alone,
OF COURSE the heterosexual population is going to have more molesters and rapists.

I understand now, due to your experience, why you understand it as a sick perversion.
Yes, in the case of a child molesting professional, this is a CRIMINAL SICKNESS.

But the same therapy that can treat or possibly cure this level of Criminal Sickness
works with both heterosexual and homosexual people. (the same methods of deep
spiritual healing that work with mental illness also work on physical diseases;
and if applied to all people around the sick person, then all the relationships can
also be healed using this same forgiveness therapy that removes all blocks to healing
and restores the natural flow of life energy, so minds/bodies heal themselves as designed.)

I am sorry this happened, and you suffered for it on so many levels.
I am grateful you survived it, and are willing to address it. (one of my friends
is still not able to talk about his rape experience and still holds resentment and fear)

I believe in pushing for medical research in criminal illness and spiritual healing,
and REQUIRING treatment and detention for people who are otherwise unsafe in public.

If I could work with you to push party platforms to SPECIFY public research and access for "spiritual healing for criminal illness and sexual abusers"
I think that is MORE beneficial and would prevent more cases of molestors running around free to cause public harm or risk.

The focus on homosexuality/conversion is distracting; the real issue is sexual abuse and crime, which is independent of gender and orientation.
The cases of male rapists and molesters are much more common; our prisons are filled already and there are more on the street.
Addressing this issue would help a lot more people; and the SAME research and therapy can also cure cases of cancer, schizophrenia,
and other diseases so many others would benefit from opening up these healing therapy practices to public knowledge and access.

Thank you, LockeJaw
I truly respect and appreciate your sharing and pushing on this issue
to recognize the serious side of sexual sickness. We can't just "kill people off"
who molest and rape; that never cured leprosy by locking up and killing lepers.
Focusing on known treatment and cures could lead to legal requirements
in the case of people who can be diagnosed in advance as dangerous until treatment is successful.
So we can do something about these crimes, if we focus there and not on fighting over orientation/homosexuality.

I'm 100% in agreement there, Jake. Molesters should get life in prison. I will reveal a chink in my armor...I was molested by a professed "lesbian", as a child. She was my kindergarten teacher. She locked me in closets, wouldn't let me go to recess. For this reason I see homosexuals as perverts and liars.

If she was actually a lesbian, why did she suck my dick & rape me?

None of you know me in person, so I don't care that I tell you this.

So come on lefties, insult me, use what I said to belittle me. It's okay, at the end of the day you support lying perverts.

It does have an effect on my judgements, but it does not rule my life...that I was molested.

I am here to expose their lies, and nothing you folks say will stop me. Perversion is perversion..sexual deviancy IS just that.

Bring on the insults, folks. Just be original, please.

It's not original, but the usual response is how many guys
would complain about being jumped by a sex crazed teacher?

Why is there a media bias that it's an outrage if the teacher is a man,
but if it's a woman, it's answered with cat calls and jokes about being hot for teacher?

I recognize this bias, too, I also am more horrified when it is a male molesting a female student. Because
I feel it instantly and personally; with males I have to "work" to understand their pain, and can't fully imagine the experience,
so it isn't as immediate as the reaction to a female victim I can relate to instantly. I am not perfectly fair either.

That's another reason I focus on treating the criminal "addiction and abuse," regardless of the situation.
As long as all the people heal who are involved and affected, that is the point and the process is still
about identifying the causes of the sickness in the criminal mind, and healing them and all their victims
through forgiveness therapy to remove the negative emotions and sick rage and feelings attached.

I can understand that process "equally for all people and cases" whether it's about healing
a drug addiction, sexual abuse, cancer, mood disorder, etc. So it makes more sense for me to focus there,
where the solutions offer equal help to everyone, in all cases that could possibly be cured that way.

 

[emilynghiem]

Nope. Splain it to me.
How is it constitutionally acceptable, in the context of granting/refusing service in a commercial establishment, to violate one set of constitutional rights but not others?

Where both people in such a conflict have EQUAL beliefs that are BOTH protected by law,
then neither side can force govt to impose on the other without violating Constitutional rights or protections of the "losing side."

The way I propose to uphold EQUAL Constitutional protections is to mediate, resolve the conflict, where neither side is violated and both get what they need to feel "represented/included."

Forgiveness cannot be imposed by govt but is a personal process and choice.
The people would have to agree to work together personally to form a solution outside of govt.

I would ask that if both people want to invoke their Constitutional protections, to respect the same of the other person's beliefs.
And mediate to find a solution that way where govt does not have to take sides.

NOTE: if those two parties cannot successfully mediate, I would ask help of the larger community on both sides, that does not
agree with either of the one-sided rulings that would result, to help form a solution and ask govt to endorse THAT instead.
(EX1: if people cannot agree on a policy for transgender use of restrooms, without either violating equal protections of
one side's rights or beliefs or the other's beliefs; then ask the community to raise the funds to install UNISEX restrooms that
are understood to be of people of either gender, and nobody else use that restroom if uncomfortable with it being UNISEX.
EX2: if people do not feel comfortable offering services with wedding or photography, then have a system set up where
businesses can refer certain jobs to subcontractors who agree to these, and not be considered rejection or discrimination.
So a company can still bake the cake or design the gown, but refer the tux, photography or attendance at services to others.
EX3: In order to screen customers in advance to prevent legal liabilities and costs, have clients fill out a form agreeing to
mediation and consensus on any conflicts that may arise, and agree to avoid any legal actions or expenses.
This way, if someone's intent is to harass and impose, they can be refused business on legal grounds, similar to agreeing to arbitration before conducting business.

Frankly I do not believe it is workable or ethical to have people use govt/courts to defend their constitutional beliefs if they don't respect the same of others.
Abusing legal defense, to me, is like abusing a firearm to defend one own's desire for property at the expense of someone's equal right to their property.
I would recommend mediation and consensus to prevent that from happening. With govt, I would require it where citizens believe and agree to those standards of law,
but citizens remain free to choose to follow those laws required of govt.)

How does any of this answer my question?

It is mutually wrong to violate the beliefs of either side in such a conflict over beliefs.
People have the right to reject each other's beliefs, but do not have the right
to abuse public laws/govt to punish other people for conflicting beliefs
that are BOTH protected by law.

So such cases involving conflicting beliefs
require CONSENSUS by the people affected so they choose a solution
they both agree to. Not the govt deciding for them at the expense of one belief over another.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where both people in such a conflict have EQUAL beliefs that are BOTH protected by law,
then neither side can force govt to impose on the other without violating Constitutional rights or protections of the "losing side."

The way I propose to uphold EQUAL Constitutional protections is to mediate, resolve the conflict, where neither side is violated and both get what they need to feel "represented/included."

Forgiveness cannot be imposed by govt but is a personal process and choice.
The people would have to agree to work together personally to form a solution outside of govt.

I would ask that if both people want to invoke their Constitutional protections, to respect the same of the other person's beliefs.
And mediate to find a solution that way where govt does not have to take sides.

NOTE: if those two parties cannot successfully mediate, I would ask help of the larger community on both sides, that does not
agree with either of the one-sided rulings that would result, to help form a solution and ask govt to endorse THAT instead.
(EX1: if people cannot agree on a policy for transgender use of restrooms, without either violating equal protections of
one side's rights or beliefs or the other's beliefs; then ask the community to raise the funds to install UNISEX restrooms that
are understood to be of people of either gender, and nobody else use that restroom if uncomfortable with it being UNISEX.
EX2: if people do not feel comfortable offering services with wedding or photography, then have a system set up where
businesses can refer certain jobs to subcontractors who agree to these, and not be considered rejection or discrimination.
So a company can still bake the cake or design the gown, but refer the tux, photography or attendance at services to others.
EX3: In order to screen customers in advance to prevent legal liabilities and costs, have clients fill out a form agreeing to
mediation and consensus on any conflicts that may arise, and agree to avoid any legal actions or expenses.
This way, if someone's intent is to harass and impose, they can be refused business on legal grounds, similar to agreeing to arbitration before conducting business.

Frankly I do not believe it is workable or ethical to have people use govt/courts to defend their constitutional beliefs if they don't respect the same of others.
Abusing legal defense, to me, is like abusing a firearm to defend one own's desire for property at the expense of someone's equal right to their property.
I would recommend mediation and consensus to prevent that from happening. With govt, I would require it where citizens believe and agree to those standards of law,
but citizens remain free to choose to follow those laws required of govt.)

How does any of this answer my question?

It is mutually wrong to violate the beliefs of either side in such a conflict over beliefs.
People have the right to reject each other's beliefs, but do not have the right
to abuse public laws/govt to punish other people for conflicting beliefs
that are BOTH protected by law.

So... you agree that a commercial establishment has as much right to refuse service to a black person as they do someone legally carrying a gun.
Correct?