If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Baron]

The Holy Bible condemns clearly Homosexuals and Homosexuality, do you want to challenge God?

 

[protectionist]

In the 1980's, I owned a video dating service. I strictly kept it as a HETEROSEXUAL dating service. No gays. Occasionally I would get calls from them wanting to use the service homosexually. I told them that was not allowed.

They sometimes said .> "That's discrimination". I replied "Yes it is" - and hung up.

 

[protectionist]

Yeah. That's irrelevant in my view. Government should never be allowed to discriminate. Equality under the law is crucial to a free society. But it's not up to government to tell us who to associate with or for what reasons we can decline.

Government (and other sectors of society) discriminate all the time. Govt discriminates between law abiders and criminals. Law abiders are free. Criminals live in prisons.

Discrimination occurs with mental conditions. Sane people walk free. Nutjobs get put away.

Employers discriminate when hiring. Qualified people get hired. Unqualified don't.

And we all discriminate every day. What color shirt we put on in the morning. Which gas we buy at the filling station. What we have for breakfast. What route we drive to the store, or to work.

Discrimination is an all the time thing.

 

[Silhouette]

In the 1980's, I owned a video dating service. I strictly kept it as a HETEROSEXUAL dating service. No gays. Occasionally I would get calls from them wanting to use the service homosexually. I told them that was not allowed.

They sometimes said .> "That's discrimination". I replied "Yes it is" - and hung up.

I guess you knew then what will be made clear in the courts very soon: that homosexuality is a behavioral lifestyle and not innate like race. Did you allow blacks and people from Palestine to use your service? Just curious.

 

[dblack]

I guess you knew then what will be made clear in the courts very soon: that homosexuality is a behavioral lifestyle and not innate like race.

Why does that matter?

 

[Silhouette]

I guess you knew then what will be made clear in the courts very soon: that homosexuality is a behavioral lifestyle and not innate like race.

Why does that matter?

Because lifestyles have no Constitutional protections. Unless they're a recognized religion. And when one is tested against the other like in this struggle between the gay activist hit-men....er..I mean "couples" and Christian business owners, guess which one the USSC is bound to find for? That's right, faith.

If lifestyles have elevated protections where the majority cannot object to them in any situation, you DO realize then that any majority-rejected lifestyle could hijack that precedent to gain the same protections. Polygamists come to mind but they are but one drop in a bucket in a SEA of lifestyles that must be treated equally once the precedent of "minority rule" is set.

You may not have thought it that far through. But it's the job-description of the USSC Justices to see it that far through and beyond. They know that what they write down in any Opinion will be used as a shoehorn by anyone else who has a "same or similar pleading". Equality demands that if one person or group rejected by the minority can DO (not "be", crucial difference in that one can be helped and one cannot) anything they want and force the majority to play along, then ANY person or group must be allowed to do the same. Otherwise equality is not being applied as required.

 

[dblack]

I guess you knew then what will be made clear in the courts very soon: that homosexuality is a behavioral lifestyle and not innate like race.

Why does that matter?

Because lifestyles have no Constitutional protections.

Of course they do. The Constitution doesn't empower the federal government to legislate lifestyles.

Unless they're a recognized religion.

This one cracks me up. The entire point of the religion clause of the First Amendment was to ensure that government didn't get into the business of deciding which religions were "recognized" and which weren't.

This issue should not be seen as a contest between gay rights and freedom of religion. Neither are in play. The issue is far deeper and involves basic freedom of association. The freedom to choose, without justifying our choice to the state, who we work with or for.

Equality demands that if one person or group rejected by the minority can DO (not "be", crucial difference in that one can be helped and one cannot) anything they want and force the majority to play along, then ANY person or group must be allowed to do the same. Otherwise equality is not being applied as required.

I really don't understand what you're getting at here. But none of it answers my question - why does the distinction between "do" and "be" making a difference?

 

[Silhouette]

This one cracks me up. The entire point of the religion clause of the First Amendment was to ensure that government didn't get into the business of deciding which religions were "recognized" and which weren't.

Then the remedy for "faith vs faith" in any legal challenge, such as the cult of LGBT vs Christians (or Jews or Muslims...) is solved by prescribing that neither has to participate in the values of another that are wholly abhorrent to their own faith.

That's why "lifestyle" is distinct vs innate. If someone is born a certain way, say female, black, in Haiti, we cannot punish them for their situation from birth. If they adopt a weird lifestyle later on, we CAN discriminate against that. Unless its a religion. Even then one cannot force conversion upon another whose faith opposes those values. Equality.

And that's why the Court emphasized the word "neutral" in admonishing the city in Colorado. It was their way of saying they cannot establish a state-religious (call it lifestyle if you want) preference over another. Especially with the intent of punishing one over the other.

 

[dblack]

This one cracks me up. The entire point of the religion clause of the First Amendment was to ensure that government didn't get into the business of deciding which religions were "recognized" and which weren't.

Then the remedy for "faith vs faith" in any legal challenge, such as the cult of LGBT vs Christians (or Jews or Muslims...) is solved by prescribing that neither has to participate in the values of another that are wholly abhorrent to their own faith.

That's why "lifestyle" is distinct vs innate. If someone is born a certain way, say female, black, in Haiti, we cannot punish them for their situation from birth. If they adopt a weird lifestyle later on, we CAN discriminate against that. Unless its a religion.

I don't believe that the First Amendment's religion clause was meant to grant special rights to religions. It was meant to keep government from dictating our religious beliefs.

It sounds like you've accepted the basic premise of PA laws: that government should have the authority to second guess our personal preferences. You're just quibbling over specifics, winners, losers, etc ...

Anyway, you're still not answering my question about why innate vs lifestyle is a significant factor. But maybe that's not in the cards.

 

[Silhouette]

I don't believe that the First Amendment's religion clause was meant to grant special rights to religions. It was meant to keep government from dictating our religious beliefs.

It sounds like you've accepted the basic premise of PA laws: that government should have the authority to second guess our personal preferences. You're just quibbling over specifics, winners, losers, etc ...

The rights granted to those of faith is to contain those principles wherever they go. The premise of PA laws, which the court JUST SAID is that they must be neutral. In other words they cannot elevate one set of values above another; not even in the marketplace. And since LGBT is merely a collection of lifestyle behavioral values, no state may elevate those above a Christian baker's values to passively refuse to promote them.

You asked why the distinction between innate and lifestyle was important. There's your answer.

 

[protectionist]

I guess you knew then what will be made clear in the courts very soon: that homosexuality is a behavioral lifestyle and not innate like race. Did you allow blacks and people from Palestine to use your service? Just curious.

I did allow blacks, but very few joined. I never had a Palestinian.

 

[Silhouette]

I guess you knew then what will be made clear in the courts very soon: that homosexuality is a behavioral lifestyle and not innate like race. Did you allow blacks and people from Palestine to use your service? Just curious.

I did allow blacks, but very few joined. I never had a Palestinian.

So you knew the difference between discriminating based on behaviors vs race or country of origin. Good. I think the USSC will outline that distinction for us soon.

 

[Slyhunter]

Here's the next problem. We allow Christians to discriminate against others based on their own religion then we have Dianetics, who do they discriminate against? People will invent religions to allow them to discriminate against whomever they want to discriminate against. Anything can be a religion. Worshipping money, Spaghetti, etc. Bank of America could be a religious group.

We need to go with simple freedom of association for all individuals, right or wrong.

 

[JoeB131]

I've thought of that often myself. "I'm going to ruin your life and your livelihood because you refused to bake a cake for a gay couple - I'll show you!" What kind of an asshole would destroy someone over something like that? A hateful one is the correct answer.

And if they refused to bake a cake for Mormons or Blacks, you'd be okay with that, too?

Agree with my views or expect for your entire life to be destroyed by us should be the democrat motto. Lol.

Not at all, you are more than free to be a homophobic bigot while the One Percenters take away your American Dream...

Just follow the laws we've established for commerce like everyone else does.

 

[dblack]

And if they refused to bake a cake for Mormons or Blacks, you'd be okay with that, too?

There's a difference between being 'ok', or 'not ok', with something and making it illegal. The concept might not even occur to you, but it's possible to express our values in society without throwing people in jail.

 

[Pop23]

I guess you knew then what will be made clear in the courts very soon: that homosexuality is a behavioral lifestyle and not innate like race.

Why does that matter?

Because lifestyles have no Constitutional protections. Unless they're a recognized religion. And when one is tested against the other like in this struggle between the gay activist hit-men....er..I mean "couples" and Christian business owners, guess which one the USSC is bound to find for? That's right, faith.

If lifestyles have elevated protections where the majority cannot object to them in any situation, you DO realize then that any majority-rejected lifestyle could hijack that precedent to gain the same protections. Polygamists come to mind but they are but one drop in a bucket in a SEA of lifestyles that must be treated equally once the precedent of "minority rule" is set.

You may not have thought it that far through. But it's the job-description of the USSC Justices to see it that far through and beyond. They know that what they write down in any Opinion will be used as a shoehorn by anyone else who has a "same or similar pleading". Equality demands that if one person or group rejected by the minority can DO (not "be", crucial difference in that one can be helped and one cannot) anything they want and force the majority to play along, then ANY person or group must be allowed to do the same. Otherwise equality is not being applied as required.

Interesting, and your post raises some interesting questions.

If I am accused of discriminating against a black, or a woman, and there is a question as to if my accusser is Black or a Female, as the defense I would be able to demand of the court, proof that they are who they say they are. That could be achieved by a physical exam, examination of legal documents or, if needed, a simple DNA test.

What scientific test can be used to determine sexuality?

hmmmmmm

 

[bodecea]

The Holy Bible condemns clearly Homosexuals and Homosexuality, do you want to challenge God?

Which god should we be caring about "challenging"? This is a secular country with a secular Constitution. You don't want to be gay because of your so-called religion...don't be gay.

 

[bodecea]

In the 1980's, I owned a video dating service. I strictly kept it as a HETEROSEXUAL dating service. No gays. Occasionally I would get calls from them wanting to use the service homosexually. I told them that was not allowed.

They sometimes said .> "That's discrimination". I replied "Yes it is" - and hung up.

I guess you knew then what will be made clear in the courts very soon: that homosexuality is a behavioral lifestyle and not innate like race. Did you allow blacks and people from Palestine to use your service? Just curious.

Religion is a behavioral lifestyle.....and if homosexuality is a behavioral lifestyle, so is heterosexuality.

 

[protectionist]

People will invent religions to allow them to discriminate against whomever they want to discriminate against. Anything can be a religion. Worshipping money, Spaghetti, etc. Bank of America could be a religious group.

ISLAM.

 

[protectionist]

Religion is a behavioral lifestyle.....and if homosexuality is a behavioral lifestyle, so is heterosexuality.

UNTRUE. Heterosexuality is normal biology.

Homosexuality is abnormal BEHAVIOR.