If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[ThisIsMe]

If anything, it is the "tolerance" crowd that is trying to stigmatize religion and are actually the oppressors, because they are trying to force everyone else to comply with their own beliefs.

Oh please. Give me a break. I do not give a rats hind parts about what you believe, and most people are smart enough to know that they cannot control anyone else's beliefs. The issue is how you behave towards, and treat others

I don't blame you for believing, or not believing what others do, what people are simply asking is, don't try to force your lifestyle on others who don't agree with it, and don't get bent out of shape when someone refuses to act the way they think you should act.

If a baker doesn't want to serve you due to religious convictions, then move along to the next baker, and stop trying to turn every case into discrimination when it's not. I'm not saying discrimination doesn't exist, but it's not around every corner when something doesn't go the way you want it to. I mean, if we're going to levy that charge any time our feathers get ruffled, well shoot, I can make a whole lot of people do things they don't want to do, based on discrimination.

And In this post, when I say "you", I don't mean you, I mean you as in general people.

 

[JoeB131]

You understand abnormal exists in the animal kingdom as well, right?

If it exists in the animal kingdom, it isn't abnormal. The animals just don't spend time worrying about it.

 

[JoeB131]

Bartender and bar get sued to hell, shut down, never work again, and die penniless.

All other bars freak out and make sure their hooch is safe.

Except you miss the point. What is the standard for getting sued? If bars have no regulation, alcohol manufacturers have no regulation, what basis are you suing on? YOu pays your money and you takes your chances.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

see , we'll put your fear of government and trust in the free market over the well being of children.. You are an enigma . Sometimes you seem to be reasonable and at other times make no sense. My god we are talking about children

We’re also talking about liberty.

The reason I seem to you to be reasonable at times and not at others is because I am consistent.

You want everyone to be treated equally. I get it.

You cannot force that without stepping over a serious line toward complete tyranny. You are advocating for what essentially amounts to thought control.

Should being an asshole bigot be illegal?

One thing I know for sure. It will be much clearer to me who the asshole bigots are if they are allowed to be themselves. They will get not one dime from me.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Except you miss the point. What is the standard for getting sued? If bars have no regulation, alcohol manufacturers have no regulation, what basis are you suing on? YOu pays your money and you takes your chances.

You need to go back to law school.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't see what the problem is- if someone is really committed to homosexuality that they don't care to deal with people that have moral problems with it- they shouldn't have to.

The problem here is that gay people make up a small percentage of people, especially outside of San Francisco, New York etc.

Christians make up 69% of the country.

Gay people go "I'm not serving Christians" they're going to have major problems. Christians saying "I'm not serving gays" has much less of a problem.

Also, the principles of human rights go against all of this.

 

[jc456]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

and what are there more of? and who has the power structure?

insane.

and so?

It’s beyond your Ken. Don’t worry your ignorant little heed about it.

It’s beyond your Barbie

 

[Cecilie1200]

Uh huh. "There are differences between the sexes, but they don't actually affect anything."

Brilliant.

Well, they don't affect child development, according to some research.

Again, research that sets the conclusion it wants and then looks for evidence to support it.

There has been a deluge of research lately that has shown how essential fathers/male role models are. Not just "a parent figure": a MALE parent figure. If sex differences are so irrelevant to child rearing, why is it that MEN are necessary?

 

[Natural Citizen]

There is a mountain of research that was conducted with no political, religious or social agenda and that was peer reviewd that found that children of same sex parents did as well in all areas as other children. If you say please I will share it with you.

Peer review is just another word for the 'deeply-held view' test. Who gets to decide what views are deeply-held? Heck, deciding as such is the very model of discrimination.

You know, that's what the recent SCOTUS decided on the cake thing with. And they completely missed the mark in doing so. They used the deeply-held views test to make a decision. Again, who decides what views are deeply held? The courts and government are more discriminatory than any entity in existence.

Peer review is no different. I've never been a fan of peer review. Particularly in terms of social affairs. It's a political science.

As far as gay marriage, Individuals have the right of freedom of association without coercion. This is fundamental. Why do you want license? All that's doing is telling the government you aren't capable of running a houshold and managing a marriage/family without government oversight. People don't often think about the meaning of government license for what it actually is. They should.

There was a recent case out in the midwest with the school district where a lot of parents were upset with something the school was doing. They fought it for a while. The eventually had a big meeting about it and the school decided that because the parents had marriage licenses that theeir childrens' affairs and family function, by nature of license, were under the oersight of the state since the state granted them licens to marry and raise children upon their request for government oversight (license). And the school board won and got to keep doing what it was that the parents were objecting to because of that.

I forget precisely what it weas they were mad about and I forget where it was. I might look it up again.

That's how license works, brother. Be careful what you ask for. Because you'll get it. And what you're technically asking for is more of the same problem you already have. Except you're gonna seal the deal against yourself.

Again, you already have the right to feedom of association and the right to be let alone. It's a constitutional right.

General everyday discrimination is never going away. People are dicks. Work with it.

But government is the most discriminatory of all.

You're better off without 'license.'

 

[mikegriffith1]

We all know that no gay couple would sue a baker who refused to bake them a wedding cake because he was a militant atheist who viewed any kind of marriage as an archaic, unnecessary legal arrangement. In that case, no gay couple would care. They would just go find another baker. They only care if a baker happens to be religious and objects to baking a gay wedding cake because he finds it morally offensive. That's when gays go running to court to try to punish the baker for his religious beliefs.

 

[Seawytch]

Uh huh. "There are differences between the sexes, but they don't actually affect anything."

Brilliant.

Well, they don't affect child development, according to some research.

Again, research that sets the conclusion it wants and then looks for evidence to support it.

There has been a deluge of research lately that has shown how essential fathers/male role models are. Not just "a parent figure": a MALE parent figure. If sex differences are so irrelevant to child rearing, why is it that MEN are necessary?

Weird that in this "deluge" of research, you've provided none of it.

Extending their prior work on gender and family, Biblarz and Judith Stacey of NYU analyzed relevant studies about parenting, including available research on single-mother and single-father households, gay male parents and lesbian parents. "That a child needs a male parent and a female parent is so taken for granted that people are uncritical," Stacey said.

In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities, with the "partial exception of lactation," noting that very little about the gender of the parent has significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success.

As the researchers write: "The social science research that is routinely cited does not actually speak to the questions of whether or not children need both a mother and a father at home. Instead proponents generally cite research that compares [heterosexual two-parent] families with single parents, thus conflating the number with the gender of parents."

Indeed, there are far more similarities than differences among children of lesbian and heterosexual parents, according to the study. On average, two mothers tended to play with their children more, were less likely to use physical discipline, and were less likely to raise children with chauvinistic attitudes. Studies of gay male families are still limited.

However, like two heterosexual parents, new parenthood among lesbians increased stress and conflict, exacerbated by general lack of legal recognition of commitment. Also, lesbian biological mothers typically assumed greater caregiving responsibility than their partners, reflecting inequities among heterosexual couples.

"The bottom line is that the science shows that children raised by two same-gender parents do as well on average as children raised by two different-gender parents. This is obviously inconsistent with the widespread claim that children must be raised by a mother and a father to do well," Biblarz said.
​

Do children need both a mother and a father?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Having said that, again, what you call discrimination, others call religious freedom. None of which demonstrates "hate", which, in my opinion, must be present, or at least a malicious intent, to prove discrimination. One person, who holds a sincere belief that homosexuality is a sin, does not mean they hate the person, and in no way proves discrimination. Just as if one guy is a raging alcoholic, and his friends disapprove of his behavior, but are still friends with him non the less, or they may avoid him because of his behavior.

Your contention that underlying hate must be proven in order for a behavior to be deemed discriminatory is just YOU opinion and rubbish at that.

I said hate or at least malicious intent. To me, discrimination is not an act, it's a feeling, or an animosity toward someone, or a dislike of something about them, this feeling can sometimes culminate in an act, but the act is just a by product of the feeling.

You are correct though, it is my opinion, just like you thinking it's rubbish is yours.

You're entitle to your opinion, but the fact is that regardless of what is in ones heart and mind, the discrimination has the same devastating effect on the victim. You're just trying to redefine discrimination and it's not working

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

OK I'll play..

The major area of discrimination that have been facing gays are

1. Marriage equality. Resolved for now but bigots are trying to chip away at with tactics like denying employee benefits to a same sex spouse

2. Housing discrimination

3. Employment discrimination

4. Adoption discrimination including second parent in cases where a gay person is caring for a biological child and his or her spouse wants to adopt to give that child additional security

5. public accommodations discrimination

LGBT people lack these protections in many states and at the federal level. Good for kids? Yes or no?

I'm only going to address the points that are related to the point I made (about marriage and parenting), because those things directly affect children. Yes, I believe that kids are much better off when we are in line with truth, as opposed to misguided, insane political/ideological views. I think that many of the things that are happening today are child abuse, and it's because we live in a crazy, upside down world. And it's only going to get worse.

Is that supposed to be an answer to my question about whether or not discrimination harms children? It is gibberish! It is just a pathetic and dishonest attempt to dodge the question. I can only conclude that you think that it is ok to discriminate even when it harms children

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

PS: Interesting how you have avoided my questions in response to your previous prattle about moms and dads while going on to post more clap trap. Here are the questions again:

The topic is discrimination, so, my questions to you are :

1. Do you think that discrimination against gays will enhance the likely hood that more children will have a mother and a father?

2. Do you think that discrimination against gays will help or harm the children currently in their care?

take your time

I didn't answer that question because of how it was worded. Be specific, when you use the word "discrimination" what exactly are you talking about?

So you think that my post 972 is "funny" ??Please explain

I was laughing specifically about the line that said "punish children".... The irony.

What is so God damned funny about that?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

Of course they can. They already do in many cases. it is natural to not wish to interact with those who dislike you for whatever reason.

Should religious affiliation be removed from the protected classes list?

How about getting rid of protective classes altogether having them is discriminatory.

So who gets to discriminate? There’s only one propane company and one honey dipper that services where I live. Should they be able to discriminate? The only gas station? Grocery store?

It's a private business if they want to lose money by discrimination its their decision . I'm sure you are one of those with the "you didn't build that" mentality but no one has the right to tell private citizens how to run their own business certainly not the Fed. Nothing has ever been improved by the government getting involved.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan

 

[Silhouette]

It's a private business if they want to lose money by discrimination its their decision . I'm sure you are one of those with the "you didn't build that" mentality but no one has the right to tell private citizens how to run their own business certainly not the Fed. Nothing has ever been improved by the government getting involved.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan

As I said in another thread, the argument will be discrimination. The test will be if it is against something innate like race or gender; or something "gender fluid" about behaviors and lifestyles. There will be no traction for LGBT with "innate"; and their lifestyle will not be found to be Constitutionally dominant to free expression of religion; particularly when that expression is simply a passive refusal to promote another lifestyle because of how repugnant it is to that person's faith.

You cannot force people to condone or promote other people's value systems and lifestyles. That would be the state establishing a religion. And the Court indicated that in Colorado this seems to be exactly what is happening. They warned Colorado (and the other 49 states) :"Knock it off!"

By the way, speaking of that. How is it that California can ban a class called "Important Christians in History" in public schools that ties a person's accomplishments to their faith; while simultaneously forcing with no parental opt-out, children in public schools to take "Important gays in History" that ties a person's deviant sexuality to their accomplishments? Any scholars want to take a stab at whether or not that course is now illegal under this USSC decision on NEUTRALITY and states not establishing official ideologies to promote in the public?

 

[dblack]

It's a private business if they want to lose money by discrimination its their decision . I'm sure you are one of those with the "you didn't build that" mentality but no one has the right to tell private citizens how to run their own business certainly not the Fed. Nothing has ever been improved by the government getting involved.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan

As I said in another thread, the argument will be discrimination. The test will be if it is against something innate like race or gender; or something "gender fluid" about behaviors and lifestyles. There will be no traction for LGBT with "innate"; and their lifestyle will not be found to be Constitutionally dominant to free expression of religion; particularly when that expression is simply a passive refusal to promote another lifestyle because of how repugnant it is to that person's faith.

So, are you saying we should remove all protected classes that aren't innate - religion, citizenship, gender, veteran status, etc...?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

It's a private business if they want to lose money by discrimination its their decision . I'm sure you are one of those with the "you didn't build that" mentality but no one has the right to tell private citizens how to run their own business certainly not the Fed. Nothing has ever been improved by the government getting involved.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan

As I said in another thread, the argument will be discrimination. The test will be if it is against something innate like race or gender; or something "gender fluid" about behaviors and lifestyles. There will be no traction for LGBT with "innate"; and their lifestyle will not be found to be Constitutionally dominant to free expression of religion; particularly when that expression is simply a passive refusal to promote another lifestyle because of how repugnant it is to that person's faith.

So, are you saying we should remove all protected classes that aren't innate - religion, citizenship, gender, veteran status, etc...?

There should be no protected classes.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If anything, it is the "tolerance" crowd that is trying to stigmatize religion and are actually the oppressors, because they are trying to force everyone else to comply with their own beliefs.

Oh please. Give me a break. I do not give a rats hind parts about what you believe, and most people are smart enough to know that they cannot control anyone else's beliefs. The issue is how you behave towards, and treat others

I don't blame you for believing, or not believing what others do, what people are simply asking is, don't try to force your lifestyle on others who don't agree with it, and don't get bent out of shape when someone refuses to act the way they think you should act.

If a baker doesn't want to serve you due to religious convictions, then move along to the next baker, and stop trying to turn every case into discrimination when it's not. I'm not saying discrimination doesn't exist, but it's not around every corner when something doesn't go the way you want it to. I mean, if we're going to levy that charge any time our feathers get ruffled, well shoot, I can make a whole lot of people do things they don't want to do, based on discrimination.

And In this post, when I say "you", I don't mean you, I mean you as in general people.

That is quite an unhinged rant. What the hell do you mean by "my lifestyle"?? You don't know me and don't presume to. Discrimination in the name of religion is still discrimination. If a person is treated differently that another person based on characteristic, that is discrimination. Maybe there is not other baker that has what they want. Maybe there is no other baker at all. Maybe it is just an annoyance to go elsewhere. Think about how you would feel if it were you. People like you make me fucking crazy

 

[dblack]

It's a private business if they want to lose money by discrimination its their decision . I'm sure you are one of those with the "you didn't build that" mentality but no one has the right to tell private citizens how to run their own business certainly not the Fed. Nothing has ever been improved by the government getting involved.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan

As I said in another thread, the argument will be discrimination. The test will be if it is against something innate like race or gender; or something "gender fluid" about behaviors and lifestyles. There will be no traction for LGBT with "innate"; and their lifestyle will not be found to be Constitutionally dominant to free expression of religion; particularly when that expression is simply a passive refusal to promote another lifestyle because of how repugnant it is to that person's faith.

So, are you saying we should remove all protected classes that aren't innate - religion, citizenship, gender, veteran status, etc...?

There should be no protected classes.

I agree. But I'm curious about the reasoning of those trying to split hairs on what should, or should not be, a 'protected class'.