If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Silhouette]

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

No, I'm saying that when tested against each other, innate will win and behavioral will not.

Scenario 1: Two black heteros walk into a cake shop and the baker says "no, we don't believe in black weddings". That's illegal because the two blacks couldn't anymore help or change the color of their skin than a zebra could lose its stripes.

Scenario 2: Two black gay men walk into a cake shop and the baker says "no, we don't believe in gay weddings". Then it's the baker objecting to a lifestyle, adopted after birth and become habitual.

Lifestyles vs religion: religion has dominant rights. Race vs religion: race has dominant rights. And the difference is innate vs behavioral.

 

[Pop23]

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'.

I can see the reasoning that we have them, but the problem is, they never go away. A class may need a boost to deal with past injustice, but at some point, those injustices become a thing of the past, yet the class status remains. Even more troubling is that, some within the class have profited from promoting what might be injustice at a very minimal level, so they don't quit making profit off the status.

 

[jc456]

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.

the animal doesn't complain.

 

[Seawytch]

... 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

They are not concerned with losing that one customer, but that customer has no other option. I guess minorities just have to pump their own shit and grow their own food, right?

 

[Pop23]

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.

the animal doesn't complain.

Joe reads animals minds? Why am I not surprised?

 

[dblack]

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

No, I'm saying that when tested against each other, innate will win and behavioral will not.

Scenario 1: Two black heteros walk into a cake shop and the baker says "no, we don't believe in black weddings". That's illegal because the two blacks couldn't anymore help or change the color of their skin than a zebra could lose its stripes.

Scenario 2: Two black gay men walk into a cake shop and the baker says "no, we don't believe in gay weddings". Then it's the baker objecting to a lifestyle, adopted after birth and become habitual.

Lifestyles vs religion: religion has dominant rights. Race vs religion: race has dominant rights. And the difference is innate vs behavioral.

Huh?

Getting back to the actual topic of the thread, you've never been clear. If it's ok to discriminate against someone based on their non-innate, non-immutable sexual habits, then it should also be ok to discriminate against them because of their non-innate, non-immutable religious practices, right?

 

[jc456]

No, you just described procreation. Procreation does not require sex therefore does not require heterosexuality.

Heterosexuality is not required for parenting or procrastination. I'm sorry if this somehow makes you feel less of a man, but that's your problem.

sure it is. why the fk you think we have so many kids fked up. Either missing a mother or a father. yep, statistics say kids need one of each for development and maturity.

Why Children Need a Male and Female Parent | Cornerstone Family Council

• "The cooperative input and influence of a male parent and a female parent is essential for proper child development.
• “As fathering expert Dr. Kyle Pruett of YaleMedicalSchool explains in Fatherneed: Why Father Care is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child, “fathers do not mother.” Psychology Today explains, “fatherhood turns out to be a complex and unique phenomenon with huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children.” A father, as a male parent, brings unique contributions to the parenting project.
• Likewise, a mother, as a female, uniquely impacts the life and development of her child, as Dr. Brenda Hunter explains in her book, The Power of Mother Love: Transforming Both Mother and Child. Erik Erikson, a pioneer in the world of child psychology, explained that father love and mother love are qualitatively different kinds of love. As cited in Kyle D. Pruett, The Nurturing Father, (New York: Warner Books, 1987), p. 49."

Divorce is why so many kids are “fucked up”. Kids do best with two parents. The gender is immaterial.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121135904.htm

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."

As I said.

If evidence is proffered that shows a high probability that children suffer from some psychological or developmental defect based SOLELY on the fact that their parents are same-sex, I will reconsider.

But I will bet the motherfucking farm that no such evidence will ever be produced, even if there is underlying truth to such a claim (there's not). The study would need to include hetero families and somehow exclude all the other factors or potential factors. Nobody would pay for such a study anyway, so I think we can put the issue to bed.

So what you're saying is that because no one is willing to pay for the research, and everyone's too afraid to DO the research because they don't want to be called "homophobic", that must mean there's nothing to research?

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, smear review. that means absolutely nothing. Not a damn thing. stick that word back in the book you pulled it from.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

You can't be serious with this. You don't know that there are tangible benefits to legal, government recognized marriage? I know, you going to say something like government should be out of the marriage issue. I'm not going there

The fact is that the same sex marriage issue was about equality with opposite sex partners, but you knew that, didn't you?

 

[Pop23]

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

They are not concerned with losing that one customer, but that customer has no other option. I guess minorities just have to pump their own shit and grow their own food, right?

Cake is not essential to life. But this is funny in a way. The reason a Wedding Cake is Historically the centerpiece of a wedding is so the Bride and Groom is ensured fertility.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.'

That is quite a rant brother. You're kind of all over the map. Peer review, marriage discrimination, freedom of association. Get organized.

 

[Pop23]

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.

You can't be serious with this. You don't know that there are tangible benefits to legal, government recognized marriage? I know, you going to say something like government should be out of the marriage issue. I'm not going there

The fact is that the same sex marriage issue was about equality with opposite sex partners, but you knew that, didn't you?

The two types are not equal in the first place, and the wedding cake (a symbol of the blessing of fertility upon the Bride and Groom) is, Ironically, the perfect thing to point this difference out.

 

[jc456]

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.

You can't be serious with this. You don't know that there are tangible benefits to legal, government recognized marriage? I know, you going to say something like government should be out of the marriage issue. I'm not going there

The fact is that the same sex marriage issue was about equality with opposite sex partners, but you knew that, didn't you?

no it wasn't. it was about being able to get the same benefits that married couples got from the government. Sickness stuff, and IRS tax stuff. Yeah they should be able to get all of that, but it isn't marriage that should allow it. Marriage is between a man and a wife. PERIOD, and stop trying to change what exists. fking leftists, can't stand your sorry asses.

 

[Pop23]

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.

You can't be serious with this. You don't know that there are tangible benefits to legal, government recognized marriage? I know, you going to say something like government should be out of the marriage issue. I'm not going there

The fact is that the same sex marriage issue was about equality with opposite sex partners, but you knew that, didn't you?

no it wasn't it was about being able to get the same benefits that married couples got from the government. Sickness stuff, and IRS tax stuff. Yeah they should be able to get all of that, but it isn't marriage that should allow it. Marriage is between a man and a wife. PERIOD, and stop trying to change what exists. fking leftists can't stand your sorry asses.

They are simply looking for acceptance? Why else would they even want a symbol of fertility anywhere close to a same sex wedding? Seems to go against everything they want

 

[jc456]

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.

You can't be serious with this. You don't know that there are tangible benefits to legal, government recognized marriage? I know, you going to say something like government should be out of the marriage issue. I'm not going there

The fact is that the same sex marriage issue was about equality with opposite sex partners, but you knew that, didn't you?

no it wasn't it was about being able to get the same benefits that married couples got from the government. Sickness stuff, and IRS tax stuff. Yeah they should be able to get all of that, but it isn't marriage that should allow it. Marriage is between a man and a wife. PERIOD, and stop trying to change what exists. fking leftists can't stand your sorry asses.

They are simply looking for acceptance? Why else would they even want a symbol of fertility anywhere close to a same sex wedding? Seems to go against everything they want

they wish to change what is normal. The left allow it and spank the right cause we want what is normal. Marriage is man and wife. every document under the moon says so.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

I genuinly empathize with those who are victims of discrimination.

What I ask them to do is let freedom take priority to the greatest extent possible, and find a solution that preserves freedom above all else.

In the situation at hand, I am asking gay couples to let bigoted assholes have their liberty. I don't like it either, but there is a much more important primciple I wish to preserve. I am asking you to trust liberty and have faith in people.

It takes courage to put faith in people and trust that, for the most part, they will treat others with respect and dignity in the marketplace. Applying government force is the antithesis of faith in people and the enemy of liberty. Using force to get what you want allow others to use force to get what they want, until liberty is dead.

If gay couples would demonstrate their support for liberty and openly support the right of the bigot baker to refuse service, many, including the bigot baker, will appreciate it, and many bigots, including the baker, could have a change of heart and recognize their error.

It happened to me. I am living proof that liberty is reciprocated. Liberty is powerful.

 

[Pop23]

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.

You can't be serious with this. You don't know that there are tangible benefits to legal, government recognized marriage? I know, you going to say something like government should be out of the marriage issue. I'm not going there

The fact is that the same sex marriage issue was about equality with opposite sex partners, but you knew that, didn't you?

no it wasn't it was about being able to get the same benefits that married couples got from the government. Sickness stuff, and IRS tax stuff. Yeah they should be able to get all of that, but it isn't marriage that should allow it. Marriage is between a man and a wife. PERIOD, and stop trying to change what exists. fking leftists can't stand your sorry asses.

They are simply looking for acceptance? Why else would they even want a symbol of fertility anywhere close to a same sex wedding? Seems to go against everything they want

they wish to change what is normal. The left allow it and spank the right cause we want what is normal. Marriage is man and wife. every document under the moon says so.

It amazed me during this whole debate how people fought against "Civil Union". It is the secular version that cures everything. Anyone should have some kind of right to bind themselves to each other, but what we chose to do was to bring religious overtones into a purely secular governmental authority. Made no sense prior to Obergfell, make no sense now.

And, one claiming discrimination because of something related to Marriage, based on sexuality is equally nutty as "Marriage" exempts sexuality in the first place.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

They are not concerned with losing that one customer, but that customer has no other option. I guess minorities just have to pump their own shit and grow their own food, right

Will you stand with me and defend my right to free speech?

Will you defend that freedom for David Duke? John Rocker? The Westbouough Baptist Church?

If you will not defend any of those, you have failed the trial of liberty.

It's easy to defend the liberty of those with whom you agree. A true demonstration of committment to liberty is defending the rights of assholes.

In doing so, many, many others will follow.

 

[jc456]

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.

You can't be serious with this. You don't know that there are tangible benefits to legal, government recognized marriage? I know, you going to say something like government should be out of the marriage issue. I'm not going there

The fact is that the same sex marriage issue was about equality with opposite sex partners, but you knew that, didn't you?

no it wasn't it was about being able to get the same benefits that married couples got from the government. Sickness stuff, and IRS tax stuff. Yeah they should be able to get all of that, but it isn't marriage that should allow it. Marriage is between a man and a wife. PERIOD, and stop trying to change what exists. fking leftists can't stand your sorry asses.

They are simply looking for acceptance? Why else would they even want a symbol of fertility anywhere close to a same sex wedding? Seems to go against everything they want

they wish to change what is normal. The left allow it and spank the right cause we want what is normal. Marriage is man and wife. every document under the moon says so.

It amazed me during this whole debate how people fought against "Civil Union". It is the secular version that cures everything. Anyone should have some kind of right to bind themselves to each other, but what we chose to do was to bring religious overtones into a purely secular governmental authority. Made no sense prior to Obergfell, make no sense now.

And, one claiming discrimination because of something related to Marriage, based on sexuality is equally nutty as "Marriage" exempts sexuality in the first place.

Well said....

 

[jc456]

They are not concerned with losing that one customer, but that customer has no other option. I guess minorities just have to pump their own shit and grow their own food, right

Will you stand with me and defend my right to free speech?

Will you defend that freedom for David Duke? John Rocker? The Westbouough Baptist Church?

If you will not defend any of those, you have failed the trial of liberty.

It's easy to defend the liberty of those with whom you agree. A true demonstration of committment to liberty is defending the rights of assholes.

In doing so, many, many others will follow.

 

[Seawytch]

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

They are not concerned with losing that one customer, but that customer has no other option. I guess minorities just have to pump their own shit and grow their own food, right?

Cake is not essential to life. But this is funny in a way. The reason a Wedding Cake is Historically the centerpiece of a wedding is so the Bride and Groom is ensured fertility.

Nobody said it is essential to life. Why should one private business be allowed to legally discriminate and not another?

You really just pull shit out of your ass don’t you?

One of the first traditions began in Ancient Rome where bread was broken over the bride’s head to bring good fortune to the couple.[2]

Wedding cake was originally a luxury item, and a sign of celebration and social status. The bigger the cake, the higher the social standing. Wedding cakes in England and early America were traditionally fruit cakes, often topped with marzipan and icing with tiers, Cutting the cake was an important part of the reception. White icing was also a symbol of money and social importance in Victorian times, so a white cake was highly desired.[3] Today, many flavors and configurations are available in addition to the traditional all-white tiered cake.[4]

In Medieval England cakes were stacked as high as possible for the bride and groom to kiss over. A successful kiss meant they were guaranteed a prosperous life together.[2] From this the Croquembouche was created.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_cake