Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
My cousin is gay. I honestly believe he tried to be straight, because his family and everyone around him POUNDED it in his head that he had to be straight. He even dated girls, but the most common complain on breakup was that he lacked passion (wonder why?). That guy had NO CONTROL over his orientation. NONE.A gay person has no control over which sexual orientation he or she will be. Ok?
Good thing he didn't just settle and marry some poor girl, only to completely ruin her life later when he discovered that he can't continue lying to himself.
The bakers do not believe it would put their soul in jeopardy to bake a cake for a homo. That's total horseshit, and I have demonstrated the reasons why that is total horseshit several times in this topic.Some want to force others to serve them and do their bidding, including and especially when they are told to do something that they believe puts their soul in jeopardy.The consequence of that distinction is exactly the same.We can't force them not to be bigots. But we can force them not to discriminate.
It's forcing someone to serve another against their will, but only if they want to refuse service for some reason SOME PEOPLE find offensive and mean.
It's the same bullshit.
Example:
I can refuse service to someone because I don't like their ugly hair. But, if I refuse service because I don't like their sexual orientation, I must be punished.
What about discrimination against people with bad hair?
Some want to force others to be nice. That ALL this shit is about.
THAT'S what this is about.
The bakers do not believe it would put their soul in jeopardy to bake a cake for a homo. That's total horseshit, and I have demonstrated the reasons why that is total horseshit several times in this topic.Some want to force others to serve them and do their bidding, including and especially when they are told to do something that they believe puts their soul in jeopardy.The consequence of that distinction is exactly the same.We can't force them not to be bigots. But we can force them not to discriminate.
It's forcing someone to serve another against their will, but only if they want to refuse service for some reason SOME PEOPLE find offensive and mean.
It's the same bullshit.
Example:
I can refuse service to someone because I don't like their ugly hair. But, if I refuse service because I don't like their sexual orientation, I must be punished.
What about discrimination against people with bad hair?
Some want to force others to be nice. That ALL this shit is about.
THAT'S what this is about.
Of course it's bullshit. A lot of them are clinging to that, because they don't understand the First Amendment. The irony is that, while it's not a freedom of religion issue, it is a freedom of speech issue. They're not stoically maintaining their faith - they're protesting gay marriage.
Well, they're stupidity and intransigence is going to get the same result as happened 50 years ago.The bakers do not believe it would put their soul in jeopardy to bake a cake for a homo. That's total horseshit, and I have demonstrated the reasons why that is total horseshit several times in this topic.Some want to force others to serve them and do their bidding, including and especially when they are told to do something that they believe puts their soul in jeopardy.The consequence of that distinction is exactly the same.We can't force them not to be bigots. But we can force them not to discriminate.
It's forcing someone to serve another against their will, but only if they want to refuse service for some reason SOME PEOPLE find offensive and mean.
It's the same bullshit.
Example:
I can refuse service to someone because I don't like their ugly hair. But, if I refuse service because I don't like their sexual orientation, I must be punished.
What about discrimination against people with bad hair?
Some want to force others to be nice. That ALL this shit is about.
THAT'S what this is about.
Of course it's bullshit. A lot of them are clinging to that, because they don't understand the First Amendment. The irony is that, while it's not a freedom of religion issue, it is a freedom of speech issue. They're not stoically maintaining their faith - they're protesting gay marriage.
Agreed.If these hypocritical bakers stopped baking cakes for people who have divorced and are therefore adulterers, their business model would immediately implode. They'd be out of business.
So their arguments are horseshit. This is about hate. It has nothing to do with loving Jesus or the bible or the First Amendment.
Public Accommodation laws are laws. Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc have to abide by them. We've been down this road before.
Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 256 F. Supp. 941 (D.S.C. 1966)
Defendant Bessinger further contends that the Act violates his freedom of religion under the First Amendment "since his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."[...]
Neither is the court impressed by defendant Bessinger's contention that the judicial enforcement of the public accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 upon which this suit is predicated violates the free exercise of his religious beliefs in contravention of the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is unquestioned that the First Amendment prohibits compulsion by law of any creed or the practice of any form of religion, but it also safeguards the free exercise of one's chosen religion. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S. Ct. 1261, 8 L. Ed. 2d 601 (1962). The free exercise of one's beliefs, however, as distinguished from the absolute right to a belief, is subject to regulation when religious acts require accommodation to society. United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944) (Mails to defraud); Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L. Ed. 244 (1878) (polygamy conviction); Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S. Ct. 438, 88 L. Ed. 645 (1943) (minor in company of ward distributing religious literature in violation of statute). Undoubtedly defendant Bessinger has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens. This court refuses to lend credence or support to his position that he has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of the Negro race in his business establishments upon the ground that to do so would violate his sacred religious beliefs.
Bastardizing religion will often lead to these decisions. I object to the use of religion, when it's use is stupidly applied as well.
Sorry, but those were their sincerely held religious beliefs. They believed the Bible instructed them not to serve blacks just as deeply as today’s bigots believe it does for gays. (But not formerly divorced couples)
And in that case the courts saw through that charade.
And they may well see through the anti gay bigots charade as well. The recent SCOTUS case didn’t test it.
We will have to see. However, in the racial case, I'm not sure that it would be that hard to, through discovery and investigation, to simply determine that his bias was simply based on something other than religious belief.
Well, the ugly hair people can always band together and demand their rights, too.The consequence of that distinction is exactly the same.We can't force them not to be bigots. But we can force them not to discriminate.
It's forcing someone to serve another against their will, but only if they want to refuse service for some reason SOME PEOPLE find offensive and mean.
It's the same bullshit.
Example:
I can refuse service to someone because I don't like their ugly hair. But, if I refuse service because I don't like their sexual orientation, I must be punished.
What about discrimination against people with bad hair?
Some want to force others to be nice. That ALL this shit is about.
Donald Trump can be their leader.
well they aren't equal. why would they be? you're attempting to tell everyone that a circle and a square are equal. they aren't bubba.well your option 1 and 2 can be easily resolved using the court to give permission in a contract to include someone in your health choices.marriage to government is about property.Privileges are bestowed by government. Rights exist solely by nature of the individual's existence (God given for the religious).
Privileges require application and permission. Rights already exist.
It's a bit more than that.
1. It also gives rights to access in cases of Hospitalization
2. It gives one partner the right to make medical decisions should the other partner be unable to decide on their own
and for some reason
3. Restricts closely related individual from entering the contract. However, it is not clear how this would apply, or if it is even enforceable with same sex couples.
Separate but equal was ruled unconstitutional. Civil marriage vs civil unions was separate and unequal.
https://family.findlaw.com/domestic-partnerships/civil-unions-v-marriage.html
But, it's not a right. No one has the right to the services of another.Well, the ugly hair people can always band together and demand their rights, too.
Donald Trump can be their leader.
well try to purchase a home with her not getting any of the say in it. any property you purchase while married is automatically 50% hers. Same with any money made, earned and or saved.along with the goodies was the loss of rights. you should at least know the whole position if you wish to discuss. It was posted in this thread already. personal individuality is lost.You didn’t answer the question. Did you only marry in a church or did you get the state issued marriage license? Gays had been marrying for decades without the goodies you straight folks got.
What in the holy fuck are you babbling about, or trying to get at? "Only marry in a church"? What the hell does that mean, or have to do with anything?
And the only "goody" heterosexuals have that homosexuals don't is the general opinion that our relationships are normal. Personally, I don't give a shit.
The goodies are what you straight people decided went along with civil marriage. Hundreds of rights, benefits and privileges that are associated with civil marriage and gays have equal access to them, so you're right, we get the goodies too. Oh, and the general opinion nowadays is that our relationships are normal. Welcome to the 21st Century.
I haven’t lost any rights by legally marrying my wife. I gained many. Thank you Windsor and Obergefell.
no it isn't. sorry bubba. that's just your opinion. I don't share it.well they aren't equal. why would they be? you're attempting to tell everyone that a circle and a square are equal. they aren't bubba.well your option 1 and 2 can be easily resolved using the court to give permission in a contract to include someone in your health choices.marriage to government is about property.
It's a bit more than that.
1. It also gives rights to access in cases of Hospitalization
2. It gives one partner the right to make medical decisions should the other partner be unable to decide on their own
and for some reason
3. Restricts closely related individual from entering the contract. However, it is not clear how this would apply, or if it is even enforceable with same sex couples.
Separate but equal was ruled unconstitutional. Civil marriage vs civil unions was separate and unequal.
https://family.findlaw.com/domestic-partnerships/civil-unions-v-marriage.html
Your personal opinion means nothing. Legally they are the same.
sure it is to spend your money. sure it is. just like getting rid of anything she may have purchased. property in marriage is equal. you lose your right to do what you would want to do with property no matter how you feel.well try to purchase a home with her not getting any of the say in it. any property you purchase while married is automatically 50% hers. Same with any money made, earned and or saved.along with the goodies was the loss of rights. you should at least know the whole position if you wish to discuss. It was posted in this thread already. personal individuality is lost.What in the holy fuck are you babbling about, or trying to get at? "Only marry in a church"? What the hell does that mean, or have to do with anything?
And the only "goody" heterosexuals have that homosexuals don't is the general opinion that our relationships are normal. Personally, I don't give a shit.
The goodies are what you straight people decided went along with civil marriage. Hundreds of rights, benefits and privileges that are associated with civil marriage and gays have equal access to them, so you're right, we get the goodies too. Oh, and the general opinion nowadays is that our relationships are normal. Welcome to the 21st Century.
I haven’t lost any rights by legally marrying my wife. I gained many. Thank you Windsor and Obergefell.
That’s not a right. I’ve not given up any rights and, in fact gained the right to marry.
Oh, but, see. It was hetero adultery, so it's forgivable. Homo sex? Jesus is not powerful enough to overcome such an egregious abomination.I'll tell you who has no control. Guys like Donald Trump who can't stop committing adultery. Yet I don't hear any of these alleged biblically compliant bigots complaining about it. Ever.
Jesus is weak.
That's why I am not Christian. Complete and total hypocrisy.
I had to google Rumor Willis.But, it's not a right. No one has the right to the services of another.Well, the ugly hair people can always band together and demand their rights, too.
Donald Trump can be their leader.
Otherwise, The Don should team up with Rumor Willis and start demanding more government force.
I had to google Rumor Willis.Otherwise, The Don should team up with Rumor Willis and start demanding more government force.
I found a Rumer Willis and I still don't get the reference.
Anyway, I am not happy about the government telling businesses who they must serve. However, the sense of fairness and rightness in me can't help but be sympathetic to the gay customers.
So you only got married in a church? You don't file joint taxes or get those insurance discounts? Not going to take his SS if he goes first?I still stand with Dr. Thomas Sowell on this subject, and say that marriage is not some goody box of gifts and bennies from the government, and anyone who thinks it is either is terminally stupid, or is REALLY not doing marriage correctly.
Like I said, if you really think, "Gosh, married people have so many advantages over single people 'cause of joint income tax filing and Social Security survivor benefits", you're a moron, and/or you are seriously ignorant about what marriage ACTUALLY is and what it's for. I've been saying this pretty much from the beginning of homosexuals saying, "We have to have legal marital sanction so that we're getting in on the goodies!"
Dr. Sowell wrote this back in 2005, but leaving aside the dated current event references, the underlying principles are still correct:
Gay Marriage 'Rights' Are Nonsensical | Human Events
Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have.
People who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. They can divide up their worldly belongings 50-50 or 90-10 or whatever other way they want. They can make their union temporary or permanent or subject to cancellation at any time.
Marriage is a restriction. If my wife buys an automobile with her own money, under California marriage laws I automatically own half of it, whether or not my name is on the title. Whether that law is good, bad, or indifferent, it is a limitation of our freedom to arrange such things as we ourselves might choose. This is just one of many decisions that marriage laws take out of our hands.
He wrote this in 2006:
Thomas Sowell - Gay "marriage"
Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.
In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.
Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other -- and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.
In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet "gay marriage" advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.
This is the standpoint with which I was agreeing earlier: from a legal standpoint, marriage is not an expansion of rights, a smorgasbord of extra goodies to which only married people are entitled; it is a restriction, legally speaking, and all those "benefits" people keep yammering on about are really just a legal recognition of that.
You didn’t answer the question. Did you only marry in a church or did you get the state issued marriage license? Gays had been marrying for decades without the goodies you straight folks got.
What in the holy fuck are you babbling about, or trying to get at? "Only marry in a church"? What the hell does that mean, or have to do with anything?
And the only "goody" heterosexuals have that homosexuals don't is the general opinion that our relationships are normal. Personally, I don't give a shit.
The goodies are what you straight people decided went along with civil marriage. Hundreds of rights, benefits and privileges that are associated with civil marriage and gays have equal access to them, so you're right, we get the goodies too. Oh, and the general opinion nowadays is that our relationships are normal. Welcome to the 21st Century.
If I wasn't already pitying that person, I would do so on the basis of you thinking the major operative purpose of "marriage" is joint tax filing.
no it isn't. sorry bubba. that's just your opinion. I don't share it.well they aren't equal. why would they be? you're attempting to tell everyone that a circle and a square are equal. they aren't bubba.well your option 1 and 2 can be easily resolved using the court to give permission in a contract to include someone in your health choices.It's a bit more than that.
1. It also gives rights to access in cases of Hospitalization
2. It gives one partner the right to make medical decisions should the other partner be unable to decide on their own
and for some reason
3. Restricts closely related individual from entering the contract. However, it is not clear how this would apply, or if it is even enforceable with same sex couples.
Separate but equal was ruled unconstitutional. Civil marriage vs civil unions was separate and unequal.
https://family.findlaw.com/domestic-partnerships/civil-unions-v-marriage.html
Your personal opinion means nothing. Legally they are the same.
Who cares if it's unnatural or unhealthy? That desire still not a choice.Pedophiles say the exact same thing. "This is just the way I am, I can't change who I am attracted to" etc. etc. Now, to make this crystal clear, I am not equating the two. I'm just saying that merely claiming that one can't change their sexual orientation doesn't automatically make that orientation natural, or healthy.
It was just a joke.
But God forbid you make sense.
