If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Syriusly]

This is all about gays taking advantage of legalized gay marriage to ...

Actually the thread is a challenge to our approach to civil rights - particularly, "public accommodations" and "protected classes". But of course it has devolved into a pissing match between the homophobes and the rainbow warriors.

Hey, I've been into discussing the protected classes dissection until the rainbow warriors showed up. Their job is to turn every thread of dissection into an ad hominem shouting-match distraction. The purpose is to STOP the dissection so nobody actually gets to the bottom of things. That's something they fear more than anything.

I've said that the dissection includes the USSC having to acknowledge (which they just did) that LGBT is behavioral, not innate and so others cannot be forced to condone, participate in or promote a repugnant ideology/behavior. Gay pride parades in front of kids (or including them) anyone?

Yes, you support protected classes and public accommodations laws, but only for the things that you support. You prop it up with half-baked rationalizations that add up to nothing more than "it's different when we do it".

The way I see it, the PC/PA approach to civil rights is pure social engineering. It has nothing to do with protecting rights and everything to do with controlling public opinion. It's tempting to cheer for this sort of thing when the you don't agree with the opinions being suppressed. But this kind of power will, inevitably, be used against your interests. It's a double-edged sword that is incompatible with free society.

/----/ So you agree a gay baker should be forced to sell a cake inscribed: Chapter 18 verse 22. "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

Or as Jeff Sessions put it
God tells you to follow the law- why do Christians not want to obey Romans 13?

 

[Syriusly]

This is all about gays taking advantage of legalized gay marriage to ...

Actually the thread is a challenge to our approach to civil rights - particularly, "public accommodations" and "protected classes". But of course it has devolved into a pissing match between the homophobes and the rainbow warriors.

I've said that the dissection includes the USSC having to acknowledge (which they just did) that LGBT is behavioral,

Why would the Supreme Court acknowledge that who a person is attracted to is 'behavorial'?

Not that it really matters since behaviors- such as religious practices- can be protected under public accomodation laws.

Now if you want to do away with the PA laws that protect Jews and Christians, blacks and whites, Mexicans and Poles- from discrimination from business's- along with gays- I don't have a huge issue with that.

 

[Seawytch]

There is no difference in a wedding cake bought by a straight couple than one bought by a gay couple other than the customers. The cake is just a cake.

Sure. And a gay pride parade is just a parade:

Like Mardi Gras?

 

[buttercup]

Oh you have been making that lie for a long time Silhouette.

Sorry to jump in here, but I want to ask... what in particular are you claiming he is lying about?

Are you denying that inappropriate behavior goes on at those parades and rallies, right in front of children?

Because he is correct, it does. Stuff that nobody in their right mind would do in front of children. That is not to say it happens at every single parade, but it does happen. Wouldn't you agree that shows a lack of judgment, or a terribly wrong mindset for a potential parent?

 

[dblack]

Anyway, no, I don't think any baker should be forced to do anything.

If the customers were refused because of their immutable innate race also?

Yeah. Immutable, innate, whatever. It shouldn't be up to government to second guess our reasons for not doing something.

 

[dblack]

Still doing your gay porn searches I see.

I think it's from his personal collection.

 

[Natural Citizen]

 

[Syriusly]

Oh you have been making that lie for a long time Silhouette.

Sorry to jump in here, but I want to ask... what in particular are you claiming he is lying about?

Are you denying that inappropriate behavior goes on at those parades and rallies, right in front of children?

Because he is correct, it does. Stuff that nobody in their right mind would do in front of children. That is not to say it happens at every single parade, but it does happen. Wouldn't you agree that shows a lack of judgment, or a terribly wrong mindset for a potential parent?

First of all- Silhouette is a she- and I have been confronting Silhouette's homophobic lies for years.

The specific lie I was pointing out was this:
the LGBT lifestylists defend public graphic acts of sex where they invite and hope children are watching ".

I have yet to see anyone 'defend' public graphic acts of sex- nor is there any evidence at all- other than the voices in her head- that anyone is inviting children to watch public sex acts.

Now does public sex happen at times? Certainly- the only times I have observed it in my very, very gay city, was drunk straight couples.
Does it happen other times- I am sure it has- but I have lived here for over 20 years and that is my experience.

I have been to our Gay Pride Parade maybe a dozen times- and have never once seen 'public graphic acts of sex'. I have seen nudity- I have seen suggestiveness- but I came expecting to see it. Now some parents would find nudity offensive- and those parents don't bring their kids to these parades. These parades are really intended for adults but kids are not prohibitted.

Silhouette has never been to a single parade- she web surfs looking for gay porn that appears to be part of a gay parade. She knows nothing about what happens at a Pride Parade- and doesn't really care- all of this is just another of your baker's dozen of methods to attack gays.

She lies- all the time. Sometimes I don't know whether she is just delusional, but they are falsehoods just the same.

Have you seen where she accuses Dylan Roof- the kid who shot up the Charleston Church- of being secretely gay and doing the shooting because of gay marriage?

Where she says that the Pope was blackmailed into resigning by the gay?

Those are just the more outragious- most of her lies are more mundane and repeated over and over.

 

[dblack]

Oh you have been making that lie for a long time Silhouette.

Sorry to jump in here, but I want to ask... what in particular are you claiming he is lying about?

Are you denying that inappropriate behavior goes on at those parades and rallies, right in front of children?

Because he is correct, it does. Stuff that nobody in their right mind would do in front of children. That is not to say it happens at every single parade, but it does happen. Wouldn't you agree that shows a lack of judgment, or a terribly wrong mindset for a potential parent?

First of all- Silhouette is a she- and I have been confronting Silhouette's homophobic lies for years.

That's odd. Women aren't usually fixated on porn.

 

[Silhouette]

Just google "gay pride" and it takes you straight to gay porn. Odd isn't it?

 

[Silhouette]

That's odd. Women aren't usually fixated on porn.

Like I told Syriusly, you don't google "gay porn", you just google "gay pride parade" and you get gay porn. How about that?

And BTW, the Mardis Gras photos aren't showing a parade of sober "proud" adults hoping that children will be watching their drunken antics partying on the streets of New Orleans. Pride parades are held in nearly every town across the US, every year since the 1960s, hoping children will be attending, in broad daylight, sober and doing lewd sex acts for their minor viewers with great glee and gusto as endemic to their LGBT culture as a whole.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ And no law can compel anyone to condone or support a lifestyle with those values so clearly & brazenly advertised so regularly for well over 40 years now.

Ever once hear of any of their membership denouncing these displays? Me neither.

 

[Silhouette]

Boy are you missing the point (Which is not at all surprising) and not keeping up with the conversation.

Why should anti gay bigots be given religious exemption from laws that we don't give racist bigots?

Because blacks aren't born instinctively compelled to put on public parades of deviant sex acts year after year where they hope for and invite children to be watching?

It's sort of an innate vs behavioral argument Syriusly. The USSC just broadly hinted to you with this decision that they see the two as distinctively different classes to be handled differently in law. That's because in the US, the state cannot force what is essentially an ideology on other people; nor can they punish other people for refusing to join that ideology by not condoning it, participating in it or promoting it. It's called the 1st Amendment and where it's concerned, you'd better believe the USSC carefully dissects "what makes a class a class".

In your case that is "behaviors". I'm sorry to inform you that your false premise has been exposed. I know it takes time to work through the grief process now that the false premise has died. But "acceptance" will come eventually, even to you.

 

[dblack]

Because blacks aren't born instinctively compelled to put on public parades of deviant sex acts year after year where they hope for and invite children to be watching?

Why do you keep watching these parades?

 

[mdk]

But "acceptance" will come eventually, even to you.

She said added her during three year long meltdown over Obergefell.

Medice, cura te ipsum!

 

[Silhouette]

Because blacks aren't born instinctively compelled to put on public parades of deviant sex acts year after year where they hope for and invite children to be watching?

Why do you keep watching these parades?

Nice strawman. When you're ready to address how blacks aren't born instinctively wanting to do deviant sex acts in public every year for decades now where they invite and hope kids will be watching, come back and join the conversation.

The conversation and point is: LGBT is a deviant repugnant lifestyle and not innate.

 

[dblack]

The conversation and point is: LGBT is a deviant repugnant lifestyle and not innate.

That's not the topic of the thread. That's your sick obsession.

 

[Silhouette]

The conversation and point is: LGBT is a deviant repugnant lifestyle and not innate.

That's not the topic of the thread. That's your sick obsession.

No, that actually IS the topic of the thread. If this had been a baker turning away a wedding cake because either of the couple were black (innate) the decision would have been completely different. And you know it.

 

[dblack]

The conversation and point is: LGBT is a deviant repugnant lifestyle and not innate.

That's not the topic of the thread. That's your sick obsession.

No, that actually IS the topic of the thread. If this had been a baker turning away a wedding cake because either of the couple were black (innate) the decision would have been completely different. And you know it.

Nope. I created the thread. I know what the topic is. It's not your sexual fixations.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is all about gays taking advantage of legalized gay marriage to ...

Actually the thread is a challenge to our approach to civil rights - particularly, "public accommodations" and "protected classes". But of course it has devolved into a pissing match between the homophobes and the rainbow warriors.

Hey, I've been into discussing the protected classes dissection until the rainbow warriors showed up. Their job is to turn every thread of dissection into an ad hominem shouting-match distraction. The purpose is to STOP the dissection so nobody actually gets to the bottom of things. That's something they fear more than anything.

I've said that the dissection includes the USSC having to acknowledge (which they just did) that LGBT is behavioral, not innate and so others cannot be forced to condone, participate in or promote a repugnant ideology/behavior. Gay pride parades in front of kids (or including them) anyone?

Yes, you support protected classes and public accommodations laws, but only for the things that you support. You prop it up with half-baked rationalizations that add up to nothing more than "it's different when we do it".

The way I see it, the PC/PA approach to civil rights is pure social engineering. It has nothing to do with protecting rights and everything to do with controlling public opinion. It's tempting to cheer for this sort of thing when the you don't agree with the opinions being suppressed. But this kind of power will, inevitably, be used against your interests. It's a double-edged sword that is incompatible with free society.

/----/ So you agree a gay baker should be forced to sell a cake inscribed: Chapter 18 verse 22. "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

That'd be one hell of a big cake.