If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Why would that be different? Either you believe people should have First Amendment freedoms, or you don't.

 

[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?

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.

Thank you for the clarification. I haven't seen anyone defend it either… But I also haven't seen anyone condemn it. What I have been seeing is people acting like it doesn't happen, or not responding at all, or trying to turn the tables on her and accusing her of being a perverted sicko. Oh, and pointing to things like Mardi Gras, as a response.

And no, I haven't seen any of those wild claims… I don't post here that much, and only came back recently.

BTW, what city do you live in? I used to live in San Francisco, and a friend of mine was a professional photographer. He asked me a couple times if I wanted to accompany him to a couple of those pride events. That was many years ago, but I was kind of blown away by how much rated R (to put it mildly) stuff was right out there in the open, on a public street. Stuff that no one should have to see in public… Let alone a child.

 

[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 is compelling speech, a different issue. 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.

Seems to me that's the crux of the issue: YOU insist that it's no different, and DEMAND that everyone else think that, as well. But not everyone does.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Do you actually know people who take their children along to this sort of thing?

Well, okay, YOU probably do.

 

[koshergrl]

Sociologists encouraging parents to facilitate and encourage children who are *exploring*...

Univ. of Cali, Santa Barbara:

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

They're kinda hard to avoid. The Pride Festival in Phoenix sucks up multiple city blocks, RIGHT in the middle of the metropolitan area, for an entire weekend. And that's not counting all the people from the other areas of the city in transit to it. The only way to avoid it is to hide under your bed that weekend.

 

[koshergrl]

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?

Do you actually know people who take their children along to this sort of thing?

Well, okay, YOU probably do.

Traffickers, pimps, slavers, and perverts.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Maybe. Probably. But it shouldn't be. We honestly need to get over this crybaby mentality in this country that tells us we have some god-given right to never, ever hear or be aware of thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors we don't like. And the accompanying fairy-tale mentality that tells us if we just hide bad things under the bed or in the closet, they'll stop existing.

 

[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?

They're kinda hard to avoid. The Pride Festival in Phoenix sucks up multiple city blocks, RIGHT in the middle of the metropolitan area, for an entire weekend. And that's not counting all the people from the other areas of the city in transit to it. The only way to avoid it is to hide under your bed that weekend.

Huh. I've never actually sat and watched one. But, as has been noted, there's no such thing as a right to not be offended. Don't like the parades? Don't watch.

 

[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?

Do you actually know people who take their children along to this sort of thing?

Well, okay, YOU probably do.

It's New Orleans in the middle of the day. Children are there.

 

[Silhouette]

Why would that be different? Either you believe people should have First Amendment freedoms, or you don't.

Well this is the tangle the USSC is going to have to unravel. Race & gender are immutable & faultless. Ideologies on the other hand are adopted & often come into conflict with each other.

That's how I would deliberate the mess if I was a Justice. You'll never get a verdict though that says one ideology must shelve its faith or beliefs in order to condone or promote another. On that you can hang your hat. But race & gender are not ideologies.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why would that be different? Either you believe people should have First Amendment freedoms, or you don't.

Well this is the tangle the USSC is going to have to unravel. Race & gender are immutable & faultless. Ideologies on the other hand are adopted & often come into conflict with each other.

That's how I would deliberate the mess if I was a Justice. You'll never get a verdict though that says one ideology must shelve its faith or beliefs in order to condone or promote another. On that you can hang your hat. But race & gender are not ideologies.

And I don't think freedom of speech and freedom of association apply just to ideologies, and become irrelevant when dealing with race, gender, whatever. I think I would rather have people be honest and up-front about what they think, and I think I trust Americans in general enough to think it will sort itself out with government-mandated "morality".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why would that be different? Either you believe people should have First Amendment freedoms, or you don't.

Well this is the tangle the USSC is going to have to unravel. Race & gender are immutable & faultless. Ideologies on the other hand are adopted & often come into conflict with each other.

That's how I would deliberate the mess if I was a Justice. You'll never get a verdict though that says one ideology must shelve its faith or beliefs in order to condone or promote another. On that you can hang your hat. But race & gender are not ideologies.

And I don't think freedom of speech and freedom of association apply just to ideologies, and become irrelevant when dealing with race, gender, whatever. I think I would rather have people be honest and up-front about what they think, and I think I trust Americans in general enough to think it will sort itself out with government-mandated "morality".

Sorry, that should be "without government-mandated 'morality'." Been a long day.

 

[Silhouette]

And I don't think freedom of speech and freedom of association apply just to ideologies, and become irrelevant when dealing with race, gender, whatever. I think I would rather have people be honest and up-front about what they think, and I think I trust Americans in general enough to think it will sort itself out with government-mandated "morality".

That sounds good but it's not where the Court is heading with all this. How do I know? How do you know? Because if the baker had discriminated and said "no wedding cake for you" based on one or both of the couple being born black, the Opinion in this decision would've been very different. Period. There's your sign.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And I don't think freedom of speech and freedom of association apply just to ideologies, and become irrelevant when dealing with race, gender, whatever. I think I would rather have people be honest and up-front about what they think, and I think I trust Americans in general enough to think it will sort itself out with government-mandated "morality".

That sounds good but it's not where the Court is heading with all this. How do I know? How do you know? Because if the baker had discriminated and said "no wedding cake for you" based on one or both of the couple being born black, the Opinion in this decision would've been very different. Period. There's your sign.

Stuff the sign in your ear, and stop kneejerking at me. I said nothing about the Court "going" anywhere. I spoke strictly to how I believe it should be. I'm well-aware that we're not even remotely past the notion that we can legislate people into being who we want them to be - dependent entirely on who's in power at the moment - through forcing them to pretend.

 

[Rustic]

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.

Oh, but, see. It was hetero adultery, so it's forgivable. Homo sex? Jesus is not powerful enough to overcome such an egregious abomination.


Jesus is weak.


That's why I am not Christian. Complete and total hypocrisy.

I am a Christian. I believe the issue of gay marriage is one between the people and the government, not the church. This is not a religious issue. It is all about government cash and prizes.

If government was not involved in marriage, people would go to the church of their choice, get married in the eyes of God, and no one else would give a flying fuck.

But as soon as a hated group asks for the same tax breaks and other civil rights the rest of society receives, the alleged biblicaly compliant Christians lose their shit.

That's why I joke about Bible 2.0:

And Jesus said, "You can marry as many times as you wish and commit adultery as often as you wish, even with a pornographic actress. But if you bake a cake for a homo you will surely burn in the fires of hell forever."

It absolutely makes no sense and is an excuse for bigotry. It's not a sin to bake a gay couple a fucking cake, is it? Where is that sin identified?

That is the philosophical side.

On the legal justice and jurisprudence side, I cannot get behind using FORCE to make those bigots bake a cake against their will. I cannot do it.

To me, FORCING a person to provide services to another against that person's will is wrong by all accounts. It is the essence of malum in se.

The baker becomes a slave to the bakee.

I would prefer the government not tell a business who they may or may not serve. However, as I explained above, that pooch was long ago screwed thanks to the racists of the Deep South.

At the same time, I don't buy for one second the bakers are not serving gays because of the bible.

Not for one second. They are bigots using the bible as a shield, and there is a special place in hell for people like that.

Right to refuse service to anyone should be a personal thing fuck the government fuck meddling do-gooders like yourself

 

[saveliberty]

And I don't think freedom of speech and freedom of association apply just to ideologies, and become irrelevant when dealing with race, gender, whatever. I think I would rather have people be honest and up-front about what they think, and I think I trust Americans in general enough to think it will sort itself out with government-mandated "morality".

That sounds good but it's not where the Court is heading with all this. How do I know? How do you know? Because if the baker had discriminated and said "no wedding cake for you" based on one or both of the couple being born black, the Opinion in this decision would've been very different. Period. There's your sign.

Yes, because the Bible clearly doesn't want black folk to marry...

Were you always this stupid, or have you taken courses?

 

[Silhouette]

That sounds good but it's not where the Court is heading with all this. How do I know? How do you know? Because if the baker had discriminated and said "no wedding cake for you" based on one or both of the couple being born black, the Opinion in this decision would've been very different. Period. There's your sign.

Yes, because the Bible clearly doesn't want black folk to marry...

Were you always this stupid, or have you taken courses?

You will find over time that this has additional considerations outside the Bible. And my point didn't exclude your point, stupid. I agree. The Bible doesn't say a word about skin color being inferior in the eyes of God. The Bible DOES say though that behaviors are abominations in the eyes of God. Romans 1. Jude 1.

What I mean by "additional considerations" is that just recently with this USSC decision, LGBTs were demoted to behavioral where they were skating along for some time on the false premise that they are "an innate group" (like race, hence my example). Being found behavioral is huge. Why? Because a behavioral group cannot be condoned or supported that holds endemic to itself "in pride" the 4-decades long regular practice across the US in cities and towns everywhere of deviant sex acts in parades where they invite and hope children will be watching. Let that sink in.

If for some reason you argue that this group CAN force others to play along or condone them, then what other groups that self-identify as a clique or habitual or give themselves a moniker "LGBT" can be turned away? The answer is none. Once a minority repugnant behavioral group can not only escape majority rule but then turn around and force the majority to play along with their BEHAVIORS then we no longer have a country to govern. If one group gets special privileges, they all do.

This creates a NIGHTMARE for the US Supreme Court. Their hands are tied in "sifting out" behaviors they don't like. And let's not forget that LGBT got this unworkable pass from majority rule simply because the 5 liberal Justices on the Court were playing favorites. That's a thing they are disallowed to do. And this baker case drove that home. As we all know, you give the LGBT cult an inch and they'll take a mile. That's what this USSC decision was about: telling LGBT "you're not getting that mile, we gave you an inch now be satisfied with it".

Only the law doesn't work that way. The "inch" the 5 assholes on the USSC gave this cult in 2015 was as good as a mile in that you cannot give people special status and privileges from majority rule and "discrimination" (against behaviors? we do that all the time and must in the case of child sex offenders), and then turn around and tell people "oh, you can pick and choose if you want to discriminate against them or not." Which is what they kind of just said in this Ruling along with "we gave you an inch but you're not getting a mile". That's a legal paradox that cannot stand with itself and the shit is going to hit the fan on that paradox.

 

[dblack]

MOAR GAY PORN!

Or gay pride parades. You google that and it takes you to gay porn. Hence the problem. Kids are watching on the streets by invitation.

I don't believe you. Pics or it didn't happen!

 

[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.

Thank you for the clarification. I haven't seen anyone defend it either… But I also haven't seen anyone condemn it. What I have been seeing is people acting like it doesn't happen, or not responding at all, or trying to turn the tables on her and accusing her of being a perverted sicko. Oh, and pointing to things like Mardi Gras, as a response.

And no, I haven't seen any of those wild claims… I don't post here that much, and only came back recently.

BTW, what city do you live in? I used to live in San Francisco, and a friend of mine was a professional photographer. He asked me a couple times if I wanted to accompany him to a couple of those pride events. That was many years ago, but I was kind of blown away by how much rated R (to put it mildly) stuff was right out there in the open, on a public street. Stuff that no one should have to see in public… Let alone a child.

I live in San Francisco and have been to maybe a dozen Pride Parades.

Certainly 'R' rated but no more 'R' rated than the Carnival Parade or even the Bay to Breakers race.

And no one 'has to see it in public'- since if you were there- you remember how much effort it took to see the parade- large crowds, blocked off streets. No one is forced to watch the Pride or Carnival parades.

As far a whether a child should see it- frankly I think small children don't care- it is more of a challenge for the pre-pubescents and early teens who get easily embarrassed- but ultimately it is parents choice.