Should AZ Force Gay People To Promote Christian Ideals Against Homosexuality?

[bodecea]

I offer the legal precedent here: Court: Phoenix wedding invitation designers must serve LGBT customers

Given: Gay is behavioral. Google "Anne Heche" for details.. Or for more extensive arguments (with over 300 peer-reviewed corroborating studies referenced at the end) this: "Conditioning and Sexual BEHAVIOR, a Review"
James G. Pfaus,Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montreal, Quebec, H3G 1M8 Canada
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.322.9763&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Now, should the State of Arizona which so recently announced Christians must promote the behaviors of homosexuals, also force homosexuals to promote the behaviors of Christians? The question is one of fairness. Is it fair to force a Christian to abandon their 1st Amendment rights, while in the same state allowing gays to pick and choose when to promote values in direct opposition to their own?

Should for instance, a gay graphic designer be forced against his will and beliefs to print a billboard for a busy highway that reads: "Homosexuality is a sin unto God!" for Christian customers. ? If he provides a service to the general public? Yes or no. Vote in the poll.

who says so-called christians have to "promote"?

you don't get to run a business open to the public and exclude a group because of your bigotry.

this has been determined already.

bur you can simmer in your own hate-filled insanity as long as you like... just leave normal people alone while you do it.

That sounds like one vote for forcing a gay billboard owner to post Bible verses that condemn homosexuality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

interesting argument. Show a clear lack of understanding of the law but whatever.

Consider what you said. "You don't get to run a business open to the public and exclude a group because of your bigotry". That can only mean that you are in favor of forcing a gay billboard owner to put up Bible verses condemning homosexuality if someone wants to rent the space to say it.

If that some one is a religious group or person which is protected by PA laws.

 

[bodecea]

Arizona has laws that prevent discrimination against Christians(for their faith) and gays(for their sexual orientation)

Why do you have a problem with that?

If you require someone to defy their faith in order to accommodate another person's behaviors, then you have set one set of edicts above another in law. That isn't allowed in American law. And yes, I do have a problem with that.

So you have a problem with Arizona's law that prevent discrimination against Christians for their faith.

Fascinating.

So do you have a problem with deportation laws?

Great straw man!

a) What does that have to do with laws that prevent discrimination against Christians?
b) What deportation laws- specifically?

You’re arguing on what the law states. My position is not in what it states but whether or not the law is a good law, and even the policy of executing the law. That’s not a strawman, how can asking what your views are of a different law, to illustrate my point that I disagree with the law (so stop hiding behind it), be a strawman? It’s not a strawman, I’m not mistating your point to make it a weaker position, I didn’t even bring up your point...if anything you could argue that it’s a red herring, it’s not, maybe false equivalency, it’s also not that since my point is not arguing what is the law, but whether or not I agree with it (and if you don’t like deportation laws, any of them) then I have you where I want you.

And we’ll say deporting a family that came here illegally, as if it matters, Im sure you have some objection to the law/policy.

If you believe a law is wrong...you should be working to get it repealed.

 

[bodecea]

Feel free to show me any gay or atheist candidate for Senate who is telling people that Christian conduct should be illegal- like the darling of the Radical Right- Roy Moore- has done.

Yes- homosexuality did use to be illegal - which makes your pathetic narrative of the gays being the ones promoting hate so stupid- you Christians passed laws to put gays in jail.

And you are stupid enough to believe that if Christians have to follow the same laws as everyone else- 'the people will eventually lash out demanding retribution'.

I go by a legislators actions not by what they do not say. Your equating hatred with refusal to partake is something you will have to overcome as the majority are ultimately not going to partake in what you are pushing. Gays that break the law just like anyone else who breaks the law. I could go back through post on this board where gays or their supporters have said all sorts of crazy crap about me or have made false claims against me. Your labeling days and propaganda pushing for everyone being force to accept your personal problems as their own are about to come to an end.

Yeah- those Islamic Terrorists do keep telling us that the law of God is more important to them than the law. of man.

Fascinating that you believe in the same narrative.

.

Yes and Islam is not Christianity so you crap as usual is moot

They are both religions.

 

[sakinago]

No one who owns a company open to the public should be forced to provide services to those with whom they disagree.

At the same time, the government should not be forced to give these people business licenses.

If these people do not want to provide services to gays, then they have the option to close their business.

So you want to use that same hammer on gays who refuse to print billboards for Christians that say "Homosexuality is a sin unto God!" ?

Because if you want an exception in that case, that means you want the state to prefer one set of values (faith edicts) over another. And that is Constitutionally-disallowed.

Your example is poor.

If one said to a baker: "is it personally objectionable for you to bake a cake?" the answer would be "NO" There is no difference between baking a cake for straights, gays, blacks, whites, or to be launched by a catapult at a wall.

If one said to a graphic designer: "is it personally objectionable to make a sign saying 'Homosexuality is a sin'?" the answer may be yet, regardless of who is asking them to do it.

It’s not just any cake, it’s a specially customized cake for a wedding ceremony, that’s WAY different than saying hey I want a chocolate ice cream cake, or a muffin, or whatever. If the KKK had a ceremony where they pay a homeless black guy a couple hundred if he lets them pie him in the face, and they went to a black baker who knew about this ceremony, and asked for a run of the mill pie, shouldn’t that Baker have a right to say hell no.

It’s not whether or not the purchaser finds if objectionable, it’s the seller. I don’t find pork objectionable, but there could be a Muslim or Jewish butcher who does, and doesn’t want to slaughter a pig, shouldnt they be able to say no, I have a religious problem with this, even though I’m not eating it, you’re still asking me to slaughter a pig which goes against my religious teachings.

 

[sakinago]

If you require someone to defy their faith in order to accommodate another person's behaviors, then you have set one set of edicts above another in law. That isn't allowed in American law. And yes, I do have a problem with that.

So you have a problem with Arizona's law that prevent discrimination against Christians for their faith.

Fascinating.

So do you have a problem with deportation laws?

Great straw man!

a) What does that have to do with laws that prevent discrimination against Christians?
b) What deportation laws- specifically?

You’re arguing on what the law states. My position is not in what it states but whether or not the law is a good law, and even the policy of executing the law. That’s not a strawman, how can asking what your views are of a different law, to illustrate my point that I disagree with the law (so stop hiding behind it), be a strawman? It’s not a strawman, I’m not mistating your point to make it a weaker position, I didn’t even bring up your point...if anything you could argue that it’s a red herring, it’s not, maybe false equivalency, it’s also not that since my point is not arguing what is the law, but whether or not I agree with it (and if you don’t like deportation laws, any of them) then I have you where I want you.

And we’ll say deporting a family that came here illegally, as if it matters, Im sure you have some objection to the law/policy.

If you believe a law is wrong...you should be working to get it repealed.

So you should also shut up about whatever law you disagree and instead work to get it repealed?? That’s pretty much what I heard you say to me. You didn’t say shut up about it, but there is nothing else outside of “stop debating the law” to be inferred from your last post. Which is why I’m saying it’s such a weak posistion to hide behind the law (if that’s all you can do) which has been pretty much everyone. It’s never been well it’s right in this case but wrong in this case. It’s been it’s right when applied this way in this case, but even though there’s discrimination when not applied the same way in this case, it’s still right because the law says so.

 

[hadit]

That sounds like one vote for forcing a gay billboard owner to post Bible verses that condemn homosexuality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

interesting argument. Show a clear lack of understanding of the law but whatever.

Consider what you said. "You don't get to run a business open to the public and exclude a group because of your bigotry". That can only mean that you are in favor of forcing a gay billboard owner to put up Bible verses condemning homosexuality if someone wants to rent the space to say it.

That would be an interesting legal question.

Would the bill board operator(doesn't matter whether he is gay or straight- Christian or atheist) be refusing to do business because of the religious content? That would be just as illegal as a bill board operator refusing to post quotes from the Koran because of their religious content?

Or is it because the bill board operator disagrees with the actual content of the message for non-religious reason?
Some examples:
As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise."
Or
If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Rejected for because of religion? Or rejected because of the advocacy of violence?

Feel free to go find that gay bill board operator and test the law.

It doesn't have to be anything about violence. There are Bible verses that simply condemn homosexuality. In this case the customer would want to put them up. Does the billboard operator have the right to refuse?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Feel free to post that quote and I will tell you.

Romans 1:26,27.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

 

[hadit]

I offer the legal precedent here: Court: Phoenix wedding invitation designers must serve LGBT customers

Given: Gay is behavioral. Google "Anne Heche" for details.. Or for more extensive arguments (with over 300 peer-reviewed corroborating studies referenced at the end) this: "Conditioning and Sexual BEHAVIOR, a Review"
James G. Pfaus,Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montreal, Quebec, H3G 1M8 Canada
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.322.9763&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Now, should the State of Arizona which so recently announced Christians must promote the behaviors of homosexuals, also force homosexuals to promote the behaviors of Christians? The question is one of fairness. Is it fair to force a Christian to abandon their 1st Amendment rights, while in the same state allowing gays to pick and choose when to promote values in direct opposition to their own?

Should for instance, a gay graphic designer be forced against his will and beliefs to print a billboard for a busy highway that reads: "Homosexuality is a sin unto God!" for Christian customers. ? If he provides a service to the general public? Yes or no. Vote in the poll.

who says so-called christians have to "promote"?

you don't get to run a business open to the public and exclude a group because of your bigotry.

this has been determined already.

bur you can simmer in your own hate-filled insanity as long as you like... just leave normal people alone while you do it.

That sounds like one vote for forcing a gay billboard owner to post Bible verses that condemn homosexuality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

interesting argument. Show a clear lack of understanding of the law but whatever.

Consider what you said. "You don't get to run a business open to the public and exclude a group because of your bigotry". That can only mean that you are in favor of forcing a gay billboard owner to put up Bible verses condemning homosexuality if someone wants to rent the space to say it.

You were already answered. I'm not going to belabor your absurd point.

I'm just working with what you gave me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hadit]

I offer the legal precedent here: Court: Phoenix wedding invitation designers must serve LGBT customers

Given: Gay is behavioral. Google "Anne Heche" for details.. Or for more extensive arguments (with over 300 peer-reviewed corroborating studies referenced at the end) this: "Conditioning and Sexual BEHAVIOR, a Review"
James G. Pfaus,Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montreal, Quebec, H3G 1M8 Canada
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.322.9763&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Now, should the State of Arizona which so recently announced Christians must promote the behaviors of homosexuals, also force homosexuals to promote the behaviors of Christians? The question is one of fairness. Is it fair to force a Christian to abandon their 1st Amendment rights, while in the same state allowing gays to pick and choose when to promote values in direct opposition to their own?

Should for instance, a gay graphic designer be forced against his will and beliefs to print a billboard for a busy highway that reads: "Homosexuality is a sin unto God!" for Christian customers. ? If he provides a service to the general public? Yes or no. Vote in the poll.

who says so-called christians have to "promote"?

you don't get to run a business open to the public and exclude a group because of your bigotry.

this has been determined already.

bur you can simmer in your own hate-filled insanity as long as you like... just leave normal people alone while you do it.

That sounds like one vote for forcing a gay billboard owner to post Bible verses that condemn homosexuality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

interesting argument. Show a clear lack of understanding of the law but whatever.

Consider what you said. "You don't get to run a business open to the public and exclude a group because of your bigotry". That can only mean that you are in favor of forcing a gay billboard owner to put up Bible verses condemning homosexuality if someone wants to rent the space to say it.

If that some one is a religious group or person which is protected by PA laws.

Not talking about the legal aspects, I'm talking about the moral and ethical aspects. If a Christian business owner can be forced to write celebratory messages about homosexuality on a cake, should a gay business owner be forced to post Bible verses condemning homosexuality? It's an easy yes or no question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[xotoxi]

No one who owns a company open to the public should be forced to provide services to those with whom they disagree.

At the same time, the government should not be forced to give these people business licenses.

If these people do not want to provide services to gays, then they have the option to close their business.

So you want to use that same hammer on gays who refuse to print billboards for Christians that say "Homosexuality is a sin unto God!" ?

Because if you want an exception in that case, that means you want the state to prefer one set of values (faith edicts) over another. And that is Constitutionally-disallowed.

Your example is poor.

If one said to a baker: "is it personally objectionable for you to bake a cake?" the answer would be "NO" There is no difference between baking a cake for straights, gays, blacks, whites, or to be launched by a catapult at a wall.

If one said to a graphic designer: "is it personally objectionable to make a sign saying 'Homosexuality is a sin'?" the answer may be yet, regardless of who is asking them to do it.

It’s not just any cake, it’s a specially customized cake for a wedding ceremony, that’s WAY different than saying hey I want a chocolate ice cream cake, or a muffin, or whatever. If the KKK had a ceremony where they pay a homeless black guy a couple hundred if he lets them pie him in the face, and they went to a black baker who knew about this ceremony, and asked for a run of the mill pie, shouldn’t that Baker have a right to say hell no.

It’s not whether or not the purchaser finds if objectionable, it’s the seller. I don’t find pork objectionable, but there could be a Muslim or Jewish butcher who does, and doesn’t want to slaughter a pig, shouldnt they be able to say no, I have a religious problem with this, even though I’m not eating it, you’re still asking me to slaughter a pig which goes against my religious teachings.

Since when are wedding cakes personally customized?

I don't really think that the KKK would have a pie specially baked by a baker for the event you are proposing. They would buy one off the shelf. Or they would have one of their bitches bake it.

When would a Muslim or Jewish butcher have pork products in their establishment? And when would a butcher allow meat from outside their establishment be brought in to be butchered?

Your examples are weak and unrealistic.

 

[xotoxi]

who says so-called christians have to "promote"?

you don't get to run a business open to the public and exclude a group because of your bigotry.

this has been determined already.

bur you can simmer in your own hate-filled insanity as long as you like... just leave normal people alone while you do it.

That sounds like one vote for forcing a gay billboard owner to post Bible verses that condemn homosexuality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

interesting argument. Show a clear lack of understanding of the law but whatever.

Consider what you said. "You don't get to run a business open to the public and exclude a group because of your bigotry". That can only mean that you are in favor of forcing a gay billboard owner to put up Bible verses condemning homosexuality if someone wants to rent the space to say it.

If that some one is a religious group or person which is protected by PA laws.

Not talking about the legal aspects, I'm talking about the moral and ethical aspects. If a Christian business owner can be forced to write celebratory messages about homosexuality on a cake, should a gay business owner be forced to post Bible verses condemning homosexuality? It's an easy yes or no question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are people being asked to write pro-homosexual messages on the cake, or are they just being asked to bake the cake?

 

[deanrd]

interesting argument. Show a clear lack of understanding of the law but whatever.

Consider what you said. "You don't get to run a business open to the public and exclude a group because of your bigotry". That can only mean that you are in favor of forcing a gay billboard owner to put up Bible verses condemning homosexuality if someone wants to rent the space to say it.

That would be an interesting legal question.

Would the bill board operator(doesn't matter whether he is gay or straight- Christian or atheist) be refusing to do business because of the religious content? That would be just as illegal as a bill board operator refusing to post quotes from the Koran because of their religious content?

Or is it because the bill board operator disagrees with the actual content of the message for non-religious reason?
Some examples:
As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise."
Or
If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Rejected for because of religion? Or rejected because of the advocacy of violence?

Feel free to go find that gay bill board operator and test the law.

It doesn't have to be anything about violence. There are Bible verses that simply condemn homosexuality. In this case the customer would want to put them up. Does the billboard operator have the right to refuse?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Feel free to post that quote and I will tell you.

Romans 1:26,27.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

According to you, if a man rapes a woman, he has to marry her and they can never be divorced.
Do you realize how many women Donald Trump would have to marry if he married all the women he assaulted?
Besides, the fact you think a rape victim should be forced to marry the man who raped her means you are one sick fu............

 

[Syriusly]

interesting argument. Show a clear lack of understanding of the law but whatever.

Consider what you said. "You don't get to run a business open to the public and exclude a group because of your bigotry". That can only mean that you are in favor of forcing a gay billboard owner to put up Bible verses condemning homosexuality if someone wants to rent the space to say it.

That would be an interesting legal question.

Would the bill board operator(doesn't matter whether he is gay or straight- Christian or atheist) be refusing to do business because of the religious content? That would be just as illegal as a bill board operator refusing to post quotes from the Koran because of their religious content?

Or is it because the bill board operator disagrees with the actual content of the message for non-religious reason?
Some examples:
As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise."
Or
If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Rejected for because of religion? Or rejected because of the advocacy of violence?

Feel free to go find that gay bill board operator and test the law.

It doesn't have to be anything about violence. There are Bible verses that simply condemn homosexuality. In this case the customer would want to put them up. Does the billboard operator have the right to refuse?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Feel free to post that quote and I will tell you.

Romans 1:26,27.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Why would anyone object to a wholesome story of how God drove people to lust after others?

But to answer your question directly- again- it depends.

If the Billboard operator refused to put up anything that refers to sex or sex acts on their billboard- then there is no foul- no violation of the PA laws if he refuses this post from the New Testament.

If the Billboard operator refuses it because he objects to the religious content of the message- then he runs afoul of the PA laws.

By the way- lets look at more of that verse- shall we?

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

[so some people didn't glorify god, and looked at images of birds and animals and people}

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

[So in punishment, God had them filled full of lust}


26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

[So God punished men by inflaming them with lust for other men- and committing shameful acts with other men]

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

.....They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;.....

Yes- so God punished those who didn't worship him by leading them to gay sex- and disobeying their parents- and gossiping.

Because- God- and I supposed Christians by extension- know that those who do such things deserve death.

Do you believe that gossipers deserve death? What about those who disobey their parents?

As it calls for here in Romans?

 

[Syriusly]

who says so-called christians have to "promote"?

you don't get to run a business open to the public and exclude a group because of your bigotry.

this has been determined already.

bur you can simmer in your own hate-filled insanity as long as you like... just leave normal people alone while you do it.

That sounds like one vote for forcing a gay billboard owner to post Bible verses that condemn homosexuality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

interesting argument. Show a clear lack of understanding of the law but whatever.

Consider what you said. "You don't get to run a business open to the public and exclude a group because of your bigotry". That can only mean that you are in favor of forcing a gay billboard owner to put up Bible verses condemning homosexuality if someone wants to rent the space to say it.

That would be an interesting legal question.

Would the bill board operator(doesn't matter whether he is gay or straight- Christian or atheist) be refusing to do business because of the religious content? That would be just as illegal as a bill board operator refusing to post quotes from the Koran because of their religious content?

Or is it because the bill board operator disagrees with the actual content of the message for non-religious reason?
Some examples:
As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise."
Or
If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Rejected for because of religion? Or rejected because of the advocacy of violence?

Feel free to go find that gay bill board operator and test the law.

It doesn't have to be anything about violence. There are Bible verses that simply condemn homosexuality. In this case the customer would want to put them up. Does the billboard operator have the right to refuse?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought you were going to post a quote from the Bible that condemns homosexuality?

 

[Syriusly]

Feel free to show me any gay or atheist candidate for Senate who is telling people that Christian conduct should be illegal- like the darling of the Radical Right- Roy Moore- has done.

Yes- homosexuality did use to be illegal - which makes your pathetic narrative of the gays being the ones promoting hate so stupid- you Christians passed laws to put gays in jail.

And you are stupid enough to believe that if Christians have to follow the same laws as everyone else- 'the people will eventually lash out demanding retribution'.

I go by a legislators actions not by what they do not say.

LOL- so you don't care if a Christian is advocating putting homosexuals in jail. Just so long as he doesn't actually take action.

Like you don't care if anyone were to say that Christian Church's should have to pay taxes if they discriminate against gays.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q

Yeah- those Islamic Terrorists do keep telling us that the law of God is more important to them than the law. of man.

Fascinating that you believe in the same narrative.

.

Yes and Islam is not Christianity so you crap as usual is moot

Yet you and ISIS find common ground on both homosexuals and that the law of God is more important than the law of man.

 

[Syriusly]

No one who owns a company open to the public should be forced to provide services to those with whom they disagree.

At the same time, the government should not be forced to give these people business licenses.

If these people do not want to provide services to gays, then they have the option to close their business.

So you want to use that same hammer on gays who refuse to print billboards for Christians that say "Homosexuality is a sin unto God!" ?

Because if you want an exception in that case, that means you want the state to prefer one set of values (faith edicts) over another. And that is Constitutionally-disallowed.

Are you still trying to argue that homosexuality is a religion, Silly?

LOL- the funny thing is that if homosexuality was a religion- gays in America would be as protected from discrimination by the law as Christians are.

But of course neither is true.

 

[RodISHI]

[Q

Yeah- those Islamic Terrorists do keep telling us that the law of God is more important to them than the law. of man.

Fascinating that you believe in the same narrative.

.

Yes and Islam is not Christianity so you crap as usual is moot

Yet you and ISIS find common ground on both homosexuals and that the law of God is more important than the law of man.

And which one has commandments from God that says thou shalt not kill? Islam doesn't have that. It is not my problem you cannot read or understand that the Bible does not promote murder but in fact commands that it shall not be done. Islamist on the other hand promotes murder. The law of God is fulfilled within the spirit but yet you deny that too as you push to force people to accept and join you in your personal aberrations which they want no part of. You are free to eat your own dung but you are not free to make me sit down and eat it with you and like it.

 

[sakinago]

No one who owns a company open to the public should be forced to provide services to those with whom they disagree.

At the same time, the government should not be forced to give these people business licenses.

If these people do not want to provide services to gays, then they have the option to close their business.

So you want to use that same hammer on gays who refuse to print billboards for Christians that say "Homosexuality is a sin unto God!" ?

Because if you want an exception in that case, that means you want the state to prefer one set of values (faith edicts) over another. And that is Constitutionally-disallowed.

Your example is poor.

If one said to a baker: "is it personally objectionable for you to bake a cake?" the answer would be "NO" There is no difference between baking a cake for straights, gays, blacks, whites, or to be launched by a catapult at a wall.

If one said to a graphic designer: "is it personally objectionable to make a sign saying 'Homosexuality is a sin'?" the answer may be yet, regardless of who is asking them to do it.

It’s not just any cake, it’s a specially customized cake for a wedding ceremony, that’s WAY different than saying hey I want a chocolate ice cream cake, or a muffin, or whatever. If the KKK had a ceremony where they pay a homeless black guy a couple hundred if he lets them pie him in the face, and they went to a black baker who knew about this ceremony, and asked for a run of the mill pie, shouldn’t that Baker have a right to say hell no.

It’s not whether or not the purchaser finds if objectionable, it’s the seller. I don’t find pork objectionable, but there could be a Muslim or Jewish butcher who does, and doesn’t want to slaughter a pig, shouldnt they be able to say no, I have a religious problem with this, even though I’m not eating it, you’re still asking me to slaughter a pig which goes against my religious teachings.

Since when are wedding cakes personally customized?

I don't really think that the KKK would have a pie specially baked by a baker for the event you are proposing. They would buy one off the shelf. Or they would have one of their bitches bake it.

When would a Muslim or Jewish butcher have pork products in their establishment? And when would a butcher allow meat from outside their establishment be brought in to be butchered?

Your examples are weak and unrealistic.

And they’re also hypos, there is still a principle at play that (since you cannot answer the hypo), I have to assume you want to apply the principle differently when it does not fit your world view....which would mean you lack principle, you operate on interests. A hypo is supposed to be a hypothetical situation (for lack of a better term). It’s there to make you think.

And if I killed a pig, it is not at all uncommon that someone would take it to a butcher...happens ALL THE TIME.

 

[jillian]

who says so-called christians have to "promote"?

you don't get to run a business open to the public and exclude a group because of your bigotry.

this has been determined already.

bur you can simmer in your own hate-filled insanity as long as you like... just leave normal people alone while you do it.

That sounds like one vote for forcing a gay billboard owner to post Bible verses that condemn homosexuality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

interesting argument. Show a clear lack of understanding of the law but whatever.

Consider what you said. "You don't get to run a business open to the public and exclude a group because of your bigotry". That can only mean that you are in favor of forcing a gay billboard owner to put up Bible verses condemning homosexuality if someone wants to rent the space to say it.

You were already answered. I'm not going to belabor your absurd point.

I'm just working with what you gave me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. You aren't.

 

[hadit]

That sounds like one vote for forcing a gay billboard owner to post Bible verses that condemn homosexuality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

interesting argument. Show a clear lack of understanding of the law but whatever.

Consider what you said. "You don't get to run a business open to the public and exclude a group because of your bigotry". That can only mean that you are in favor of forcing a gay billboard owner to put up Bible verses condemning homosexuality if someone wants to rent the space to say it.

If that some one is a religious group or person which is protected by PA laws.

Not talking about the legal aspects, I'm talking about the moral and ethical aspects. If a Christian business owner can be forced to write celebratory messages about homosexuality on a cake, should a gay business owner be forced to post Bible verses condemning homosexuality? It's an easy yes or no question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are people being asked to write pro-homosexual messages on the cake, or are they just being asked to bake the cake?

The two are not exclusive.