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

[sakinago]

Not in the slightest. You want your feelings to dominate the law, which won't happen.

Should a male victim of child molestation be forced "legally" to bake a cake for a NAMBLA event that says "Man/boy love" on the icing? Yes or no?

Consult the law, Sil, not your feelings.

Answer the question and reference the law. Stop dodging. You are here defending the AZ law so reference it and answer the questions about it or admit defeat in this debate.

I don't have to. You asked a question, and I told you to consult the law. That you may not like the law means nothing.

It means that I disagree with it, and you are apparently indifferent to it (I doubt this very much). I’m guessing your indifferent when it doesn’t hurt your side, but will be very vocal when you don’t like the law yourself. And that’s the whole point of the OP, not what is the current law, but why is this law ok applied to this case but not this case, and we think the law is not being practiced as it should be, or straight up skewed against one side vs the other.

...and DOMA is law of the land???? Since when, it was struck down a while ago...do you need to look up DOMA again? I thought it was common knowledge.

 

[sakinago]

Based on what? And no the question doesn’t fail, if a gay Baker was asked to make a cake for defense of marriage activist group, should they be forced to make that cake? Should a pro-choice baker be forced to make a cake depicting abortion is murder?

Of course it is fail. The law controls the answer to those questions, sak, no your feewings.

What a terribly weak position, and huge deflection. So if the law is the sole determinant of morality, then in your own words, we should be deporting any and all illegal Aliens as quickly as possible, because we should just defer to the law. That’s the law. It was at one point right to have slavery, as well as Jim Crow, and DOMA, just because the law says so

Not in the slightest. You want your feelings to dominate the law, which won't happen.

No that’s what you wish, and need to tell yourself, because you don’t have a consistent point. I don’t want anybody’s feelings to determine law, Which they clearly have and do it now. It wasn’t a constitutionally legal decision to install Doma, And either it was wrong to repeal Delmar on the fact that it should be states rights, or it was wrong to say that states have no say in the matter two years later. Clearly there’s definite feelings coming into play there if the Supreme Court is going against its own decision two years after the fact.

You are not a Judge, sak, not in the least. DOMA is the law of the land, and you are going to have to live with it.

I’m for gay marriage, and polygamy. Government should have no say in the matter of marriage, never should have to begin with. especially when a church had no problem marrying a gay couple, that’s their free exercise of religion. I believe store owners should absolutely have the right to deny service for whatever reason, even if I don’t like it or agree with their reason (it’s also bad business practice). But if a gay baker wants to kick jerry Falwell out or members of the west-boro Baptist church, I think he’sshould have every right to do so. Or a Jewish democratic DJ/caterer should be able to decline preforming/catering a pig roast fundraiser for trump.

 

[sakinago]

Sil and sak, neither of you are an authority on it. Sil has been corrected dozens of times in the past by lawyers on the Board here of her misreading of Windsor. Her take is not supported by case law.

I’m not talking about what the freaking law says. I’m talking about what is fair, equal and free, I’ve stated this many times. You keep running to the law because you don’t have a consistent point on the matter.

Again Jim Crow wasn’t right just because it was law, same with slavery, same with whatever other horrible law you can think of. I’m not talking about what the law says.

 

[sakinago]

Sil and sak, neither of you are an authority on it. Sil has been corrected dozens of times in the past by lawyers on the Board here of her misreading of Windsor. Her take is not supported by case law.

And case law is always changing haha. You could find 5 cases where a judge ruled this way, and another 5 they ruled against. Does it help you if you’ve found a case to go in your favor, yes, but the reason there is so much case law out there is because it keeps changing, different circumstances arise, are applied, or ignored. New laws pass, upheld, or repealed. It’s all shifting. So if one judge rules one way in this certain case...that doesn’t mean that judge got it right, or that every judge after has to rule in that same exact way. Might as well call it fad law, because that’s what it’s become recently.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil and sak, neither of you are an authority on it. Sil has been corrected dozens of times in the past by lawyers on the Board here of her misreading of Windsor. Her take is not supported by case law.

I’m not talking about what the freaking law says. I’m talking about what is fair, equal and free, I’ve stated this many times. You keep running to the law because you don’t have a consistent point on the matter.

Again Jim Crow wasn’t right just because it was law, same with slavery, same with whatever other horrible law you can think of. I’m not talking about what the law says.

What you are suggesting here is not the equivalent of slavery: you are not a slave. That is certainly consistent with the facts of the matter. If you are in business holding out service or goods to the public, then you can be governed by PA laws. Your thinking is unethical to think that you should not treat customers equally.

That you don't understand the principle of law is your problem.

 

[hadit]

Sil and sak, neither of you are an authority on it. Sil has been corrected dozens of times in the past by lawyers on the Board here of her misreading of Windsor. Her take is not supported by case law.

I’m not talking about what the freaking law says. I’m talking about what is fair, equal and free, I’ve stated this many times. You keep running to the law because you don’t have a consistent point on the matter.

Again Jim Crow wasn’t right just because it was law, same with slavery, same with whatever other horrible law you can think of. I’m not talking about what the law says.

What you are suggesting here is not the equivalent of slavery: you are not a slave. That is certainly consistent with the facts of the matter. If you are in business holding out service or goods to the public, then you can be governed by PA laws. Your thinking is unethical to think that you should not treat customers equally.

That you don't understand the principle of law is your problem.

The problem with PA laws arises when they are unequally applied.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sakinago]

Sil and sak, neither of you are an authority on it. Sil has been corrected dozens of times in the past by lawyers on the Board here of her misreading of Windsor. Her take is not supported by case law.

I’m not talking about what the freaking law says. I’m talking about what is fair, equal and free, I’ve stated this many times. You keep running to the law because you don’t have a consistent point on the matter.

Again Jim Crow wasn’t right just because it was law, same with slavery, same with whatever other horrible law you can think of. I’m not talking about what the law says.

What you are suggesting here is not the equivalent of slavery: you are not a slave. That is certainly consistent with the facts of the matter. If you are in business holding out service or goods to the public, then you can be governed by PA laws. Your thinking is unethical to think that you should not treat customers equally.

That you don't understand the principle of law is your problem.

I’m not comparing this too slavery, I used it as an expample of why I’m not arguing on what the law is because it’s useless. Stop throwing out red herrings.

And no I think it’s unethical to treat employees different based on color or creed or whatever...but if say Weinstein walked into my store, I should have a right to refuse service. Basically government should not be in the business of picking one group over the other, and especially not in the business of forcing people to do something they are ethically against themselves.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil and sak, neither of you are an authority on it. Sil has been corrected dozens of times in the past by lawyers on the Board here of her misreading of Windsor. Her take is not supported by case law.

I’m not talking about what the freaking law says. I’m talking about what is fair, equal and free, I’ve stated this many times. You keep running to the law because you don’t have a consistent point on the matter.

Again Jim Crow wasn’t right just because it was law, same with slavery, same with whatever other horrible law you can think of. I’m not talking about what the law says.

What you are suggesting here is not the equivalent of slavery: you are not a slave. That is certainly consistent with the facts of the matter. If you are in business holding out service or goods to the public, then you can be governed by PA laws. Your thinking is unethical to think that you should not treat customers equally.

That you don't understand the principle of law is your problem.

I’m not comparing this too slavery, I used it as an expample of why I’m not arguing on what the law is because it’s useless. Stop throwing out red herrings.

And no I think it’s unethical to treat employees different based on color or creed or whatever...but if say Weinstein walked into my store, I should have a right to refuse service. Basically government should not be in the business of picking one group over the other, and especially not in the business of forcing people to do something they are ethically against themselves.

You brought up slavery, so you will own the remark, sak. You do not have a singular right to not serve Weinstein if the law says you should serve him. You need to stop putting yourself above the law, or the law may end up putting you under it.

 

[sakinago]

Sil and sak, neither of you are an authority on it. Sil has been corrected dozens of times in the past by lawyers on the Board here of her misreading of Windsor. Her take is not supported by case law.

I’m not talking about what the freaking law says. I’m talking about what is fair, equal and free, I’ve stated this many times. You keep running to the law because you don’t have a consistent point on the matter.

Again Jim Crow wasn’t right just because it was law, same with slavery, same with whatever other horrible law you can think of. I’m not talking about what the law says.

What you are suggesting here is not the equivalent of slavery: you are not a slave. That is certainly consistent with the facts of the matter. If you are in business holding out service or goods to the public, then you can be governed by PA laws. Your thinking is unethical to think that you should not treat customers equally.

That you don't understand the principle of law is your problem.

I’m not comparing this too slavery, I used it as an expample of why I’m not arguing on what the law is because it’s useless. Stop throwing out red herrings.

And no I think it’s unethical to treat employees different based on color or creed or whatever...but if say Weinstein walked into my store, I should have a right to refuse service. Basically government should not be in the business of picking one group over the other, and especially not in the business of forcing people to do something they are ethically against themselves.

You brought up slavery, so you will own the remark, sak. You do not have a singular right to not serve Weinstein if the law says you should serve him. You need to stop putting yourself above the law, or the law may end up putting you under it.

Oh god you can’t even have a remotely honest conversation, “YOU brought up slavery, so YOU have to own it.” Hahaha give me a break. Yes I did bring it up, and I said just because slavery was legal didn’t make it right, it’s an easy point to understand...UNLESS, the only response your capable of making to that is a strawman argument, “are you comparing this to slavery.” Puhlease.

And riddle me this Batman, if people need to stop putting themselves above the law...then do you not agree that we have to deport any and all illegal aliens, no excuses, no exceptions, the law is the law. So we SHOULD be finding and deporting them, and Donald trump is RIGHT about the matter. No more of this turning a blind eye to it???? Hmm???

 

[sakinago]

sak, you inconsistent chattering is not a narrative. You make statements, I will make you own them. Just the way it is.

You have trouble with fallacies as well. You not being above the law has nothing to do with anyone else's deportation: that simply is not your worry.

Now please own your comments. When you ad hom, you admit you have lost control of the discussion.

I missing the ad hominem. I don’t think you know what that is. E.G. “you shouldn’t smoke, its bad for your health.” AD HOM response: “you’re not a doctor, you don’t know what you’re talking about, you’re wrong, smoking is fine.”

Here’s an example of starkey using an ad hom in this thread...multiple times. “Sak and sil are not the authorities on the matter.” “You are not above the law.”

And once again my position isn’t on what the law is, it’s my disagreement with the law, and how he law can be applied. In other words policy. Attack the facts of a case, if you can’t attack facts, attack the law, if you can’t attack the law, attack the policy. And yea I own what I say, and what I say and the points I’m making are obvious. It’s even more obvious that you have to make a strawman out of that point to avoid it.

And what’s even more obvious is you keep ignoring this question. If no one is above the law, then jake, then obviously you must be for deportation as stated by the law of all illegal aliens. Do you agree with this yes or no?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Practicing Christianity is a learned, conditioned behavior

 

[JakeStarkey]

sak, being smarmy and denying that your ad homming only reflects badly on you. I understand you are disappointed with the law, but that is immaterial to what we are discussing. If you want the law change, just like I told Sil, lobby the lege.

I don't care that you oppose it, because, in fact, I support the law.

Your fallacy of false equivalency as it pertains to deportation has been noted, overruled, and discarded.

Please be original and in harmony with the OP.

 

[Silhouette]

Practicing Christianity is a learned, conditioned behavior

That happens to be enumerated and protected in the US Constitution. If you belong to the cult of deviant butt sex, start petitioning your representative for the 2/3rds majority vote to amend the constitution to include your cult. Or, failing that, at least go through the motions of obtaining official recognition for your particular set of learned conditioned behaviors "as religion".

You'll never get the 1st Amendment repealed, so the only thing you can do to try to make local PA laws dominant to the Constitutional protections is to officially declare LGBT-whatever... a religion. I was saying this long ago if you recall.

What I know your cult CANNOT do is use law to elevate one set of learned conditioned behaviors (as religion or unrecognized cult) over the other "as preferred". Es ist verboten.

 

[Silhouette]

Only you, in your deluded hatred of homosexuality, Sil, thinks LGBTQ is a religion.

What else would make people suspend facts and use the lower intestinal tract as an artificial vagina, rife with rapidly absorbing cells that allow large particles directly into the bloodstream, to be the best vector for HIV transmission (death)? Who but a zealot would risk death on a regular basis and teach other youngsters that "risking death is OK, venerated, noble!" for his set of beliefs and habitual behaviors?

 

[Silhouette]

I agree. Any culture that teaches, via socially-sanctioned example or outright tutoring, it's youngsters to practice a deviant sexual behavior that results in increase of their predictable death IS insane.

And, should Christians be forced to promote such a dogma utterly repugnant to their own?

 

[Silhouette]

Your hatred of homosexuality, Sil, is insane.

You could prove I hated homosexuality and that wouldn't affect the topic of the thread here one iota. The topic of the thread is "should it be OK to force people to promote another sect's value system which is wholly repugnant to their own?" And, "can local PA laws eradicate Christians' enjoyment of their 1st Amendment rights? And, "can local PA laws act as a de facto state-promoted set of edicts (religion) dominant to others?"

Please try to stay on topic and avoid ad hominems. You are familiar with the rules here?

 

[flacaltenn]

You need to DO this discussion without making it personal. Nobody wants to read through that garbage.
Don't argue the validity of alternative facts. They ACTUALLY EXIST in science all the time. And don't make it about how YOU think some other poster "feels".

 

[JakeStarkey]

The facts are clear. I support the law. I support Windsor. I support SCOTUS's findings.

No, AZ should not force anyone to promote religious ideals against sexuality. Those who are religiously opposed to LGBTQ cannot force their ideals on everyone else.

 

[Silhouette]

The facts are clear. I support the law. I support Windsor. I support SCOTUS's findings.

No, AZ should not force anyone to promote religious ideals against sexuality. Those who are religiously opposed to LGBTQ cannot force their ideals on everyone else.

Nor should AZ force anyone to promote sexuality ideals against religion. Equal application of law. Anything less would be the state favoring one set of ideals over the other in law. Which ist verboten.

So if you support Windsor, then you also support that decision finding no less than 56 times that it's up to the states to define marriage. Obergefell overturned that decision just two years later... Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

 

[JakeStarkey]

That makes no sense. The law is clear, your logic is not.

Your misreading of Windsor is not my concern, but it certainly is yours. Obergefell is the law, and that is not going to change anytime soon.