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

[OnePercenter]

Religion is abnormal and deviant crap.

Only in your eyes and no one is forcing you to participate in their religious services in the United States unless you start counted a few Islamic terrorist that believe and willingly act out blowing up or slaughtering people that do not or are not willing to convert to Islam.

I stated: Religion is abnormal and deviant crap. That would cover everything you wrote.

No one religion that claims sovereign rights over and above anyone's personal rights and is willing to take it by violence and force and teaches its followers to do so is abnormal and deviant and that religion is Islam.

.

Sounds like the Hillsborough Baptist Church

Peddle your crap with someone else as I ain't buying. You are comparing some lawyers who operate as a non-profit in the the guise of being a church under an assumed name other than Christ's name that puts out a lot of propaganda with a whole class of people whose religious book and actions actually calls for complete control and submission plus kills other people for not complying with their belief systems. That is why you really can't be taken serious to anyone with half a brain that is able to think. The violent take it by force and that is not what Christianity or Judaism is all about but it fits Islam to a tee.

Both practice hate.

 

[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?

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.

Why not? Windsor was fundamentally overruled in two years by Obergefell. Windsor said "states decide which is why we award Windsor her win. New York decided so federal limitations/definitions of marriage DOMA are overruled." Then Obergefell said just two years later "the fed decides marriage now, states are overruled."

The two cannot exist in the same legal universe. Either Windsor or Obergefell is defunct.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Given: Gay is behavioral. .

Given: Silhouette obsesses over homosexuality and will say anything to promote intolerance.

Given: Silhouette never knows what the law ever means but simply makes things up to suit her agenda

Given: Silhouette is a sad sick little person.

 

[Syriusly]

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

From what I have observed- 'unequally applied' normally is code for "Christians being asked to follow PA laws also"

 

[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.

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?

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.

Why not? Windsor was fundamentally overruled in two years by Obergefell. Windsor said "states decide which is why we award Windsor her win. New York decided so federal limitations/definitions of marriage DOMA are overruled." Then Obergefell said just two years later "the fed decides marriage now, states are overruled."

The two cannot exist in the same legal universe. Either Windsor or Obergefell is defunct.

Windsor was not overturned as you see it. On that, you are simply wrong. Windsor is right within the compass of Obergefell.

Certain Christian groups think having to follow the law for all is somehow unequal application to them.

Sillies.

 

[Syriusly]

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 ederal?

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.

Why not? Windsor was fundamentally overruled in two years by Obergefell. Windsor said "states decide which is why we award Windsor her win. New York decided so federal limitations/definitions of marriage DOMA are overruled." Then Obergefell said just two years later "the fed decides marriage now, states are overruled."

The two cannot exist in the same legal universe. Either Windsor or Obergefell is defunct.

Once again- Silhouette just displays both her ignorance of the law- and her profound faculty for lying to promote her own anti-gay agenda.

Here is what Windsor said:
The Court held that the Constitution prevented the federal government from treating state-sanctioned heterosexual marriages differently from state-sanctioned same-sex marriages, and that such differentiation "demean[ed] the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects."[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor#cite_note-62
And Obergefell referred Windsor 14 times- such as:
in United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. ___ (2013), this Court invalidated DOMA to the extent it barred the Federal Government from treating same-sex marriages as valid even when they were lawful in the State where they were licensed. DOMA, the Court held, impermissibly disparaged those same-sex couples “who wanted to affirm their commitment to one another before their children, their family, their friends, and their community.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 14).

Not only does Obergefell not contradict Windsor- Obergefell cites the arguments in Windsor in support of the very correct decision to treat same gender couples equally with opposite gender couples.

No matter how much you stomp your feet- you are still just a bigot.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Nor does Arizona promote any 'sexuality ideals'- 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?

 

[JoeB131]

Well so far we've got a "yes", "no" and "maybe". Quite the spread. So you see, there is some confusion in how these PC laws apply across the board..

I see Sil's court ordered sensitivity training didn't take hold.

 

[Silhouette]

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.

Sexual orientation. Heroin orientation. Bulimia orientation, whatever. You cannot compel other people to support those behaviors against the edicts of their faith. As to homosexual habit, consult Jude 1 of the New Testament of Jesus Christ.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

 

[Silhouette]

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.

Sexual orientation. Heroin orientation. Bulimia orientation, whatever. You cannot compel other people to support those behaviors against the edicts of their faith. As to homosexual habit, consult Jude 1 of the New Testament of Jesus Christ.

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

Fascinating.

I have a problem with a state enacting a law that sets one set of behavioral edicts as dominant to another set. It's not allowed.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Sexual orientation. Heroin orientation. Bulimia orientation, whatever. You cannot compel other people to support those behaviors against the edicts of their faith. As to homosexual habit, consult Jude 1 of the New Testament of Jesus Christ.

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

Fascinating.

I have a problem with a state enacting a law that sets one set of behavioral edicts as dominant to another set. It's not allowed.

Great- so you don't have a problem with Arizona's law then.

 

[sakinago]

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?

 

[Montrovant]

I would accept that graphic design job in a hot minute. When I got home I would spread the money all over the bed and then have gay sex on it.

This may be my favorite post of 2017.

 

[RodISHI]

Only in your eyes and no one is forcing you to participate in their religious services in the United States unless you start counted a few Islamic terrorist that believe and willingly act out blowing up or slaughtering people that do not or are not willing to convert to Islam.

I stated: Religion is abnormal and deviant crap. That would cover everything you wrote.

No one religion that claims sovereign rights over and above anyone's personal rights and is willing to take it by violence and force and teaches its followers to do so is abnormal and deviant and that religion is Islam.

.

Sounds like the Hillsborough Baptist Church

Peddle your crap with someone else as I ain't buying. You are comparing some lawyers who operate as a non-profit in the the guise of being a church under an assumed name other than Christ's name that puts out a lot of propaganda with a whole class of people whose religious book and actions actually calls for complete control and submission plus kills other people for not complying with their belief systems. That is why you really can't be taken serious to anyone with half a brain that is able to think. The violent take it by force and that is not what Christianity or Judaism is all about but it fits Islam to a tee.

Both practice hate.

No they don't. Your sins are your own in both Christianity and Judaism but you take that as hate when another wants no part of you and your personal demons. A big difference there that you and the others refuse to recognize..

 

[jillian]

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.

 

[Silhouette]

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?

^^ Notices Syriusly didn't answer sakinago's question...

 

[Silhouette]

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...

When Christians are told they must not participate in expanding or enabling the spread of homosexuality as a social value (see Jude 1 New Testament) under pain of eternal damnation for failure to adhere....forcing them to participate in any way in a "gay wedding" (marriage = the epitome of the network of social values), then they are de facto promoting that value against their will and faith.

So how did you vote in the poll above if you feel no one can exclude another group in their business sales? Did you vote "yes" or "no" on whether gays should be legally forced to print a billboard that says "homosexuality is a sin unto God" for a Christian who walked through their door? Just curious.

You understand that no state may pass a law that elevates one set of moral edicts over another, yes? That's legally forbidden.

 

[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

 

[jillian]

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.