Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Because the purpose of government is to protect our freedom, not force conformity.

Why do people assume that allowing gays liberty is forcing non gays into conformity. Liberty is not the liberty to nail gays to the cross. The group being harmed is gays... not heterosexuals. Thus the bad guy in this situation is gay bashers... who are forcing the gays into conformity with their anti-christian bigoted hateful vile despicable discriminatory laws.

I totally agree with this. Equality under the law is vital. But we're talking about PA laws, whick aren't about allowing gays (or any other interest group) liberty. They're about targeting people with unpopular biases and limiting their liberty to associate, or not, with who they choose. They are the sheer opposite of equal protection, and fundamental violation of individual freedom.

So you're saying liberty is the liberty to run minorities out of town by refusing them any public accommodation? Interesting. I disagree.

That's part of liberty, yeah.

What we're talking about here is the freedom to shun people you don't like. And despite the fact that it's sometimes driven by irrational ignorance and fear, it's an important means for society to self-regulate. Attempting to prohibit it with government interference is a deeply intrusive abuse of state power.

Wrong. Raping people is not liberty.

Shunning people, in what you use for a mind, equates to FORCIBLE RAPE? Wherein one person forces themselves into the body of another?

So when the Democrat float, in say the 4th of July Parade, comes by and I turn my back to them... you're saying that my turning my back to them is actually me raping them?

ROFLMNAO!

That is ADORABLE! I just adore watching socialist try to reasoning. Sorta like watching a cat chase its tail.

OH! And 'The Duke' ... as an avatar... Love it.

 

[dblack]

Indeed. But this calls out the very real conflict between equal rights and public accommodations laws.

Please see my response from the last time you posted this exact phrase for a suitable reply.

I didn't find it 'suitable', for the reasons I stated. You're the one refusing to address the debate. That's fine, it's your right, but please don't accuse me of evading the points you've raised. I oppose them and I've explained why.

 

[dblack]

Because the purpose of government is to protect our freedom, not force conformity.

Why do people assume that allowing gays liberty is forcing non gays into conformity. Liberty is not the liberty to nail gays to the cross. The group being harmed is gays... not heterosexuals. Thus the bad guy in this situation is gay bashers... who are forcing the gays into conformity with their anti-christian bigoted hateful vile despicable discriminatory laws.

I totally agree with this. Equality under the law is vital. But we're talking about PA laws, whick aren't about allowing gays (or any other interest group) liberty. They're about targeting people with unpopular biases and limiting their liberty to associate, or not, with who they choose. They are the sheer opposite of equal protection, and fundamental violation of individual freedom.

So you're saying liberty is the liberty to run minorities out of town by refusing them any public accommodation? Interesting. I disagree.

That's part of liberty, yeah.

What we're talking about here is the freedom to shun people you don't like. And despite the fact that it's sometimes driven by irrational ignorance and fear, it's an important means for society to self-regulate. Attempting to prohibit it with government interference is a deeply intrusive abuse of state power.

Wrong. Raping people is not liberty.

??? What are you talking about?

 

[RKMBrown]

Why do people assume that allowing gays liberty is forcing non gays into conformity. Liberty is not the liberty to nail gays to the cross. The group being harmed is gays... not heterosexuals. Thus the bad guy in this situation is gay bashers... who are forcing the gays into conformity with their anti-christian bigoted hateful vile despicable discriminatory laws.

I totally agree with this. Equality under the law is vital. But we're talking about PA laws, whick aren't about allowing gays (or any other interest group) liberty. They're about targeting people with unpopular biases and limiting their liberty to associate, or not, with who they choose. They are the sheer opposite of equal protection, and fundamental violation of individual freedom.

So you're saying liberty is the liberty to run minorities out of town by refusing them any public accommodation? Interesting. I disagree.

That's part of liberty, yeah.

What we're talking about here is the freedom to shun people you don't like. And despite the fact that it's sometimes driven by irrational ignorance and fear, it's an important means for society to self-regulate. Attempting to prohibit it with government interference is a deeply intrusive abuse of state power.

Wrong. Raping people is not liberty.

Shunning people, in what you use for a mind, equates to FORCIBLE RAPE? Wherein one person forces themselves into the body of another?

So when the Democrat float, in say the 4th of July Parade, comes by and I turn my back to them... you're saying that my turning my back to them is actually me raping them?

ROFLMNAO!

That is ADORABLE! I just adore watching socialist try to reasoning. Sorta like watching a cat chase its tail.

OH! And 'The Duke' ... as an avatar... Love it.

Hey dumb ass... a country running gays out of the country by not letting them buy food, or water, or shelter, is worse than rape. Yeah I like the Duke. Oh yeah and fighting for the liberty of folks to have public accommodation... yeah that's a good fight. You don't want to sell to the public fine don't sell to the public. Duh.

 

[JakeStarkey]

keys wants to create a moral fascist state, period.

He and Sil are indeed modern-day fascists that want to tell everyone else they have to live by their standards.

The ages old dark, evil master of sly cunning is named Where_r_my_Keys and aided by the minion Silohuette.

 

[Skylar]

Really? Well, what I do is that where I claim a right to privacy, I sustain that right by keeping that which I rightfully claim as private: PRIVATE!

Because I recognize that where I claim something as private, but make such public, I forfeit my right to claim it as rightfully private.

That's another laughably false dichotomy. You sacrifice no right to privacy by making public your sexual orientation. If you declared you were straight, that doesn't mean that the police now have the authority to break into your home in the night to watch you and your wife have sex. Likewise, gays publicly acknowledging their sexual orientation and demanding equal recognition for their unions under marriage laws doesn't mean they sacrifice any right to freedom. Or the absurd 'sodomy laws' of Texas apply again.

The choice that you demand gays make.....they don't have to. They get both the right to privacy AND the right to marriage. Just as you do. As the rights they are demanding are the same as yours.

Because my sexual behavior comports with the natural design of the human species, I've not had my sexual desires outlawed.

Sodomy laws are unconstitutional. Ergo, nothing about a gay union has been outlawed, as the laws in question do not apply to anyone. Ending yet another pointless spasm of bigotry in its tracks and demonstrating yet again the irrelevance of your claims with the rights and freedoms of anyone under the law.

See... we do not demand that others accept our behavior, because our behavior rests upon the recognition, respect, defense and adherence TO the laws of nature.

Save of course that your conception of the 'laws of nature' aren't a legal standard, nor are you their arbiters, nor do they have any exclusive relevance to marriage. As no product of your conception of the 'laws of nature' are required by anyone who gets married. No one is required to have children or be able to have children in order to marry.

You're insisting we invent a standard that doesn't exist, apply it only to gays, exempting every straight couple, and then use that standard as an excuse to strip gays and lesbians of fundamental rights.

Um, no. Why would we ever do that? It simply makes no sense.

You are absolutely correct. And just as I am required to comport myself within the standards of nature, they are required to do the same. Nature defines marriage by the standard of human biology, wherein one man and one woman join, analogous to sustainable coitus.

Your 'comporting yourself with the laws of nature' standard has nothing to do with the law. Nor any right or freedom. Rendering it irrelevant to any discussion of the rights or freedoms of anyone.

What the sexual deviant is NOT rightfully entitled to do is to claim that which deviates from the standard, thus sustainable norm, IS NORMAL... as a means to influence those who may be ignorant of such, to accept their perverse, ABNORMAL sexuality, as NORMAL, who will then use that fraudulence, to mislead others, all as a means to 'feel better' about themselves to BE LEGITIMATE, without having to bear the burden of BEHAVING LEGITIMATELY.

You don't define what 'legitimate' sexual behavior is for anyone but yourself. Your argument is predicated on the fallacious assumption that the only valid reason a person could have sex is for procreation. That's simply not the case. There are a myriad of reasons.....as blow jobs, handjobs, sex toys, masturbation, vacetomies, birth control and old people having sex demonstrate elegantly.

You're telling us what the purpose of sex is to you. And then laughably insisting that we and all law are all bound to whatever you decide.

Smiling...we're really not. Nor is the law. And before you start babbling about 'the laws of nature', you aren't nature. Nor is your conception of 'the laws of nature' any part of our laws. Ending your argument twice before it even began.

 

[dblack]

I totally agree with this. Equality under the law is vital. But we're talking about PA laws, whick aren't about allowing gays (or any other interest group) liberty. They're about targeting people with unpopular biases and limiting their liberty to associate, or not, with who they choose. They are the sheer opposite of equal protection, and fundamental violation of individual freedom.

So you're saying liberty is the liberty to run minorities out of town by refusing them any public accommodation? Interesting. I disagree.

That's part of liberty, yeah.

What we're talking about here is the freedom to shun people you don't like. And despite the fact that it's sometimes driven by irrational ignorance and fear, it's an important means for society to self-regulate. Attempting to prohibit it with government interference is a deeply intrusive abuse of state power.

Wrong. Raping people is not liberty.

Shunning people, in what you use for a mind, equates to FORCIBLE RAPE? Wherein one person forces themselves into the body of another?

So when the Democrat float, in say the 4th of July Parade, comes by and I turn my back to them... you're saying that my turning my back to them is actually me raping them?

ROFLMNAO!

That is ADORABLE! I just adore watching socialist try to reasoning. Sorta like watching a cat chase its tail.

OH! And 'The Duke' ... as an avatar... Love it.

Hey dumb ass... a country running gays out of the country by not letting them buy food, or water, or shelter, is worse than rape. Yeah I like the Duke. Oh yeah and fighting for the liberty of folks to have public accommodation... yeah that's a good fight. You don't want to sell to the public fine don't sell to the public. Duh.

Of course the irony of this is that it could never happen in a society where there was appreciable support for civil rights laws. Think about that. In a democracy, real minorities will never be protected by legislation. They will only ever be protected by constitutional limits on democratic legislation. You'll never see genuinely unpopular minorities protected by PA laws. And the irony deepens when you consider that, despite it's intent to limit the power of bigots, the precedent set by PA laws gives them the vehicle to inflict their biases on society via law.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I totally agree with this. Equality under the law is vital. But we're talking about PA laws, whick aren't about allowing gays (or any other interest group) liberty. They're about targeting people with unpopular biases and limiting their liberty to associate, or not, with who they choose. They are the sheer opposite of equal protection, and fundamental violation of individual freedom.

So you're saying liberty is the liberty to run minorities out of town by refusing them any public accommodation? Interesting. I disagree.

That's part of liberty, yeah.

What we're talking about here is the freedom to shun people you don't like. And despite the fact that it's sometimes driven by irrational ignorance and fear, it's an important means for society to self-regulate. Attempting to prohibit it with government interference is a deeply intrusive abuse of state power.

Wrong. Raping people is not liberty.

Shunning people, in what you use for a mind, equates to FORCIBLE RAPE? Wherein one person forces themselves into the body of another?

So when the Democrat float, in say the 4th of July Parade, comes by and I turn my back to them... you're saying that my turning my back to them is actually me raping them?

ROFLMNAO!

That is ADORABLE! I just adore watching socialist try to reasoning. Sorta like watching a cat chase its tail.

OH! And 'The Duke' ... as an avatar... Love it.

Hey dumb ass... a country running gays out of the country by not letting them buy food, or water, or shelter, is worse than rape. Yeah I like the Duke. Oh yeah and fighting for the liberty of folks to have public accommodation... yeah that's a good fight. You don't want to sell to the public fine don't sell to the public. Duh.

What in the *uck are you talking about?

NO ONE is talking about starving homosexuals. We're talking about sustaining the standards that define marriage... by enforcing the standard which INTENTIONALLY PRECLUDES THEM, because where it does NOT, the viability of the human race is injured, because to normalize that which nature has by the very design of the species: REJECTED is to subject the species to consequences that nature understood would reduce the likelihood that the species would prosper and survive.


"... running gays out of the country by not letting them buy food, or water, or shelter ..."

ROFLMNAO!

Hysterical... (in every sense of the word)

 

[Seawytch]

The haters get more shrill with each marriage equality state. What will they do when it's all 50?

 

[RKMBrown]

So you're saying liberty is the liberty to run minorities out of town by refusing them any public accommodation? Interesting. I disagree.

That's part of liberty, yeah.

What we're talking about here is the freedom to shun people you don't like. And despite the fact that it's sometimes driven by irrational ignorance and fear, it's an important means for society to self-regulate. Attempting to prohibit it with government interference is a deeply intrusive abuse of state power.

Wrong. Raping people is not liberty.

Shunning people, in what you use for a mind, equates to FORCIBLE RAPE? Wherein one person forces themselves into the body of another?

So when the Democrat float, in say the 4th of July Parade, comes by and I turn my back to them... you're saying that my turning my back to them is actually me raping them?

ROFLMNAO!

That is ADORABLE! I just adore watching socialist try to reasoning. Sorta like watching a cat chase its tail.

OH! And 'The Duke' ... as an avatar... Love it.

Hey dumb ass... a country running gays out of the country by not letting them buy food, or water, or shelter, is worse than rape. Yeah I like the Duke. Oh yeah and fighting for the liberty of folks to have public accommodation... yeah that's a good fight. You don't want to sell to the public fine don't sell to the public. Duh.

Of course the irony of this is that it could never happen in a society where there was appreciable support for civil rights laws. Think about that. In a democracy, real minorities will never be protected by legislation. They will only ever be protected by constitutional limits on democratic legislation. You'll never see genuinely unpopular minorities protected by PA laws. And the irony deepens when you consider that, despite it's intent to limit the power of bigots, the precedent set by PA laws gives them the vehicle to inflict their biases on society via law.

These civil rights laws are for the most part unanimous and in each of the states and most of the ones we are talking about are state based PA laws. But don't let that stop you from pointing out the irony of the federal PA issue.

 

[RKMBrown]

So you're saying liberty is the liberty to run minorities out of town by refusing them any public accommodation? Interesting. I disagree.

That's part of liberty, yeah.

What we're talking about here is the freedom to shun people you don't like. And despite the fact that it's sometimes driven by irrational ignorance and fear, it's an important means for society to self-regulate. Attempting to prohibit it with government interference is a deeply intrusive abuse of state power.

Wrong. Raping people is not liberty.

Shunning people, in what you use for a mind, equates to FORCIBLE RAPE? Wherein one person forces themselves into the body of another?

So when the Democrat float, in say the 4th of July Parade, comes by and I turn my back to them... you're saying that my turning my back to them is actually me raping them?

ROFLMNAO!

That is ADORABLE! I just adore watching socialist try to reasoning. Sorta like watching a cat chase its tail.

OH! And 'The Duke' ... as an avatar... Love it.

Hey dumb ass... a country running gays out of the country by not letting them buy food, or water, or shelter, is worse than rape. Yeah I like the Duke. Oh yeah and fighting for the liberty of folks to have public accommodation... yeah that's a good fight. You don't want to sell to the public fine don't sell to the public. Duh.

What in the *uck are you talking about?

NO ONE is talking about starving homosexuals. We're talking about sustaining the standards that define marriage... by enforcing the standard which INTENTIONALLY PRECLUDES THEM, because where it does NOT, the viability of the human race is injured, because to normalize that which nature has by the very design of the species: REJECTED is to subject the species to consequences that nature understood would reduce the likelihood that the species would prosper and survive.


"... running gays out of the country by not letting them buy food, or water, or shelter ..."

ROFLMNAO!

Hysterical... (in every sense of the word)

Clearly you don't remember way back in the 70s when it was illegal to be gay in this country.

 

[Skylar]

Yep... but only where someone finds a person of distinct gender, who agrees to marry them. Because MARRIAGE IS DEFINED BY NO LESS AN AUTHORITY THAN NATURE: AS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!

Marriage is defined by us, our laws and our constitution. As gay marriage in 30 of 50 states demonstrates rather undeniably.

You 'authority of nature' argument has no relevance to the law. The freedoms, rights and privileges guaranteed by the constitution do. And if you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you're going to need a very good reason and a compelling state interest.

Your personal opinion about 'nature' is neither.

The compelling interest for not accepting the lowering of the marriage standard to include that which nature excluded, rests in the viability of the culture, which is threatened by so doing, in that it accepts fraudulence as fact, which establishes the legal precedent that fraudulence must be accepted as fact. That is known as DELUSION and a culture cannot be sustained upon delusion.

Nature hasn't included or excluded anyone in any marriage....as we invented marriage. Not 'Nature'. The standards that you insist marriage are bound to, aren't. They have zero legal relevance. Nor even logically could be the exclusive basis of every marriage.....as no straight couple is required to have children or be able to have them. And none of the 25% of marriages that produce no children is invalidated. Plus, grandma and grandpa are still married even when they can no longer produce children.

None of which would be true if your assumptions were valid. There's clearly other criteria than procreation by which a valid marriage can be formed and maintained.

Ending your argument yet again.

 

[Skylar]

Where in the Constitution does it say "just some deviant sexual behaviors are equal to race" or "marriage is a loose arrangement granted to anyone and everyone who wishes to be married to anyone else?

Check the 9th amendment. A right need not be enumerated in the constitution to be reserved by the people.

And if you're curious if gays and lesbians are protected from discriminatory state laws, check out Romer V. Evans. Where our old friend Justice Kennedy performs a steady demolition on your entire basis of argument.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Really? Well, what I do is that where I claim a right to privacy, I sustain that right by keeping that which I rightfully claim as private: PRIVATE!

Because I recognize that where I claim something as private, but make such public, I forfeit my right to claim it as rightfully private.

That's another laughably false dichotomy.

There's nothing false about it.

You sacrifice no right to privacy by making public your sexual orientation.

Yes, when you make your sexual orientation public, you forfeit your right to privacy regarding your sexual orientation...

Because my sexual behavior comports with the natural design of the human species, I've not had my sexual desires outlawed.

Sodomy laws are unconstitutional.

On the basis that one's sexual life is private... where one makes that sexual life public, demanding that others accept the underlying deviant behavior, demanding that behavior which incontestably deviates from sexual normality, be considered normal... THERE IS NO POTENTIAL FOR SUCH A RIGHT, THUS NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS FOR SUCH.

See... we do not demand that others accept our behavior, because our behavior rests upon the recognition, respect, defense and adherence TO the laws of nature.

Save of course that your conception of the 'laws of nature' aren't a legal standard,

No one has suggested that they are. They're the basis on which legal standards rest, as natural law is objective... the essential basis for law to serve justice.

What the sexual deviant is NOT rightfully entitled to do is to claim that which deviates from the standard, thus sustainable norm, IS NORMAL... as a means to influence those who may be ignorant of such, to accept their perverse, ABNORMAL sexuality, as NORMAL, who will then use that fraudulence, to mislead others, all as a means to 'feel better' about themselves to BE LEGITIMATE, without having to bear the burden of BEHAVING LEGITIMATELY.

You don't define what 'legitimate' sexual behavior is...

True. Nature defines what legitimate sexual behavior is. And it does so SPECIFICALLY through the standards intrinsic to the physiological design of the human species.

 

[Skylar]

The haters get more shrill with each marriage equality state. What will they do when it's all 50?

Its just a matter of time and the application of steady pressure. As you debunk all the excuses and half assed second tier arguments they have for why they believe what they do...

.....you're left with the real reasons. Silo and his book of Jude and 'fires of eternal damnation'.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yep... but only where someone finds a person of distinct gender, who agrees to marry them. Because MARRIAGE IS DEFINED BY NO LESS AN AUTHORITY THAN NATURE: AS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!

Marriage is defined by us, our laws and our constitution. As gay marriage in 30 of 50 states demonstrates rather undeniably.

False... Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman... . As defined by the natural design of the human species.

And 30 of 50 states rejected lowering the marriage standard to provide for that which nature rejected from marriage, through the physiological design of humanity.

Socialist Insurgents in the US Federal Judiciary have attempted to overturn the LAW in those states. Those states are appealing to the SCOTUS... which has opted to not hear the appeals until the US Justice Department has been returned to American control.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The haters get more shrill with each marriage equality state. What will they do when it's all 50?

Its just a matter of time and the application of steady pressure. As you debunk all the excuses and half assed second tier arguments they have for why they believe what they do...

.....you're left with the real reasons. Silo and his book of Jude and 'fires of eternal damnation'.

What SPECIFIC 'excuses', do you 'feel' have been 'debunked'?

I ask because you're -0- for 301 in this thread. If you'd like to give me links to other threads where you're engaged in the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, I'll happily roll over to those discussions and increase those losses in exponential terms.

Edit: 20 minutes, she's STILL ON-Line and she has NO MEANS to specify... which of course is the answer to the eternal question: "How can you know the person you're debating is a Leftist?"

 

[JakeStarkey]

Scalia discovering he is serving with 'socialist insurgents.'

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where_r_my_Keys considering the great problems of the day while in a drug induced haze.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Clearly you don't remember way back in the 70s when it was illegal to be gay in this country.

I don't remember the 70s?

ROFLMNAO! You truly are helpless.

I should point out that I am trying to help the degenerates find a means to sustain the freedom they currently enjoy.

But YOU and they seem determined to push themselves upon the culture, until they're force the culture to eradicate them.

If you think it can't or won't happen... you need to think about how those 'laws' you lament came to pass. And here's a hint, it wasn't because all of the cultures before ours that accepted sexual abnormality realized wonderment and profound success, cultural enlightenment and universal prosperity. It was likely because they encountered some 'negative' consequences of the catastrophic variety. See how that works?

Fuck with people enough and they'll eventually fuck ya back. Grab a clue Pilgrim... your promotin' evil of the Old Testament variety. (You should get the book and see how it worked out for those folks.)