Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Honestly, I don't know what to do about the conflict between business owners who don't want to serve gay people and the discrimination factor. That is a conundrum for sure. Lol.
That's easy...either treat gays and lesbians the same way we treat other minorities in public accommodation or get rid of all PA laws and rural minorities can just suck it...and grow their own food.
Well, like I said earlier, in most instances, people are not going to know or care whether you are gay or not.
Honestly, I don't know what to do about the conflict between business owners who don't want to serve gay people and the discrimination factor. That is a conundrum for sure. Lol.
That's easy...either treat gays and lesbians the same way we treat other minorities in public accommodation or get rid of all PA laws and rural minorities can just suck it...and grow their own food.
Well, like I said earlier, in most instances, people are not going to know or care whether you are gay or not.
In a small town they know. Or what if gays, like straights, like to go out to dinner with their romantic partner? We shouldn't hold hands like straight couples 'cause we might get thrown out of the restaurant?
Honestly, I don't know what to do about the conflict between business owners who don't want to serve gay people and the discrimination factor. That is a conundrum for sure. Lol.
That's easy...either treat gays and lesbians the same way we treat other minorities in public accommodation or get rid of all PA laws and rural minorities can just suck it...and grow their own food.
Well, like I said earlier, in most instances, people are not going to know or care whether you are gay or not.
In a small town they know. Or what if gays, like straights, like to go out to dinner with their romantic partner? We shouldn't hold hands like straight couples 'cause we might get thrown out of the restaurant?
Most of the time, the business owner and employees would probably be busy working and not have much time to sit watching you.
Besides, I think that most people don't really care, as long as you aren't making a scene or anything.
Honestly, I don't know what to do about the conflict between business owners who don't want to serve gay people and the discrimination factor. That is a conundrum for sure. Lol.
That's easy...either treat gays and lesbians the same way we treat other minorities in public accommodation or get rid of all PA laws and rural minorities can just suck it...and grow their own food.
Well, like I said earlier, in most instances, people are not going to know or care whether you are gay or not.
In a small town they know. Or what if gays, like straights, like to go out to dinner with their romantic partner? We shouldn't hold hands like straight couples 'cause we might get thrown out of the restaurant?
Most of the time, the business owner and employees would probably be busy working and not have much time to sit watching you.
Besides, I think that most people don't really care, as long as you aren't making a scene or anything.
Yes, most of the time nobody cares, but as recent lawsuits have indicated, some people DO care.
Those who oppose anti-discrimination statutes for LGBTQ people frequently claim that such protections are unnecessary because gay people rarely face discrimination. Even if we take that as true—which it isn’t—I’ve always thought that such statutes remain useful as an affirmation of gay people’s equal dignity under the law. Discrimination is painful, embarrassing, and demeaning; at the very least, the state should deter, not permit, such contemptible bigotry.
If you want to learn just how demeaning state-sanctioned discrimination can be, just ask Collin Dewberry and Kelly Williams, a gay couple living in East Texas. After finishing their meal at Big Earl’s Restaurant in Pittsburg, Texas,their server told them that “we don’t serve fags here.” She then instructed them that “here at Big Earl’s we like for men to act like men and for ladies to act like ladies, so we want you to never return.” That phrase, it turns out, is posted on the door of the restaurant.
Earl Cheney, the owner of the restaurant, has confirmed the story—and defended the waitress, who happens to be his daughter. According to Cheney, the couple were barred from the restaurant because they touched legs, which is “just not appropriate in a family restaurant.”[...]
The true humiliation of the experience, however, lies not in the use of a single word, but the action as a whole, a public act of shaming designed to degrade the couple’s dignity in the eyes of the community. At its core, discrimination like this seems, to me, to be guided less by religious principles than by a startling lack of empathy and compassion.
Those, at any rate, are the stakes of the debate over “religious liberty”: The freedom to discriminate, to kick out gay couples who dare touch legs in your restaurant, versus freedom from discrimination, the liberty to live one’s life relatively free of prejudice-based indignity. You can decide for yourself which side has the better argument.
“We Don’t Serve Fags Here”
That's easy...either treat gays and lesbians the same way we treat other minorities in public accommodation or get rid of all PA laws and rural minorities can just suck it...and grow their own food.
Well, like I said earlier, in most instances, people are not going to know or care whether you are gay or not.
In a small town they know. Or what if gays, like straights, like to go out to dinner with their romantic partner? We shouldn't hold hands like straight couples 'cause we might get thrown out of the restaurant?
Most of the time, the business owner and employees would probably be busy working and not have much time to sit watching you.
Besides, I think that most people don't really care, as long as you aren't making a scene or anything.
Yes, most of the time nobody cares, but as recent lawsuits have indicated, some people DO care.
Those who oppose anti-discrimination statutes for LGBTQ people frequently claim that such protections are unnecessary because gay people rarely face discrimination. Even if we take that as true—which it isn’t—I’ve always thought that such statutes remain useful as an affirmation of gay people’s equal dignity under the law. Discrimination is painful, embarrassing, and demeaning; at the very least, the state should deter, not permit, such contemptible bigotry.
If you want to learn just how demeaning state-sanctioned discrimination can be, just ask Collin Dewberry and Kelly Williams, a gay couple living in East Texas. After finishing their meal at Big Earl’s Restaurant in Pittsburg, Texas,their server told them that “we don’t serve fags here.” She then instructed them that “here at Big Earl’s we like for men to act like men and for ladies to act like ladies, so we want you to never return.” That phrase, it turns out, is posted on the door of the restaurant.
Earl Cheney, the owner of the restaurant, has confirmed the story—and defended the waitress, who happens to be his daughter. According to Cheney, the couple were barred from the restaurant because they touched legs, which is “just not appropriate in a family restaurant.”[...]
The true humiliation of the experience, however, lies not in the use of a single word, but the action as a whole, a public act of shaming designed to degrade the couple’s dignity in the eyes of the community. At its core, discrimination like this seems, to me, to be guided less by religious principles than by a startling lack of empathy and compassion.
Those, at any rate, are the stakes of the debate over “religious liberty”: The freedom to discriminate, to kick out gay couples who dare touch legs in your restaurant, versus freedom from discrimination, the liberty to live one’s life relatively free of prejudice-based indignity. You can decide for yourself which side has the better argument.
“We Don’t Serve Fags Here”
So some people are intolerant of gays, so fricken what? Some people are intolerant of italians, midgits, and people who bring kids to restaurants.
Get over yourself. Deal with life as it has been served up to you. Stop your whining.
Well, like I said earlier, in most instances, people are not going to know or care whether you are gay or not.
In a small town they know. Or what if gays, like straights, like to go out to dinner with their romantic partner? We shouldn't hold hands like straight couples 'cause we might get thrown out of the restaurant?
Most of the time, the business owner and employees would probably be busy working and not have much time to sit watching you.
Besides, I think that most people don't really care, as long as you aren't making a scene or anything.
Yes, most of the time nobody cares, but as recent lawsuits have indicated, some people DO care.
Those who oppose anti-discrimination statutes for LGBTQ people frequently claim that such protections are unnecessary because gay people rarely face discrimination. Even if we take that as true—which it isn’t—I’ve always thought that such statutes remain useful as an affirmation of gay people’s equal dignity under the law. Discrimination is painful, embarrassing, and demeaning; at the very least, the state should deter, not permit, such contemptible bigotry.
If you want to learn just how demeaning state-sanctioned discrimination can be, just ask Collin Dewberry and Kelly Williams, a gay couple living in East Texas. After finishing their meal at Big Earl’s Restaurant in Pittsburg, Texas,their server told them that “we don’t serve fags here.” She then instructed them that “here at Big Earl’s we like for men to act like men and for ladies to act like ladies, so we want you to never return.” That phrase, it turns out, is posted on the door of the restaurant.
Earl Cheney, the owner of the restaurant, has confirmed the story—and defended the waitress, who happens to be his daughter. According to Cheney, the couple were barred from the restaurant because they touched legs, which is “just not appropriate in a family restaurant.”[...]
The true humiliation of the experience, however, lies not in the use of a single word, but the action as a whole, a public act of shaming designed to degrade the couple’s dignity in the eyes of the community. At its core, discrimination like this seems, to me, to be guided less by religious principles than by a startling lack of empathy and compassion.
Those, at any rate, are the stakes of the debate over “religious liberty”: The freedom to discriminate, to kick out gay couples who dare touch legs in your restaurant, versus freedom from discrimination, the liberty to live one’s life relatively free of prejudice-based indignity. You can decide for yourself which side has the better argument.
“We Don’t Serve Fags Here”
So some people are intolerant of gays, so fricken what? Some people are intolerant of italians, midgits, and people who bring kids to restaurants.
Get over yourself. Deal with life as it has been served up to you. Stop your whining.
And in some states and localities gays are included in Public Accommodation laws. Either repeal all PA laws so that I'm not forced to serve an intolerant Christian in MY establishment or stop sniveling becomes in some places the same laws that protect Christians in all 50 states, protect gays.
In a small town they know. Or what if gays, like straights, like to go out to dinner with their romantic partner? We shouldn't hold hands like straight couples 'cause we might get thrown out of the restaurant?
How would they know? Given the mindset of the homophobe, one would assume it's easier to identify two homos than two christians, right?
Most of the time, the business owner and employees would probably be busy working and not have much time to sit watching you.
Besides, I think that most people don't really care, as long as you aren't making a scene or anything.
Yes, most of the time nobody cares, but as recent lawsuits have indicated, some people DO care.
Those who oppose anti-discrimination statutes for LGBTQ people frequently claim that such protections are unnecessary because gay people rarely face discrimination. Even if we take that as true—which it isn’t—I’ve always thought that such statutes remain useful as an affirmation of gay people’s equal dignity under the law. Discrimination is painful, embarrassing, and demeaning; at the very least, the state should deter, not permit, such contemptible bigotry.
If you want to learn just how demeaning state-sanctioned discrimination can be, just ask Collin Dewberry and Kelly Williams, a gay couple living in East Texas. After finishing their meal at Big Earl’s Restaurant in Pittsburg, Texas,their server told them that “we don’t serve fags here.” She then instructed them that “here at Big Earl’s we like for men to act like men and for ladies to act like ladies, so we want you to never return.” That phrase, it turns out, is posted on the door of the restaurant.
Earl Cheney, the owner of the restaurant, has confirmed the story—and defended the waitress, who happens to be his daughter. According to Cheney, the couple were barred from the restaurant because they touched legs, which is “just not appropriate in a family restaurant.”[...]
The true humiliation of the experience, however, lies not in the use of a single word, but the action as a whole, a public act of shaming designed to degrade the couple’s dignity in the eyes of the community. At its core, discrimination like this seems, to me, to be guided less by religious principles than by a startling lack of empathy and compassion.
Those, at any rate, are the stakes of the debate over “religious liberty”: The freedom to discriminate, to kick out gay couples who dare touch legs in your restaurant, versus freedom from discrimination, the liberty to live one’s life relatively free of prejudice-based indignity. You can decide for yourself which side has the better argument.
“We Don’t Serve Fags Here”
So some people are intolerant of gays, so fricken what? Some people are intolerant of italians, midgits, and people who bring kids to restaurants.
Get over yourself. Deal with life as it has been served up to you. Stop your whining.
And in some states and localities gays are included in Public Accommodation laws. Either repeal all PA laws so that I'm not forced to serve an intolerant Christian in MY establishment or stop sniveling becomes in some places the same laws that protect Christians in all 50 states, protect gays.
why would an "intolerant Christian" want to do business in a gay place of business? I really doubt that that is an issue for you.
But, you never explained why a gay couple would want their cake baked by a baker who does not accept homosexuality as normal. Would you want to help the profit line of someone who does not like you?
In a small town they know. Or what if gays, like straights, like to go out to dinner with their romantic partner? We shouldn't hold hands like straight couples 'cause we might get thrown out of the restaurant?
Most of the time, the business owner and employees would probably be busy working and not have much time to sit watching you.
Besides, I think that most people don't really care, as long as you aren't making a scene or anything.
Yes, most of the time nobody cares, but as recent lawsuits have indicated, some people DO care.
Those who oppose anti-discrimination statutes for LGBTQ people frequently claim that such protections are unnecessary because gay people rarely face discrimination. Even if we take that as true—which it isn’t—I’ve always thought that such statutes remain useful as an affirmation of gay people’s equal dignity under the law. Discrimination is painful, embarrassing, and demeaning; at the very least, the state should deter, not permit, such contemptible bigotry.
If you want to learn just how demeaning state-sanctioned discrimination can be, just ask Collin Dewberry and Kelly Williams, a gay couple living in East Texas. After finishing their meal at Big Earl’s Restaurant in Pittsburg, Texas,their server told them that “we don’t serve fags here.” She then instructed them that “here at Big Earl’s we like for men to act like men and for ladies to act like ladies, so we want you to never return.” That phrase, it turns out, is posted on the door of the restaurant.
Earl Cheney, the owner of the restaurant, has confirmed the story—and defended the waitress, who happens to be his daughter. According to Cheney, the couple were barred from the restaurant because they touched legs, which is “just not appropriate in a family restaurant.”[...]
The true humiliation of the experience, however, lies not in the use of a single word, but the action as a whole, a public act of shaming designed to degrade the couple’s dignity in the eyes of the community. At its core, discrimination like this seems, to me, to be guided less by religious principles than by a startling lack of empathy and compassion.
Those, at any rate, are the stakes of the debate over “religious liberty”: The freedom to discriminate, to kick out gay couples who dare touch legs in your restaurant, versus freedom from discrimination, the liberty to live one’s life relatively free of prejudice-based indignity. You can decide for yourself which side has the better argument.
“We Don’t Serve Fags Here”
So some people are intolerant of gays, so fricken what? Some people are intolerant of italians, midgits, and people who bring kids to restaurants.
Get over yourself. Deal with life as it has been served up to you. Stop your whining.
And in some states and localities gays are included in Public Accommodation laws. Either repeal all PA laws so that I'm not forced to serve an intolerant Christian in MY establishment or stop sniveling becomes in some places the same laws that protect Christians in all 50 states, protect gays.
why would an "intolerant Christian" want to do business in a gay place of business? I really doubt that that is an issue for you.
But, you never explained why a gay couple would want their cake baked by a baker who does not accept homosexuality as normal. Would you want to help the profit line of someone who does not like you?
umm ...No it isntBack to this? Prop 8 was unconstitutional. It's as simple as that.
Says some liberal appeals court judges who are nothing but political hacks The Supreme court never ruled prop 8 unconstitutional, although all non originalist judges are political hacks anyway
The Supreme Court left standing the Federal Court's decision- which was the final appeal. The Supreme Court heard the case and could have chosen to reverse it- and chose not to.
Prop 8 is unconstitutional, null and void.
The Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 today that bans gay marriage, and instead dismissed the case on procedural grounds. The court held that supporters of the ballot initiative—who stepped in to defend Prop 8 when California officials refused to do so—did not have the legal right to be in court.
Ummm yes it is.
June 28, 2013 - Same-sex marriages resume with wedding of two plaintiffs in Prop. 8 case after an unexpected court order cleared the way for same-sex marriage licenses for the first time in 4 1/2 years.
June 26, 2013 - The Supreme Court decided that it could not rule on a challengeto Prop. 8, paving the way for same-sex marriage to resume in California after years of legal battles.
Dec. 7, 2012 - The Supreme Court announced it will take up California's ban on same-sex marriage.
Feb. 7, 2012 - A three-judge panel rules that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional.
Mar. 23, 2011 - A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appealsdenied the request to allow same-sex marriages to resume.
Feb. 16, 2011 - The California Supreme Court agreed to answer a request by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which last month requested a clarification on the ability of Prop 8 supporters to press the case in appellate courts. The high court indicated it could hear arguments on the issue as early as September.
Aug. 16, 2010 - A decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals trumps Walker’s ruling and puts same-sex marriages in California on hold indefinitely.
Aug. 12, 2010 - Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that gay marriages can begin again on Aug. 18.
Aug. 4, 2010 - In his 136-page ruling, Federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker decided that Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban on same sex marriage passed in 2008, is unconstitutional.
Supreme court didn't rule on the constitutionality moron get it trough your pea brained head
Oh, who cares? Just let the gay people get married already. What difference does it make, really?
It doesn't of course
Of course, some of the more religious posters would disagree. Lol.
I think we have a lot of other more important issues to think about.
While I agree there far more pressing issues at hand this is still important in terms of the expansion of individual liberty. This issue seems to wrapping up and I hope more folks turn an eye towards are crushing debt. We'll see though...
This issue is old and tiresome, IMO. We can be done with it by just legalizing gay marriage with the same stipulations that there are for heterosexuals. I don't think churches should be forced to marry them though, because that would be violating their liberties. I have a feeling that is going to be the next "issue." I'm kind of hoping it gets legalized and then fades away and we can get to more pressing matters.
People like SeaBytch are actually turning me AGAINST it
Well, obviously you've conceded this discussion since you're attempting to distract with an unrelated topic.
Yes, I support churches accepting their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters..,and they will eventually. History shows that to be true.
Proving that your a fucking idiotic militant who doesn't even bother reading what other people write.
I have from my very first post on the topic said I'm okay with gay marriage
I only said that you're an idiot for wanting to force churches to accept them
Thank you for conceding that you can no more prove you were born gay than I can prove I was born a Christian by deflecting though.
So blacks were idiots for wanting the Mormons to accept them? You're welcome to your opinion but I don't think they were stupid at all...and they won. Gays are winning this battle too.
New study finds a greater church acceptance of gays and lesbians Pew Research Center
I was born with same sex attractions and you certainly can't prove I wasn't. There is considerably more evidence of a genetic predisposition than there is proof sexual orientation is a choice.
And likewise you can't prove I wasnt born a Christian who believes being gay is a sin
That one's easy...religion is a choice and not an immutable trait whereas sexuality is well accepted in scientific circles to be an immutable trait. People don't choose their orientation, whereas they most certainly choose their religion. They do choose to act upon their natural or god given inclinations, but the feelings themselves are not a choice.
Christianity itself requires that you make a choice to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.
Some people are born feeling compelled to be religious.
Prove I'm wrong
Proving that your a fucking idiotic militant who doesn't even bother reading what other people write.
I have from my very first post on the topic said I'm okay with gay marriage
I only said that you're an idiot for wanting to force churches to accept them
Thank you for conceding that you can no more prove you were born gay than I can prove I was born a Christian by deflecting though.
So blacks were idiots for wanting the Mormons to accept them? You're welcome to your opinion but I don't think they were stupid at all...and they won. Gays are winning this battle too.
New study finds a greater church acceptance of gays and lesbians Pew Research Center
I was born with same sex attractions and you certainly can't prove I wasn't. There is considerably more evidence of a genetic predisposition than there is proof sexual orientation is a choice.
And likewise you can't prove I wasnt born a Christian who believes being gay is a sin
That one's easy...religion is a choice and not an immutable trait whereas sexuality is well accepted in scientific circles to be an immutable trait. People don't choose their orientation, whereas they most certainly choose their religion. They do choose to act upon their natural or god given inclinations, but the feelings themselves are not a choice.
Christianity itself requires that you make a choice to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.
Some people are born feeling compelled to be religious.
Prove I'm wrong
Legally both religion and sexuality are considered to be immutable traits.
And that doesn't require that one is born with either a religious compulsion or a sexual preference.
So blacks were idiots for wanting the Mormons to accept them? You're welcome to your opinion but I don't think they were stupid at all...and they won. Gays are winning this battle too.
New study finds a greater church acceptance of gays and lesbians Pew Research Center
I was born with same sex attractions and you certainly can't prove I wasn't. There is considerably more evidence of a genetic predisposition than there is proof sexual orientation is a choice.
And likewise you can't prove I wasnt born a Christian who believes being gay is a sin
That one's easy...religion is a choice and not an immutable trait whereas sexuality is well accepted in scientific circles to be an immutable trait. People don't choose their orientation, whereas they most certainly choose their religion. They do choose to act upon their natural or god given inclinations, but the feelings themselves are not a choice.
Christianity itself requires that you make a choice to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.
Some people are born feeling compelled to be religious.
Prove I'm wrong
Legally both religion and sexuality are considered to be immutable traits.
And that doesn't require that one is born with either a religious compulsion or a sexual preference.
I was going by the definition of immutable:
im·mu·ta·ble
adjective \(ˌ)i(m)-ˈmyü-tə-bəl\
: unable to be changed
: not capable of or susceptible to change
Where, legally, has religion been declared an immutable characteristic?
And likewise you can't prove I wasnt born a Christian who believes being gay is a sin
That one's easy...religion is a choice and not an immutable trait whereas sexuality is well accepted in scientific circles to be an immutable trait. People don't choose their orientation, whereas they most certainly choose their religion. They do choose to act upon their natural or god given inclinations, but the feelings themselves are not a choice.
Christianity itself requires that you make a choice to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.
Some people are born feeling compelled to be religious.
Prove I'm wrong
Legally both religion and sexuality are considered to be immutable traits.
And that doesn't require that one is born with either a religious compulsion or a sexual preference.
I was going by the definition of immutable:
im·mu·ta·ble
adjective \(ˌ)i(m)-ˈmyü-tə-bəl\
: unable to be changed
: not capable of or susceptible to change
Where, legally, has religion been declared an immutable characteristic?
Where, legally, has homosexuality been declared an immutable characteristic?
Poor SeaBytch, I am a magnitude smarter than you, every dumb argument you make will be countered by superior logic and reasoning.
That you are obsessing over something that didn't happen and you are trying to make it relate to the topic?So how did the honeymoon go?
Got aids yet?
-Geaux
Are you an example of right-wing? Sure have a lot of hate for people that in no way affect you.....must suck to be right-wing?
If it impacts society, it impacts me.
Good thing society didn't go homo when Adam was say... 15. Would be a pretty small world today, no?
-Geaux
How does it impact you? You think that because they can't get married they're not living together already? And, Adam was created as an adult......he was never 15.
But I'm sure you didn't miss the point though
-Geaux
That one's easy...religion is a choice and not an immutable trait whereas sexuality is well accepted in scientific circles to be an immutable trait. People don't choose their orientation, whereas they most certainly choose their religion. They do choose to act upon their natural or god given inclinations, but the feelings themselves are not a choice.
Christianity itself requires that you make a choice to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.
Some people are born feeling compelled to be religious.
Prove I'm wrong
Legally both religion and sexuality are considered to be immutable traits.
And that doesn't require that one is born with either a religious compulsion or a sexual preference.
I was going by the definition of immutable:
im·mu·ta·ble
adjective \(ˌ)i(m)-ˈmyü-tə-bəl\
: unable to be changed
: not capable of or susceptible to change
Where, legally, has religion been declared an immutable characteristic?
Where, legally, has homosexuality been declared an immutable characteristic?
Poor SeaBytch, I am a magnitude smarter than you, every dumb argument you make will be countered by superior logic and reasoning.
I never said that orientation has been legally declared an immutable characteristic, I asked another poster where religion had been.
The fact that you feel you have to declare yourself smarter...just highlights your obvious feelings of inadequacy.
That one's easy...religion is a choice and not an immutable trait whereas sexuality is well accepted in scientific circles to be an immutable trait. People don't choose their orientation, whereas they most certainly choose their religion. They do choose to act upon their natural or god given inclinations, but the feelings themselves are not a choice.
Christianity itself requires that you make a choice to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.
Some people are born feeling compelled to be religious.
Prove I'm wrong
Legally both religion and sexuality are considered to be immutable traits.
And that doesn't require that one is born with either a religious compulsion or a sexual preference.
I was going by the definition of immutable:
im·mu·ta·ble
adjective \(ˌ)i(m)-ˈmyü-tə-bəl\
: unable to be changed
: not capable of or susceptible to change
Where, legally, has religion been declared an immutable characteristic?
Where, legally, has homosexuality been declared an immutable characteristic?
Poor SeaBytch, I am a magnitude smarter than you, every dumb argument you make will be countered by superior logic and reasoning.
I never said that orientation has been legally declared an immutable characteristic, I asked another poster where religion had been.
The fact that you feel you have to declare yourself smarter...just highlights your obvious feelings of inadequacy.
Some people are born feeling compelled to be religious.
Prove I'm wrong
Legally both religion and sexuality are considered to be immutable traits.
And that doesn't require that one is born with either a religious compulsion or a sexual preference.
I was going by the definition of immutable:
im·mu·ta·ble
adjective \(ˌ)i(m)-ˈmyü-tə-bəl\
: unable to be changed
: not capable of or susceptible to change
Where, legally, has religion been declared an immutable characteristic?
Where, legally, has homosexuality been declared an immutable characteristic?
Poor SeaBytch, I am a magnitude smarter than you, every dumb argument you make will be countered by superior logic and reasoning.
I never said that orientation has been legally declared an immutable characteristic, I asked another poster where religion had been.
The fact that you feel you have to declare yourself smarter...just highlights your obvious feelings of inadequacy.
What the fuck?
If homosexuality hasn't been legally declared an immutable characteristic than who cares if religion has you dumb shit.
Of course you claim you were "born gay" that's as likely as I was "born Christian" why do you ask me to accept you while refusing to accept me.
Legally both religion and sexuality are considered to be immutable traits.
And that doesn't require that one is born with either a religious compulsion or a sexual preference.
I was going by the definition of immutable:
im·mu·ta·ble
adjective \(ˌ)i(m)-ˈmyü-tə-bəl\
: unable to be changed
: not capable of or susceptible to change
Where, legally, has religion been declared an immutable characteristic?
Where, legally, has homosexuality been declared an immutable characteristic?
Poor SeaBytch, I am a magnitude smarter than you, every dumb argument you make will be countered by superior logic and reasoning.
I never said that orientation has been legally declared an immutable characteristic, I asked another poster where religion had been.
The fact that you feel you have to declare yourself smarter...just highlights your obvious feelings of inadequacy.
What the fuck?
If homosexuality hasn't been legally declared an immutable characteristic than who cares if religion has you dumb shit.
Of course you claim you were "born gay" that's as likely as I was "born Christian" why do you ask me to accept you while refusing to accept me.
Maybe you should read and follow the entire thread instead of just obsessing over my posts.. Another poster declared religion a legally immutable trait and I inquired as to the case law they are ascribing to that statement.
How, exactly, am I refusing to accept you as a Christian? Have I tried to pass laws that would prohibit you from marrying the non familial consenting adult of your choice? Have I denied you access to your loved one in the hospital? Have I tried to kick you out of the military for your Christianity?
Such a statement is laughable and probably came from the biggest bastard the court ever knew: William O. Douglas.
To assume he somehow spoke with knowledge, much less a dispassionate POV, is to ignore reality.
"Greater Freedom".....
Tell me again why I can't own a nuclear bomb ? That would be greater freedom.
Oh wow! I guess next you're going to tell us you're a Christian.....
You look pretty stupid even when you've not been drinking.
Sorry that such a reminder upsets you so much......I guess I must be wrong....you sure don't act like one....
You guess ? I can assure you that you are rarely right.
Well, your attitude suggests I'm right.......must have bothered your conscience some for you to reply the way you did.....
