What are your attitudes about Homosexuals?

[Seawytch]

uhuh, saying "case law" doesn't answer my question. Quoting case law would. And since you didn't I bet you can't.







Just because your not a preacher or a church does not mean you don't get 1st amendment rights.

Then you can name all the churches and clergy that have been forced to marry interracial or interfaith marriages, right? How about all the religious exemptions for people opposed to interracial marriage? Do they have to bake a cake for them?

Red herring that has nothing to do with what I posted.



Individuals have 1st amendment rights too.

Of course they do...that wasn't your original claim. A private entity is not a TAX EXEMPT church and the owners/employees are not clergy.

 

[Seawytch]

Civil rights are not a "we had it worse" proposition.

 

[Slyhunter]

Then you can name all the churches and clergy that have been forced to marry interracial or interfaith marriages, right? How about all the religious exemptions for people opposed to interracial marriage? Do they have to bake a cake for them?

Red herring that has nothing to do with what I posted.



Individuals have 1st amendment rights too.

Of course they do...that wasn't your original claim. A private entity is not a TAX EXEMPT church and the owners/employees are not clergy.

I never said they were. But they should be free not to cater to satan's minions because it violates their 1st amendment rights which is my original claim.

ie. if he doesn't want to make cakes for homo's nobody should have the right to make him.

 

[September]

no one that i knew to be gay was ever mean to me. Can't say the same for heteros. I've met many mean, angry, prickish straight people. A lot of them are bible thumpers.

hitler was nice to his girlfriend!!!! So!!!!

Adolf Hitler was one Hell of an amazing human.

 

[GISMYS]

no one that i knew to be gay was ever mean to me. Can't say the same for heteros. I've met many mean, angry, prickish straight people. A lot of them are bible thumpers.

hitler was nice to his girlfriend!!!! So!!!!

adolf hitler was one hell of an amazing human.

poor lost demon tool,fool,puppet.

 

[Peach]

Yes, it's a shame some folks kill others because they don't like the way they live like what happened to Shepeard. And yes, civil rights are civil rights. But I do not believe that anyone has the right to demand someone else serve them. That's borderline slavery and is unacceptable as far as I am concerned, so it's very hard for me to be sympathetic to a group of people advocating more of it.

Especially when they try to liken getting their feelings hurt by a baker refusing to bake a cake to my parents & aunts & uncles getting bit by police dogs, sprayed with firehoses, beaten by police, and having crosses burned in their yards. It just isn't the same, and it's insulting to say they're equivelants.

The only gays that had to sit at the back of the bus were black. No gay whites were dealing with these things.

If we were living in the times when my parents stood up against racism...I would be inclined to agree with you. Today, fighting "bigotry" is a joke & backed by the mainstream left & media. If a member of any designated victim group so much as breaks a nail, it's on the news.

Gays have never faced what black folks faced, not even close to that level. So I just don't see it the way you do.

Not on the level with blacks in America, but Matthew Shepard remains a sad example. Civil rights are civil rights; there is something "special" about the Bill of Rights, and the Amendments that added to our protections. As I have written, I saw the KKK march 15 years ago, one black officer was out in the heat with all the rest, protecting their liberty to be what they are.

"If allowed to start, it grows": my daddy. No, not a equivalent.....yet. I read the jokes here about "driving a tank" through a gay pride parade. Sit back, say it'll never be as bad......... as it was then. You'll watch it begin again. Thank you for making me think of James Baldwin, why I don't know. I guess rascism and homosexuality. I cannot find my favorite quote from him; annoying. Something like "the hatred I had to fear was within myself". I think it is from The Fire Next Time but could be Notes On a Native Son. I do not think USMB has a literature section.

 

[LockeJaw]

Civil rights are not a "we had it worse" proposition.

Never said it was. I said your supposed "plights" are pathetic compared to my people's. Are you going to compare getting lynched to getting your feelings hurt? I bet you will...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Red herring that has nothing to do with what I posted.



Individuals have 1st amendment rights too.

Of course they do...that wasn't your original claim. A private entity is not a TAX EXEMPT church and the owners/employees are not clergy.

I never said they were. But they should be free not to cater to satan's minions because it violates their 1st amendment rights which is my original claim.

ie. if he doesn't want to make cakes for homo's nobody should have the right to make him.

In which case your original claim is wrong, as public accommodations laws in no way ‘violate’ First Amendment rights (Employment Division v. Smith (1990)).

 

[Slyhunter]

Of course they do...that wasn't your original claim. A private entity is not a TAX EXEMPT church and the owners/employees are not clergy.

I never said they were. But they should be free not to cater to satan's minions because it violates their 1st amendment rights which is my original claim.

ie. if he doesn't want to make cakes for homo's nobody should have the right to make him.

In which case your original claim is wrong, as public accommodations laws in no way ‘violate’ First Amendment rights (Employment Division v. Smith (1990)).

My original claim is that if it's against his religion to cater to homosexuals then he should not be forced to. It's his 1st amendment right. It's also his freedom of association.

 

[Peach]

Of course they do...that wasn't your original claim. A private entity is not a TAX EXEMPT church and the owners/employees are not clergy.

I never said they were. But they should be free not to cater to satan's minions because it violates their 1st amendment rights which is my original claim.

ie. if he doesn't want to make cakes for homo's nobody should have the right to make him.

In which case your original claim is wrong, as public accommodations laws in no way ‘violate’ First Amendment rights (Employment Division v. Smith (1990)).

Opening minds by citing case law rarely works.

 

[LockeJaw]

Yeah, I saw that. It's one thing to want to not have to associate with someone, it is another to wish death upon them. You see I am a fan of John Locke, and I do take his writings to heart. It'd be great if we could find a common understanding & get rid of the extremes on both sides of this issue.

Because I promise you, If the radical gays would back off.. We actually could get somewhere. The way they are going about things is NOT comparable to the fight for black civil rights(minus maybe the Black Panthers). Blacks didn't label Christians as bigots just for sticking to what their faith tells them is right, they weren't like these radical homosexuals PERIOD. They need to understand that bigotry is NEVER going away, and the way they go about things just makes people dislike them even more. They're messing with our kids. You cannot blame us that disagree with their lifestyle for being angry. Not too long ago, my brother's ex-wife who lives in Atlanta called him to tell him that his daughter is having issues & that she found out she befriended another 10 YEAR OLD girl who is already claiming to be a lesbian, smokes, and recently cut her wrists. Tell me WHat in the hell is a 10 year old doing even thinking about sex in this way? It's wrong, and people who cannot afford to send their children to private schools or homeschool their child should not have to worry about some left wing nutjob trying to convince their child that they are gay. It's happening and people are getting sick of it.

If you don't understand that, which I am sure you could on some level... Something is wrong with you.(not you specifically, speaking in general)

Yes, it's a shame some folks kill others because they don't like the way they live like what happened to Shepeard. And yes, civil rights are civil rights. But I do not believe that anyone has the right to demand someone else serve them. That's borderline slavery and is unacceptable as far as I am concerned, so it's very hard for me to be sympathetic to a group of people advocating more of it.

Especially when they try to liken getting their feelings hurt by a baker refusing to bake a cake to my parents & aunts & uncles getting bit by police dogs, sprayed with firehoses, beaten by police, and having crosses burned in their yards. It just isn't the same, and it's insulting to say they're equivelants.

The only gays that had to sit at the back of the bus were black. No gay whites were dealing with these things.

Not on the level with blacks in America, but Matthew Shepard remains a sad example. Civil rights are civil rights; there is something "special" about the Bill of Rights, and the Amendments that added to our protections. As I have written, I saw the KKK march 15 years ago, one black officer was out in the heat with all the rest, protecting their liberty to be what they are.

"If allowed to start, it grows": my daddy. No, not a equivalent.....yet. I read the jokes here about "driving a tank" through a gay pride parade. Sit back, say it'll never be as bad......... as it was then. You'll watch it begin again. Thank you for making me think of James Baldwin, why I don't know. I guess rascism and homosexuality. I cannot find my favorite quote from him; annoying. Something like "the hatred I had to fear was within myself". I think it is from The Fire Next Time but could be Notes On a Native Son. I do not think USMB has a literature section.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Civil rights are not a "we had it worse" proposition.

Never said it was. I said your supposed "plights" are pathetic compared to my people's. Are you going to compare getting lynched to getting your feelings hurt? I bet you will...

Which has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that gay Americans are subject to discriminatory measures and have the right to seek relief in Federal court as a constitutionally protected class of persons.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I never said they were. But they should be free not to cater to satan's minions because it violates their 1st amendment rights which is my original claim.

ie. if he doesn't want to make cakes for homo's nobody should have the right to make him.

In which case your original claim is wrong, as public accommodations laws in no way ‘violate’ First Amendment rights (Employment Division v. Smith (1990)).

Opening minds by citing case law rarely works.

The citations aren’t intended for the quoted posters; they’re for those with open minds that understand and respect the rule of law.

 

[Seawytch]

Red herring that has nothing to do with what I posted.



Individuals have 1st amendment rights too.

Of course they do...that wasn't your original claim. A private entity is not a TAX EXEMPT church and the owners/employees are not clergy.

I never said they were. But they should be free not to cater to satan's minions because it violates their 1st amendment rights which is my original claim.

ie. if he doesn't want to make cakes for homo's nobody should have the right to make him.

If nobody wants to cater to cripples, blacks or Christians they "shouldn't have to"...have you asked your legislator to repeal the civil rights act yet?

 

[Seawytch]

I never said they were. But they should be free not to cater to satan's minions because it violates their 1st amendment rights which is my original claim.



ie. if he doesn't want to make cakes for homo's nobody should have the right to make him.

In which case your original claim is wrong, as public accommodations laws in no way ‘violate’ First Amendment rights (Employment Division v. Smith (1990)).

My original claim is that if it's against his religion to cater to homosexuals then he should not be forced to. It's his 1st amendment right. It's also his freedom of association.

That didn't work with blacks, why do you think it should work with gays?

 

[Seawytch]

I never said they were. But they should be free not to cater to satan's minions because it violates their 1st amendment rights which is my original claim.



ie. if he doesn't want to make cakes for homo's nobody should have the right to make him.

In which case your original claim is wrong, as public accommodations laws in no way ‘violate’ First Amendment rights (Employment Division v. Smith (1990)).

Opening minds by citing case law rarely works.

You mean facts don't matter because gays are icky.

 

[LockeJaw]

Gays are not a race, they are a group that exhibits a certain type of sexual behavior. To me, that makes the whole situation completely different than the civil rights struggle for black folks. Just because you may be able to draw some parralells between some of the things blacks went through with gays does not mean it is the equivelant to the black civil rights struggle.

In which case your original claim is wrong, as public accommodations laws in no way ‘violate’ First Amendment rights (Employment Division v. Smith (1990)).

My original claim is that if it's against his religion to cater to homosexuals then he should not be forced to. It's his 1st amendment right. It's also his freedom of association.

That didn't work with blacks, why do you think it should work with gays?

 

[September]

The late Qui-Gon Jinn once said, "Always remember... your focus determines your reality."

LockeJaw primarily focuses on homosexuality. What does this mean?

 

[bodecea]

The late Qui-Gon Jinn once said, "Always remember... your focus determines your reality."

LockeJaw primarily focuses on homosexuality. What does this mean?

Well, if we go by Qui-Gon Jinn, LockeJaw isn't the only one that applies to.

 

[Slyhunter]

Of course they do...that wasn't your original claim. A private entity is not a TAX EXEMPT church and the owners/employees are not clergy.

I never said they were. But they should be free not to cater to satan's minions because it violates their 1st amendment rights which is my original claim.

ie. if he doesn't want to make cakes for homo's nobody should have the right to make him.

If nobody wants to cater to cripples, blacks or Christians they "shouldn't have to"...have you asked your legislator to repeal the civil rights act yet?

If it violates their religion yes.