What's Christian About Denying Service To Any Individual?

[Quantum Windbag]

Christians aren't the ones forcing others to act against their own will. They are the ones resisting government laws. Christians are commanded to obey the government. Right now, it is a Fed law not discriminate based on race, so if you are a Christian, you should obey it, or you are going against the laws of God.

Some states have laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, people living in those states must also obey that law, Christian and non-Christian. But as a Christian, more so because you are commanded to obey the law.

Romans 13:
1 Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God. 2 So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow. 3 For the authorities do not frighten people who are doing right, but they frighten those who do wrong. So do what they say, and you will get along well. 4 The authorities are sent by God to help you. But if you are doing something wrong, of course you should be afraid, for you will be punished. The authorities are established by God for that very purpose, to punish those who do wrong. 5 So you must obey the government for two reasons: to keep from being punished and to keep a clear conscience. 6 Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons.

Christians are not the ones using the government, you are. That means that you are the one using force, imposing your will, and oppressing people. The fact that you think you are right does not justify the oppression.

Christians are writing bills that they hope will become part of the "government" - so don't be ignorant, they are using the government. And, ijit, it's not about me or you, it's about the majority of Americans. I didn't write the law, neither did you, although you are willing to vote for a bill that will become part of the government to allow people to discriminate.
So, don't talk to me about oppression, when that is what you are trying to do.

Those bills are supported by Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Libertarians, and even atheists, because they protect individuals from the government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is no law against writing things on a cake that is offensive to you. You are within the law to refuse that. What it appears that most don't get is that this Arizona law would make it possible for a business to disregard the Federal law (that supersede state laws)to discriminate based on race.


No, there is no law precluding you from refusing to write profanity on a cake, so you are making an analogy with something that doesn't exist.

If I find it offensive to write "Happy Anniversary Bill and Ted" I can refuse, unless they are gay.

Got it.

No, you can refuse, but if you tell them that you are refusing because they are gay, then if they file a complaint, if your state prohibits it, you will have to face the consequences.

Geez, it isn't rocket science......"You can't discriminate based on race" - and if your state prohibits it, you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation. Gosh, I've never seen so many people not able to comprehend something so simple.

YEt the photographer was taken to court, and lost, even though she did not refuse because they were gay. That kinda of makes you wrong, doesn't it?

 

[Mertex]

I discriminate everyday. On a personal basis, I don't discriminate based upon race or skin color, but I do discriminate based upon many other things, sexual orientation being one of them. In fact, I suspect that the vast majority of people discriminate based upon sexual orientation.

Please hear me out on this sexual orientation discrimination point.

I am a heterosexual male, so there is no way that I would ever consider dating, having sex with, or marrying another male. Essentially, I have now discriminated against every male on the planet when it comes to dating, sex and marrying. I see nothing wrong with that. Additionally, I am opposed to dating, having sex with or marrying a hard drug addict (think drugs such as heroin, cocaine, crack) Yep, I discriminate against drug addicts.

Those are two examples, but let me return to the first example concerning the dating, sex or marrying a homosexual. The law may say that I am not allowed to discriminate based upon sexual orientation, but I'll bet there is not one single person on this board that would say I should be forced by that law to go on a date with homosexual male if I choose to exercise my discrimination concerning not dating a homosexual man.

I personally don't care if two people of the same gender want to associate with each other in any manner they choose as long as it doesn't violate my rights. In my opinion, a business owner has the right to refuse service to anybody they want to based upon their principles. At times, it may not be a wise business decision, but it is theirs to make. If a company doesn't want to do business with somebody based upon their principles let them live or die by that decision, no need for government force.

You are confusing "personal choices" with business practices. We all discriminate when it comes to choosing how we dress, who we have as friends, what we eat, and what entertainment we seek. That has nothing to do with "business"

And you are wrong about a business owner having the right to refuse service to anybody they want if their principles are against their race, and if their state has a law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, they can't discriminate based on that. They can, but if the person files a lawsuit/complaint, then they have to face the consequences.

You can say it is their decision to make all you want, but if their state has a law banning it, they really can't. And we know the nation has a law banning discrimination based on race, so they can't do that either. And, trying to change the law isn't working because the majority of Americans don't feel the same way that you and those who are making these discrimination bills, feel. And, in America, it's majority rule. When you get enough people to agree with you that a business has a right to discriminate, and you get that into law, then you can say that it is his right, the way it stands right now, it isn't.

I'm not confusing anything, I'm expressing my opinion, just as you are.

But your opinion is not supported by law, that's all.

I specifically focused on the sexual orientation content of this thread because sexual orientation is entirely different than race. Equating the two is being a bit foolish.

You may find it foolish, but some states have a law prohibiting it. I'm not equating the two, they are two separate issues. But, the Arizona law was written in a way that would override the Federal law that prohibits discrimination based on "race".

And, in America, it's majority rule.

No, America isn't majority rule. A very strong tenet of being a republic form of government is that the majority can not impose its will upon the minority. As a contrast, the minority should not be able to impose their will either.

In order to get a law passed, you have to have a majority vote on it, whether Congress or the people. That's the way we operate. You can deny it all you want, but that is the way it is. Sometimes a minority can win by filibuster, trickery or cheating, but if the law is passed, then it takes a majority to undo it. Obviously, the majority of the people did not like Arizona's law, and Brewer was able to see the dire consequences if she had voted it into law, so in essence, majority won.

 

[Mertex]

If I find it offensive to write "Happy Anniversary Bill and Ted" I can refuse, unless they are gay.

Got it.

No, you can refuse, but if you tell them that you are refusing because they are gay, then if they file a complaint, if your state prohibits it, you will have to face the consequences.

Geez, it isn't rocket science......"You can't discriminate based on race" - and if your state prohibits it, you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation. Gosh, I've never seen so many people not able to comprehend something so simple.

YEt the photographer was taken to court, and lost, even though she did not refuse because they were gay. That kinda of makes you wrong, doesn't it?

You just proved me right. She did not refuse "because they were gay" - if New Mexico has a law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, and the photographer had told them "because they were gay" - it might have turned the other way. No, no I'm not wrong, you are the one that keeps missing the point.

And then, there is no guarantee that she would have lost, it would depend on the jury.
Are you new to America?

 

[Mertex]

Christians are not the ones using the government, you are. That means that you are the one using force, imposing your will, and oppressing people. The fact that you think you are right does not justify the oppression.

Christians are writing bills that they hope will become part of the "government" - so don't be ignorant, they are using the government. And, ijit, it's not about me or you, it's about the majority of Americans. I didn't write the law, neither did you, although you are willing to vote for a bill that will become part of the government to allow people to discriminate.
So, don't talk to me about oppression, when that is what you are trying to do.

Those bills are supported by Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Libertarians, and even atheists, because they protect individuals from the government.

The bill in Arizona was written by mostly Republican. It passed with majority Republican vote.

The votes on the bill were mostly along party lines, with Republicans supporting and Democrats opposing. Three Republicans voted against it.

Ariz. religion bill sparks discrimination debate

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That state had a law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination. The baker told them "because they were gay" he refused to bake the cake, they sued and won. Not rocket science.

Well, that is one story. On the other hand, the baker says she refused because they don't provide a specific type of service for things they find morally objectionable, to be specific, a commitment ceremony for something outside the scope of their religion.

In order to back their position up they pointed out that the couple had often come into the bakery, and they were never once turned away. The couple themselves admitted that, and said that they never hid the fact that they were gay from the staff. They actually liked the bakery because the staff, and the owners, never once had a problem with them because of their sexual preferences.

By your logic, since they didn't refuse "because they were gay" they should have won. Why were you so vehement about condemning them, and still lying about why they did it?

If their service to others included attending the wedding, then they violated the law. Not rocket science.

Noy yhe point, it it? The point is that you just argued that the only reason they lost is because they turned them away "because they were gay." Funny how, even when you admit that isn't what happened, you still insist that it is right because that is the law. Is the law always right? If so, why are you bitching about the laws that make it illegal for gays to marry each other?

My guess is that the real truth is that you like forcing your views on others, and do not see it as oppression because you have the gun. Sooner or later, someone is going to take that gun away from you.

You are the asshole, who doesn't comprehend what is being discussed and who wishes to go against Constitutional law... (wiki:Civil Rights Act....Powers given to enforce the act were initially weak, but were supplemented during later years. Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution,) and against the state laws in the states who prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, who resorts to name-calling when being handed ass on a platter, and who insists that going against the law should be permissible.

I am the asshole whose first post in this thread pointed out that the issue is not whehter or not it is Christian to not photograph a gay wedding, the point is whether or not it is right for the government to force people to do things they do not want to. Here you are arguing that, because the government actually has that power, I am wrong because I don't understand the law.

The reality is that I do understand the law, and I find the law is reprehensible. When King marched into Selma he understood that the law made it illegal for him to do what he was doing, and he did it anyway. That is because he believed in something that is bigger than the law. When Gandhi challenged the laws in African and India he understood them far better than most of the people who he inspired, he was trained as a lawyer. He did it because he believed in something bigger than the law.

I believe in the same thing, freedom. The law is not always right, and no one that is capable of defending their position rationally ever has to resort to "It's the law" to defend their position. The law is an imperfect reflection of the ideal of freedom. If the law forces people to do something simply because it can, it is wrong.

You are not even a true Republican/conservative, because those who are, respect the law of the land and the Constitution, so not only are you an asshole, you are a pseudo conservative law-breaking asshole.

I never claimed to be a Republican, or a conservative.

Wait, that was supposed to make me feel bad, right?

 

[Chuckt]

What's Christian about desiring to force other to act against their own will?

Christians aren't the ones forcing others to act against their own will. They are the ones resisting government laws. Christians are commanded to obey the government. Right now, it is a Fed law not discriminate based on race, so if you are a Christian, you should obey it, or you are going against the laws of God.

Some states have laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, people living in those states must also obey that law, Christian and non-Christian. But as a Christian, more so because you are commanded to obey the law.

Romans 13:
1 Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God. 2 So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow. 3 For the authorities do not frighten people who are doing right, but they frighten those who do wrong. So do what they say, and you will get along well. 4 The authorities are sent by God to help you. But if you are doing something wrong, of course you should be afraid, for you will be punished. The authorities are established by God for that very purpose, to punish those who do wrong. 5 So you must obey the government for two reasons: to keep from being punished and to keep a clear conscience. 6 Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons.

The Founding Fathers of this country signed the Declaration of Independence. They were mostly Christian and the opening paragraph is against Romans 13.

Acts 5:29 says we ought to obey God rather than man.

People didn't want to fight in wars and it was called conscientious objectors because they believed they could not kill another human being.

So there will always be an appeal to a higher law which is God.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, you can refuse, but if you tell them that you are refusing because they are gay, then if they file a complaint, if your state prohibits it, you will have to face the consequences.

Geez, it isn't rocket science......"You can't discriminate based on race" - and if your state prohibits it, you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation. Gosh, I've never seen so many people not able to comprehend something so simple.

YEt the photographer was taken to court, and lost, even though she did not refuse because they were gay. That kinda of makes you wrong, doesn't it?

You just proved me right. She did not refuse "because they were gay" - if New Mexico has a law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, and the photographer had told them "because they were gay" - it might have turned the other way. No, no I'm not wrong, you are the one that keeps missing the point.

And then, there is no guarantee that she would have lost, it would depend on the jury.
Are you new to America?

I am not missing the point.

The point is it right, or wrong, for the government to force people to do things simply because the government can?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Christians are writing bills that they hope will become part of the "government" - so don't be ignorant, they are using the government. And, ijit, it's not about me or you, it's about the majority of Americans. I didn't write the law, neither did you, although you are willing to vote for a bill that will become part of the government to allow people to discriminate.
So, don't talk to me about oppression, when that is what you are trying to do.

Those bills are supported by Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Libertarians, and even atheists, because they protect individuals from the government.

The bill in Arizona was written by mostly Republican. It passed with majority Republican vote.

The votes on the bill were mostly along party lines, with Republicans supporting and Democrats opposing. Three Republicans voted against it.

Ariz. religion bill sparks discrimination debate

I said it had support form different people. That is not the same as saying that Democrats wrote it.

Gay activists pressured Brewer to veto the bill, which she did Wednesday evening. It would have amended the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that protects people of faith from laws and state actions that burden the free exercise of religion. But activists and mainstream news outlets are propagandizing it as a “Jim Crow law” and a “denial of services bill.”
“As these legal scholars rightly point out, the misrepresentations about the bill have been egregious,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Douglas Napier. “It has nothing to do with refusing someone a sandwich. It has everything to do with making Arizona a safe place for people to freely live out their faith. The falsehoods need to be exposed for what they are.”
In the letter, sent Tuesday, the legal scholars asked her to make her decision based on accurate information:
Some of us are Republicans; some of us are Democrats. Some of us are religious; some of us are not. Some of us oppose same-sex marriage; some of us support it. Nine of the eleven signers of this letter believe that you should sign the bill; two are unsure. But all of us believe that many criticisms of the Arizona bill are deeply misleading.
The letter also points out that the federal government and 18 states have RFRAs. Arizona, in fact, has had one for nearly 15 years. SB 1062 would slightly amend it in light of recent court decisions regarding religious freedom. One involves a New Mexico Supreme Court decision saying a Christian couple must photograph same-sex ceremonies. The other involves the violation of religious freedom via a Health and Human Services mandate. It requires most businesses and nonprofits to offer potential abortion-inducing drugs in employee health plans.

Legal Scholars to Arizona Governor: Religious Freedom Bill ?Egregiously Misrepresented? | CitizenLink

 

[Coyote]

What if an atheist group wants me to write blasphemies on a cake?
What if a Christian wants an atheist to write "I believe in God" on a cake?

Do you see the problem? Not being allowed to say "no" is forcing yourself on other people.

Again - it's product. You can't be forced to provide a product that goes against your conscience - such as a wedding cake that is expressly vulgar and anatomically correct. You can refer it elsewhere. But that's not the same as telling a person I won't serve you because of who you are.

 

[Coyote]

Owning a business means one is allowed to decide what business services they choose to provide, for this example, let's choose a bakery. Let's suppose you own a bakery that specializes in wedding cakes. Now, lets suppose a marrying couple wants you to supply marriage cupcakes instead of a grand wedding cake at their marriage ceremony. Since your expertise is grand cakes but not cupcakes, should your business be forced to service them, service their request? Should you be forced to make cupcakes instead of the grand wedding cakes that you specialize in? I would say no, you should be allowed to discriminate based upon your principle to only present a grand wedding cake. It's your business and you get to decide how it is run.

It's your business - you can choose what to provide yes, but not necessarily who to serve. Not if you are in business to serve the public.

If you specialize in grand cakes and they want cupcakes you can provide a referral becuase you don't carry or make the product.



It's not your choice to discriminate based on who to serve if you are a public business unless you are defined as a religious entity - for example a Christian church can't be forced to perform an Islamic wedding. A Halal caterer can't be forced to serve bacon at a wedding reception because that is not one of the products they offer - it's not the "who" it's the "what". Likewise a kosher caterer can not be forced to offer a non-kosher product and your specialist in grand wedding cakes can not be forced to offer cupcakes if he doesn't make them.




A restaurant is not a legally defined action - it's a business entity. They can pick and choose what food to serve but not who to serve it to.

No shirt, no shoes, no service.
Yes, they can decide who to serve and who to not serve.

Sort of.

However that same person can dress according to the dress code and will be served - the person does not have to alter who or what he is, he merely has to comply with the establishment's code.

Why should you(or government) be allowed to determine which restrictions are acceptable and which are not? Based upon the principles of the business owner.
It's legal to not wear shoes, it's legal to not wear a shirt (for men), and it's legal for a bakery to deny the shoe-less and shirtless access to their services.

Again - it's not the same. The person is not being denied service because of who or what he is but rather how he is attired.

Once you decide that it's ok to deny service to a person based on who or what he is rather then where do you draw the line? Why should a business' right to discrimminate over-rule an individual's right to equal treatment?

By the way,

It's not your choice to discriminate based on who to serve if you are a public business

We are talking about PRIVATE business. The public doesn't own them, the government doesn't own them, it is an individual that owns this business, not a public entity.

When I said "public business" - I meant a business that serves the public - as opposed to private clubs or religious institutions - not government entities.

 

[Mertex]

This thread is not about the law, it is about the misconception that some people are pure enough to tell other people what is right, and what is wrong.

You're wrong.

It's about how Jesus hated gays, so today's christians can too.

The only people that I have seen that hate gays are the ones that insist that the only people who can bake their wedding cake are people that hate them. The rest of us are pretty sure that, despite the fact that some people don't want to go to the wedding, there are others that have no problem with it, and they will be able to get a cake.

Then again, the OP was about you.

Ha,ha, it doesn't get better than this. You're siding with the people that hate them....the cake bakers that hate gays....by your own words......Bwahahaha.

Yes, you want the cake baker to be able to discriminate, and you want us, whom you think hate gays, to agree with you and the cake bakers that hate gays.

You've twisted yourself into a pretzel....have fun untangling yourself.

 

[Amelia]

And "doing good" is being kind and loving to everyone, and treating them as you would like them to treat you. You cannot win sinners to Christ by discriminating against them and not showing them love. Serving someone we believe may be in sin does not transfer their sin to us.

Ephesians 4:31-32
Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.

Galatians 6:1 - Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

Matthew 7:3-5 - And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Being kind should stop short of participating in activities your conscience tells you are sinful.

So, in your mind, doing business with a homosexual makes you a participant in homosexual behavior?
I guess if you do business with an adulterer, you are also participating in adultery? Or with polygamist, you are participating in their behavior?

These people should stay out of churches, because their being there will most likely infect all the Christians, according to your way of thinking. And, Christians should not even invite them to church, to find out about Christ, because inviting them would mean you are participating in their sinful behavior. Only righteous Christians should go to church, according to your way of thinking.

And, Hospitals of religious affiliation, should not treat sinners, either because, they will then become infected with their sinful behavior?



That's right, Jesus didn't turn the woman away, or walk away from her because she was a sinner, he called out to the sinners that thought they were without sin to cast the first stone, and none of them did, because they were all sinners, just like we are today.




The Pharisees got themselves not to stone the woman....Jesus just pointed out their hypocrisy. Likewise today, not baking a cake for a homosexual couple does not keep them from continuing what you think is a sinful behavior. Baking a cake does not make you a participant in their behavior, either.


Denying them rights they feel are their due is being unkind and unfair. Most homosexuals seeking to get married are already living together, so one could say that you are forcing them to stay in a sinful relationship by not allowing them to marry. And many in this Forum are reviling them, calling them hurtful names in a very unloving way. They are putting themselves in God's place in punishing what they think is a sin that doesn't affect them in any way.

P.s., And Muslim barbers shouldn't be forced to cut the hair of women if they feel that is against their religion.

Business people, utilizing public utilities that are provided by tax payers should not be in business if they are going to discriminate based on race. If the state has a law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, then they cannot discriminate based on that, either.
Cutting hair of women that is against their religion, I don't think there is a law against that, and there are many reasons why a barber/beautician might and could refuse to cut someone's hair that would not put them against the law. You are not even within the realm of what this Ariz law was about.

And nuns shouldn't have to pay for birth control.

No woman should have to pay for birth control. If nuns are needing birth control, then they have other sins to worry about.

"So, in your mind, doing business with a homosexual makes you a participant in homosexual behavior?"

I said nothing like that. However, in case I need to be specific, no, doing business with a homosexual doesn't make one a participant in homosexual behavior.

There is a difference between doing business with a person and helping the person do something you believe to be immoral.



"Most homosexuals seeking to get married are already living together, so one could say that you are forcing them to stay in a sinful relationship by not allowing them to marry."

One could say that, but it would be absurd.



Not responding to anything else because I go cross-eyed trying to follow your spliced posts, and with the way you do it my quotes aren't preserved when I quote you, so that'll have to be the end of that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're wrong.

It's about how Jesus hated gays, so today's christians can too.

The only people that I have seen that hate gays are the ones that insist that the only people who can bake their wedding cake are people that hate them. The rest of us are pretty sure that, despite the fact that some people don't want to go to the wedding, there are others that have no problem with it, and they will be able to get a cake.

Then again, the OP was about you.

Ha,ha, it doesn't get better than this. You're siding with the people that hate them....the cake bakers that hate gays....by your own words......Bwahahaha.

Yes, you want the cake baker to be able to discriminate, and you want us, whom you think hate gays, to agree with you and the cake bakers that hate gays.

You've twisted yourself into a pretzel....have fun untangling yourself.

I am pointing out how stupid your argument is. If they, as you claim. hate them, why would they insist on getting a cake, or pictures, from them? What would stop them from showing up, not doing anything, and refunding the money because they "left the lens cap on?" What makes you think that, if they actually do hate them that they would bake a good cake for a wedding they don't want to be at? The couple would then end up with a wedding, a bad cake, and no pictures.

On the plus side, they got to force someone they personally despise to attend their wedding.

How the fuck is that not grounds for a 72 hour psych eval?

 

[Chuckt]

So can Chic-Filet sue gay rights groups for the discriminatory treatment and boycott against them?

 

[Coyote]

So can Chic-Filet sue gay rights groups for the discriminatory treatment and boycott against them?

What discriminatory treatment?

As for boycott -hell yes, boycotting is the American way

 

[Nosmo King]

One is taught not to enable or support sin. Providing services to a gay wedding is supporting and enabling sin. Marriage means that the State recognizes the two as sexual partners and while being gay is not in and of itself a sin, practicing gay life style and having sex IS.

Shouldn't the business. Repressing rights identify themselves as a Bigoted Business? That way no person could accidentally do business with them if they disagree.

Such Bigoted Businesses must post a sign saying:

Due to our fervent belief in Jesus Christ who preached "Judge not lest ye be judged" and "those without sin cast the first stone", we reserve the right to discriminate against homosexuals"

That way, no 'sinner' would accidentally wander into the shop of such a righteous business owner.

I have no problem with that, as long as the assholes that require them to identify themselves are forced to wear a Nazi cross, or maybe the KKK cross, so that everyone can see what type of people they are, and have the option not to do business with them.

I wasn't aware that you hold values like equality and justice as those held by Nazis or Klansmen. I always believed that such values are what makes America great.

Do you believe that it is an American ideal that there should be discrimination due to immutable circumstances? Where in our founding traditions is that notion found, other than among the salve holding class?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Shouldn't the business. Repressing rights identify themselves as a Bigoted Business? That way no person could accidentally do business with them if they disagree.

Such Bigoted Businesses must post a sign saying:

Due to our fervent belief in Jesus Christ who preached "Judge not lest ye be judged" and "those without sin cast the first stone", we reserve the right to discriminate against homosexuals"

That way, no 'sinner' would accidentally wander into the shop of such a righteous business owner.

I have no problem with that, as long as the assholes that require them to identify themselves are forced to wear a Nazi cross, or maybe the KKK cross, so that everyone can see what type of people they are, and have the option not to do business with them.

I wasn't aware that you hold values like equality and justice as those held by Nazis or Klansmen. I always believed that such values are what makes America great.

Do you believe that it is an American ideal that there should be discrimination due to immutable circumstances? Where in our founding traditions is that notion found, other than among the salve holding class?

What, exactly, changed in the last few years that makes sexual preference an immutable characteristic? Did they discover a gene that causes it while I wasn't looking, or do you just want me to feel bad because you don't pay attention to real science.

 

[Nosmo King]

I have no problem with that, as long as the assholes that require them to identify themselves are forced to wear a Nazi cross, or maybe the KKK cross, so that everyone can see what type of people they are, and have the option not to do business with them.

I wasn't aware that you hold values like equality and justice as those held by Nazis or Klansmen. I always believed that such values are what makes America great.

Do you believe that it is an American ideal that there should be discrimination due to immutable circumstances? Where in our founding traditions is that notion found, other than among the salve holding class?

What, exactly, changed in the last few years that makes sexual preference an immutable characteristic? Did they discover a gene that causes it while I wasn't looking, or do you just want me to feel bad because you don't pay attention to real science.

What you consider real science and what Iconsider real science are two different things. You want to use your misconception of science to rationalize your fears and suspicions. I want to see science as confirming my belief in live and let live. I seek equality for homosexuals, you seek repression. Which is the more noble?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wasn't aware that you hold values like equality and justice as those held by Nazis or Klansmen. I always believed that such values are what makes America great.

Do you believe that it is an American ideal that there should be discrimination due to immutable circumstances? Where in our founding traditions is that notion found, other than among the salve holding class?

What, exactly, changed in the last few years that makes sexual preference an immutable characteristic? Did they discover a gene that causes it while I wasn't looking, or do you just want me to feel bad because you don't pay attention to real science.

What you consider real science and what Iconsider real science are two different things. You want to use your misconception of science to rationalize your fears and suspicions. I want to see science as confirming my belief in live and let live. I seek equality for homosexuals, you seek repression. Which is the more noble?

Let me clear it up for you, real science is stuff that uses experiments and observation to test a hypothesis, it is not ignoring decades worth of data that runs contrary to your personal beliefs and manufacturing evidence to prove that you are right. Astronomy is real science, astrology is not. Physics is real science, psychology is not.

I seek freedom for everyone, not equality. Equality is for people that are afraid of the real world, freedom is for people who want to make the world real.