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.
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?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.
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.
Baking a cake for a homosexual couple is helping them to do something you believe to be immoral? All they are going to do with the cake is eat it. If a business person is going to "think" what his customers may or may not do that he deems immoral, he might be better off not being in the business. But, if the state has a law that prohibits a business owner from discriminating based on sexual orientation, that business owner is doing something that is immoral, too, he is discriminating, plus he is also breaking a law, which is immoral, too.So, in your mind, doing business with a homosexual makes you a participant in homosexual behavior?Being kind should stop short of participating in activities your conscience tells you are sinful.
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.
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.
No woman should have to pay for birth control. If nuns are needing birth control, then they have other sins to worry about.And nuns shouldn't have to pay for birth control.
"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.
Just as absurd as claiming that by baking a cake you are helping them to remain homosexual."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.
That's fine, because I find your responses to be rather nonsensical.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.
Baking a cake for a homosexual couple is helping them to do something you believe to be immoral? All they are going to do with the cake is eat it. If a business person is going to "think" what his customers may or may not do that he deems immoral, he might be better off not being in the business. But, if the state has a law that prohibits a business owner from discriminating based on sexual orientation, that business owner is doing something that is immoral, too, he is discriminating, plus he is also breaking a law, which is immoral, too.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.
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.
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.
Just as absurd as claiming that by baking a cake you are helping them to remain homosexual."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.
That's fine, because I find your responses to be rather nonsensical.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.
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.
So equal justice under law is counter to your values? Because in cases of discrimination, equal treatment is what is sought. This does not mean the 'freedom' to discriminate. It means the equality of accommodation.
And contrary to your rather narrow template of what is science, phyciatrty qualifies as science as much as any other medical science such as cardiology, epidemiology, endrocronology or neurology.
Don't tell me that they are enslaving homosexuals now! Or are you resorting to the lazy man's argument and throwing hyperbole out there as a last resort?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.
So equal justice under law is counter to your values? Because in cases of discrimination, equal treatment is what is sought. This does not mean the 'freedom' to discriminate. It means the equality of accommodation.
And contrary to your rather narrow template of what is science, phyciatrty qualifies as science as much as any other medical science such as cardiology, epidemiology, endrocronology or neurology.
So equal justice under law
Involuntary servitude is prohibited by the 13th amendment
Don't tell me that they are enslaving homosexuals now! Or are you resorting to the lazy man's argument and throwing hyperbole out there as a last resort?So equal justice under law is counter to your values? Because in cases of discrimination, equal treatment is what is sought. This does not mean the 'freedom' to discriminate. It means the equality of accommodation.
And contrary to your rather narrow template of what is science, phyciatrty qualifies as science as much as any other medical science such as cardiology, epidemiology, endrocronology or neurology.
So equal justice under law
Involuntary servitude is prohibited by the 13th amendment
Is it your contention that providing the exact same services for homosexuals as heterosexuals is really slavery?
The oppressor has become the oppressed! Just like in the good old days of Jim Crow! "It's our right to be bigots! This 'Civil Rights' business is denying us our right to be repressive!"
Good luck selling that to anyone who thinks!
If you are a wedding photographer, taking pictures at a heterosexual wedding or a gay wedding is still just taking pictures. Are you suggesting homosexuals will not pay for the services?Don't tell me that they are enslaving homosexuals now! Or are you resorting to the lazy man's argument and throwing hyperbole out there as a last resort?So equal justice under law
Involuntary servitude is prohibited by the 13th amendment
Is it your contention that providing the exact same services for homosexuals as heterosexuals is really slavery?
The oppressor has become the oppressed! Just like in the good old days of Jim Crow! "It's our right to be bigots! This 'Civil Rights' business is denying us our right to be repressive!"
Good luck selling that to anyone who thinks!
doesnt matter who the players are
forcing one person to perform a service against their will is by definition
involuntary servitude
Involuntary Servitude legal definition of Involuntary Servitude. Involuntary Servitude synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
If you are a wedding photographer, taking pictures at a heterosexual wedding or a gay wedding is still just taking pictures. Are you suggesting homosexuals will not pay for the services?Don't tell me that they are enslaving homosexuals now! Or are you resorting to the lazy man's argument and throwing hyperbole out there as a last resort?So equal justice under law
Involuntary servitude is prohibited by the 13th amendment
Is it your contention that providing the exact same services for homosexuals as heterosexuals is really slavery?
The oppressor has become the oppressed! Just like in the good old days of Jim Crow! "It's our right to be bigots! This 'Civil Rights' business is denying us our right to be repressive!"
Good luck selling that to anyone who thinks!
doesnt matter who the players are
forcing one person to perform a service against their will is by definition
involuntary servitude
Involuntary Servitude legal definition of Involuntary Servitude. Involuntary Servitude synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
If taking pictures is your normal set of services, you cannot claim "SLAVERY" at a homosexual wedding and "FREEDOM" at a straight wedding! The money from both occasions is still green!
If you are a wedding photographer, taking pictures at a heterosexual wedding or a gay wedding is still just taking pictures. Are you suggesting homosexuals will not pay for the services?Don't tell me that they are enslaving homosexuals now! Or are you resorting to the lazy man's argument and throwing hyperbole out there as a last resort?
Is it your contention that providing the exact same services for homosexuals as heterosexuals is really slavery?
The oppressor has become the oppressed! Just like in the good old days of Jim Crow! "It's our right to be bigots! This 'Civil Rights' business is denying us our right to be repressive!"
Good luck selling that to anyone who thinks!
doesnt matter who the players are
forcing one person to perform a service against their will is by definition
involuntary servitude
Involuntary Servitude legal definition of Involuntary Servitude. Involuntary Servitude synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
If taking pictures is your normal set of services, you cannot claim "SLAVERY" at a homosexual wedding and "FREEDOM" at a straight wedding! The money from both occasions is still green!
If I were a house painter and my next door neighbor hired me to paint his house an outlandish color, I could not claim I am being enslaved to paint his house. Even though I believe that Lime Green with Orange trim on my neighbor's house will ruin my property value.
You silly Conservative bigots! First you tell us that 'victim hood' is a Left wing tactic. Next you try to assert that someone providing the exact same services to a heterosexual as a homosexual, that enslavement happens only when the homosexual is involved!
One in public business offering services to the public cannot lawfully discriminate, period.
One in public business offering services to the public cannot lawfully discriminate, period.
In one more complicated case, a court held that a cemetery could exclude "punk rockers" from a private funeral service. A mother requested that the funeral service for her 17-year-old daughter be private and that admission to the service be limited to family and invited guests only. The cemetery failed to exclude punk rockers from the service. The punk rockers arrived in unconventional dress, wearing makeup and sporting various hair colors. One was wearing a dress decorated with live rats. Others wore leather and chains, some were twirling baton-like weapons, drinking, and using cocaine. The punk rockers made rude comments to family members and were generally disruptive of the service.
Ironically, the funeral business had attempted to rely on the Unruh Civil Rights Act, claiming that if they had denied access to the punk rockers, they would have been in violation of the Act. But the court held that the punk rockers' presence had deprived the deceased person's family of the services of the business establishment, which were meant to provide comfort to grieving family members. On that basis, the court stated that the funeral business could have legitimately denied access to the punk rockers.
You invoked slavery and the 13th amendment. Back peddling is the refuge of a poor debater.If you are a wedding photographer, taking pictures at a heterosexual wedding or a gay wedding is still just taking pictures. Are you suggesting homosexuals will not pay for the services?doesnt matter who the players are
forcing one person to perform a service against their will is by definition
involuntary servitude
Involuntary Servitude legal definition of Involuntary Servitude. Involuntary Servitude synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
If taking pictures is your normal set of services, you cannot claim "SLAVERY" at a homosexual wedding and "FREEDOM" at a straight wedding! The money from both occasions is still green!
If I were a house painter and my next door neighbor hired me to paint his house an outlandish color, I could not claim I am being enslaved to paint his house. Even though I believe that Lime Green with Orange trim on my neighbor's house will ruin my property value.
You silly Conservative bigots! First you tell us that 'victim hood' is a Left wing tactic. Next you try to assert that someone providing the exact same services to a heterosexual as a homosexual, that enslavement happens only when the homosexual is involved!
If taking pictures is your normal set of services, you cannot claim "SLAVERY" at a homosexual wedding and "FREEDOM" at a straight wedding! The money from both occasions is still green!
slavery and involuntary servitude are two different things
slavery is a life long thing while involuntary servitude is for time frame
also Involuntary servitude is not dependent on getting paid or not
it has to do with being forced to do a service against your will
do you agree that it should then be unlawful to refuse service
to a legal concealed carry patron
how about those with bear feet or no shirt
I could not claim I am being enslaved to paint his house
sounds like you are voluntarily painting his house
how about if the neighbor says
he will pay you to paint his house
however if you refuse to he would burn your house down
is that legal
what if he convinced you that you would go to jail
for failing to paint his house
You invoked slavery and the 13th amendment. Back peddling is the refuge of a poor debater.If you are a wedding photographer, taking pictures at a heterosexual wedding or a gay wedding is still just taking pictures. Are you suggesting homosexuals will not pay for the services?
If taking pictures is your normal set of services, you cannot claim "SLAVERY" at a homosexual wedding and "FREEDOM" at a straight wedding! The money from both occasions is still green!
If I were a house painter and my next door neighbor hired me to paint his house an outlandish color, I could not claim I am being enslaved to paint his house. Even though I believe that Lime Green with Orange trim on my neighbor's house will ruin my property value.
You silly Conservative bigots! First you tell us that 'victim hood' is a Left wing tactic. Next you try to assert that someone providing the exact same services to a heterosexual as a homosexual, that enslavement happens only when the homosexual is involved!
If taking pictures is your normal set of services, you cannot claim "SLAVERY" at a homosexual wedding and "FREEDOM" at a straight wedding! The money from both occasions is still green!
slavery and involuntary servitude are two different things
slavery is a life long thing while involuntary servitude is for time frame
also Involuntary servitude is not dependent on getting paid or not
it has to do with being forced to do a service against your will
do you agree that it should then be unlawful to refuse service
to a legal concealed carry patron
how about those with bear feet or no shirt
I could not claim I am being enslaved to paint his house
sounds like you are voluntarily painting his house
how about if the neighbor says
he will pay you to paint his house
however if you refuse to he would burn your house down
is that legal
what if he convinced you that you would go to jail
for failing to paint his house
If your 'will' is taking wedding photographs, how is it suddenly 'involuntary servitude' to ply your trade at a same sex wedding? Actually it isn't is it? You are groping for legal cover to discriminate. If you own a business that is open to the public, you must be open to the public!
As a function of public safety, I would say yes it is reasonable to ask customers to be unarmed. If I ran a bar, I would not want the liability of a fist fight escalating into a shooting.You invoked slavery and the 13th amendment. Back peddling is the refuge of a poor debater.If taking pictures is your normal set of services, you cannot claim "SLAVERY" at a homosexual wedding and "FREEDOM" at a straight wedding! The money from both occasions is still green!
slavery and involuntary servitude are two different things
slavery is a life long thing while involuntary servitude is for time frame
also Involuntary servitude is not dependent on getting paid or not
it has to do with being forced to do a service against your will
do you agree that it should then be unlawful to refuse service
to a legal concealed carry patron
how about those with bear feet or no shirt
I could not claim I am being enslaved to paint his house
sounds like you are voluntarily painting his house
how about if the neighbor says
he will pay you to paint his house
however if you refuse to he would burn your house down
is that legal
what if he convinced you that you would go to jail
for failing to paint his house
If your 'will' is taking wedding photographs, how is it suddenly 'involuntary servitude' to ply your trade at a same sex wedding? Actually it isn't is it? You are groping for legal cover to discriminate. If you own a business that is open to the public, you must be open to the public!
slavery and involuntary servitude are both stated in the 13th amendment
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
If you own a business that is open to the public, timers to be unarmyou must be open to the public!
you never answered the question
is it illegal then to deny service
to a legal concealed carry patron
As a function of public safety, I would say yes it is reasonable to ask customers to be unarmed. If I ran a bar, I would not want the liability of a fist fight escalating into a shooting.You invoked slavery and the 13th amendment. Back peddling is the refuge of a poor debater.
If your 'will' is taking wedding photographs, how is it suddenly 'involuntary servitude' to ply your trade at a same sex wedding? Actually it isn't is it? You are groping for legal cover to discriminate. If you own a business that is open to the public, you must be open to the public!
slavery and involuntary servitude are both stated in the 13th amendment
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
If you own a business that is open to the public, timers to be unarmyou must be open to the public!
you never answered the question
is it illegal then to deny service
to a legal concealed carry patron
But this argument of yours is a straw man. You cannot equate bigotry with responsibility. You are looking for a legal way to create second class Americans by discriminating against them. Not packing heat is a matter of liability and responsibility, not discrimination.
One in public business offering services to the public cannot lawfully discriminate. Denying services based on Appearance, Odor, or Attire is perfectly acceptable. Denying services to those who are protected by the 14th Amendment is not acceptable.
Thanks to those who have made this clear.
Public safety is the watchword where firearms are concerned. If Dick Cheney came into my tavern with his gun, I would ask him to leave because he is not safe where firearms are concerned. How can I be assured that every Rambo wannabe coming through my door is at least safer than Cheney?As a function of public safety, I would say yes it is reasonable to ask customers to be unarmed. If I ran a bar, I would not want the liability of a fist fight escalating into a shooting.slavery and involuntary servitude are both stated in the 13th amendment
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
If you own a business that is open to the public, timers to be unarmyou must be open to the public!
you never answered the question
is it illegal then to deny service
to a legal concealed carry patron
But this argument of yours is a straw man. You cannot equate bigotry with responsibility. You are looking for a legal way to create second class Americans by discriminating against them. Not packing heat is a matter of liability and responsibility, not discrimination.
it certainly is not a strawman argument
a few places refuse to serve legal firearms holders
by issuing the concealed carry permit
the state has already said the person is not a public safety threat
the holder is well within his legal right to carry concealed
yet you find it ok to withhold services to the individual
interesting
so now the business has a right to exert its will against
the cc holder but all other times the business has no will
and must comply under the threat of legal action
--LOL
