When will we put LGBTQ issues behind us.?

[dblack]

No actual harm? That is exactly where your so called argument fails pathetically ...

Not helping someone isn't the same as harming them.

Oh please is that the best that you can do? You're just playing idiotic and childish word games now because you have nothing better.

Not at all. It's fundamental to the discussion, and to a broader conception of what rights mean in the first place. It's the same discussion that comes up in every effort to establish a "right" to someone else's service. It's the same discussion that comes up with the so-called "right" to healthcare. If not having a cake baked for you is harming you, who is guilty of inflicting that harm? Everyone who didn't bake you a cake that day?

The issue on the tables was about harm to children when parents are not able to marry and adopt them. You are avoiding that for obvious reasons.

My apologies. I wasn't avoiding it - I misread. BTW, what are you presuming as "obvious reasons". Do you still think I have anti-gay agenda?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No actual harm? That is exactly where your so called argument fails pathetically ...

Not helping someone isn't the same as harming them.

Oh please is that the best that you can do? You're just playing idiotic and childish word games now because you have nothing better.

Not at all. It's fundamental to the discussion, and to a broader conception of what rights mean in the first place. It's the same discussion that comes up in every effort to establish a "right" to someone else's service. It's the same discussion that comes up with the so-called "right" to healthcare. If not having a cake baked for you is harming you, who is guilty of inflicting that harm? Everyone who didn't bake you a cake that day?

The issue on the tables was about harm to children when parents are not able to marry and adopt them. You are avoiding that for obvious reasons.

My apologies. I wasn't avoiding it - I misread. BTW, what are you presuming as "obvious reasons". Do you still think I have anti-gay agenda?

Apology accepted. I don't know if you have an anti gay agenda but you do not seem very concerned about gay rights and adapt a narrow reading of the constitution that justifies allowing discrimination to continue.

 

[dannyboys]

No actual harm? That is exactly where your so called argument fails pathetically ...

Not helping someone isn't the same as harming them.

Oh please is that the best that you can do? You're just playing idiotic and childish word games now because you have nothing better.

Not at all. It's fundamental to the discussion, and to a broader conception of what rights mean in the first place. It's the same discussion that comes up in every effort to establish a "right" to someone else's service. It's the same discussion that comes up with the so-called "right" to healthcare. If not having a cake baked for you is harming you, who is guilty of inflicting that harm? Everyone who didn't bake you a cake that day?

The issue on the tables was about harm to children when parents are not able to marry and adopt them. You are avoiding that for obvious reasons.

But what if one of the parents isn't "living"? HAAAA HAAAAAA!

 

[Katzndogz]

No actual harm? That is exactly where your so called argument fails pathetically ...

Not helping someone isn't the same as harming them.

Oh please is that the best that you can do? You're just playing idiotic and childish word games now because you have nothing better.

Not at all. It's fundamental to the discussion, and to a broader conception of what rights mean in the first place. It's the same discussion that comes up in every effort to establish a "right" to someone else's service. It's the same discussion that comes up with the so-called "right" to healthcare. If not having a cake baked for you is harming you, who is guilty of inflicting that harm? Everyone who didn't bake you a cake that day?

The issue on the tables was about harm to children when parents are not able to marry and adopt them. You are avoiding that for obvious reasons.

When the parents are deviants, the issue has been resolved. The question is one of black and white. There is no gray. The parents are homosexuals, they are perverts. We don't put innocent and defenseless children in the clutches of perverts.

 

[Skylar]

No actual harm? That is exactly where your so called argument fails pathetically ...

Not helping someone isn't the same as harming them.

Oh please is that the best that you can do? You're just playing idiotic and childish word games now because you have nothing better.

Not at all. It's fundamental to the discussion, and to a broader conception of what rights mean in the first place. It's the same discussion that comes up in every effort to establish a "right" to someone else's service. It's the same discussion that comes up with the so-called "right" to healthcare. If not having a cake baked for you is harming you, who is guilty of inflicting that harm? Everyone who didn't bake you a cake that day?

The issue on the tables was about harm to children when parents are not able to marry and adopt them. You are avoiding that for obvious reasons.

When the parents are deviants, the issue has been resolved. The question is one of black and white. There is no gray. The parents are homosexuals, they are perverts. We don't put innocent and defenseless children in the clutches of perverts.

Homosexuals are perverts according to who?

And you realize that same sex parents are raising hundreds of thousands of their *own* children, right?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No actual harm? That is exactly where your so called argument fails pathetically ...

Not helping someone isn't the same as harming them.

Oh please is that the best that you can do? You're just playing idiotic and childish word games now because you have nothing better.

Not at all. It's fundamental to the discussion, and to a broader conception of what rights mean in the first place. It's the same discussion that comes up in every effort to establish a "right" to someone else's service. It's the same discussion that comes up with the so-called "right" to healthcare. If not having a cake baked for you is harming you, who is guilty of inflicting that harm? Everyone who didn't bake you a cake that day?

The issue on the tables was about harm to children when parents are not able to marry and adopt them. You are avoiding that for obvious reasons.

When the parents are deviants, the issue has been resolved. The question is one of black and white. There is no gray. The parents are homosexuals, they are perverts. We don't put innocent and defenseless children in the clutches of perverts.

Then you had better get busy and get out there are rescue the 2 million or so kids that are currently with gay and Lesbian parents.I guess that you missed the post showing that gays can adopt in all 50 states now. And, most states did it on their own without Federal intervention. Ya think that we should snatch them all up and make them wards of the state.?

 

[Skylar]

Not helping someone isn't the same as harming them.

Oh please is that the best that you can do? You're just playing idiotic and childish word games now because you have nothing better.

Not at all. It's fundamental to the discussion, and to a broader conception of what rights mean in the first place. It's the same discussion that comes up in every effort to establish a "right" to someone else's service. It's the same discussion that comes up with the so-called "right" to healthcare. If not having a cake baked for you is harming you, who is guilty of inflicting that harm? Everyone who didn't bake you a cake that day?

The issue on the tables was about harm to children when parents are not able to marry and adopt them. You are avoiding that for obvious reasons.

When the parents are deviants, the issue has been resolved. The question is one of black and white. There is no gray. The parents are homosexuals, they are perverts. We don't put innocent and defenseless children in the clutches of perverts.

Then you had better get busy and get out there are rescue the 2 million or so kids that are currently with gay and Lesbian parents.I guess that you missed the post showing that gays can adopt in all 50 states now. And, most states did it on their own without Federal intervention. Ya think that we should snatch them all up and make them wards of the state.?

But ....but I thought it was 'black and white'?

 

[ChrisL]

Of course you don’t see it in what he is writing. You don’t see it in your own writing. You don’t want to see it or your just being dishonest. I keep hearing this crap that “None of us has a right to be treated in any particular way by anyone else” but where exactly is that coming from?

It's coming from the basic concept of rights. A right is a freedom to act on your own, not the power to force others to serve you.

Of course people have a right to be treated equally! If they didn’t, it would open the door to all sorts of discrimination -AS I HAVE PREVIOUSLY POINTED OUT.

Really? So does a shop offering a senior citizen discount violate your rights? If a shop owner gives a good friend a discount - or even free service - is that violating your so-called 'right' to equal treatment?

Somewhere along the line we've confused equal treatment under the law with equal treatment by everyone else. And what you don't get is that those two approaches contradict each other.

This is not my post that you are addressing. Are you okay?

 

[ChrisL]

Everyone wants to be treated equally. Nobody is just going to lie down and "accept" being discriminated against.

This is the post I made, which you dishonestly deleted and put someone else's post in it's place. Why would you do that?

 

[bodecea]

Who says a moral code doesn't apply to business dealings? Where is that written?

The “beast” spoken of in Revelation 13:17 says that, and those who are on his side agree…

And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.​

It is becoming apparent to me that this “mark” is not a physical or visual mark, but an ideological one. We are seeing the beginning of a time in which refusing to go along with the evil and madness that the Beast wishes to force on us will be punished by disallowing us from engaging in necessary commerce.

OMG! The beast? Biblical references? Now I know what we are dealing with here. . We are totally done here!

It's interesting that for some reason you just can't seem to debate and automatically dismiss with people of a religious persuasion.

Bigot.

I debate facts . I debate the law. I do not debate nonsense and mythology. It has no place in a discussion of civil rights.

Go 'debate' with your latest 'bum-boy'.

Well, we know what you like to think about now.

 

[martybegan]

Being for equality doesn't mean thinking the constitution can be ignored to achieve it.

The constitution is not being ignored. I'm going to guess that you are, at best indifferent to equality and are just using a twisted interpretation of the Constitution to claim that you something other than what you are.,

I am a strict constructional federalist, with libertarian (small "l") leanings. I have never claimed to be anything else.

Government is not there to declare one form of butt hurt more equal than another form of butt hurt where there is no actual harm.

No actual harm? That is exactly where your so called argument fails pathetically, and where you are exposed for what you are:

Children raised by gay or lesbian couples benefit when their parents are allowed to marry, America’s top pediatrics group said Thursday in support of same-sex marriage.

“If a child has two living and capable parents who choose to create a permanent bond by way of civil marriage, it is in the best interest of their child(ren) that legal and social institutions allow and support them to do so, irrespective of their sexual orientation,” the American Academy of Pediatrics said in a policy statement.

Dr. Ellen Perrin, co-author of the policy statement, says marriage gives children of same-sex couples the same advantages of any married couple’s children.

“Marriage provides permanence and security for children, and those are extremely important for children’s well-being,” said Perrin, a professor at Tufts University School of Medicine who specializes in the developmental behavior of children. “(Marriage) allows them to grow up in an environment in which they’re confident of the solidity of their family and the fact that their family is just like every other family of kids they know in school.”

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/21/no-evidence-same-sex-marriage-harms-children-docs-say/

So not being able to get the exact cake you want from the exact baker you want is going to stop a wedding?

The most recent discussion has been about actual marriage and adoption......but you knew that, so cut out the crap

All of my harm discussions are about the cake/photographer stuff, If you want to discuss the other stuff, ask me about it, don't transition into it and assume my position also transitions in a similar manner.

 

[Skylar]

Of course you don’t see it in what he is writing. You don’t see it in your own writing. You don’t want to see it or your just being dishonest. I keep hearing this crap that “None of us has a right to be treated in any particular way by anyone else” but where exactly is that coming from?

It's coming from the basic concept of rights. A right is a freedom to act on your own, not the power to force others to serve you.

Of course people have a right to be treated equally! If they didn’t, it would open the door to all sorts of discrimination -AS I HAVE PREVIOUSLY POINTED OUT.

Really? So does a shop offering a senior citizen discount violate your rights? If a shop owner gives a good friend a discount - or even free service - is that violating your so-called 'right' to equal treatment?

Somewhere along the line we've confused equal treatment under the law with equal treatment by everyone else. And what you don't get is that those two approaches contradict each other.

This is not my post that you are addressing. Are you okay?

Dblack probably just made a mistake in attribution. Intentional misquotes aren't DB's style.

 

[ChrisL]

Of course you don’t see it in what he is writing. You don’t see it in your own writing. You don’t want to see it or your just being dishonest. I keep hearing this crap that “None of us has a right to be treated in any particular way by anyone else” but where exactly is that coming from?

It's coming from the basic concept of rights. A right is a freedom to act on your own, not the power to force others to serve you.

Of course people have a right to be treated equally! If they didn’t, it would open the door to all sorts of discrimination -AS I HAVE PREVIOUSLY POINTED OUT.

Really? So does a shop offering a senior citizen discount violate your rights? If a shop owner gives a good friend a discount - or even free service - is that violating your so-called 'right' to equal treatment?

Somewhere along the line we've confused equal treatment under the law with equal treatment by everyone else. And what you don't get is that those two approaches contradict each other.

This is not my post that you are addressing. Are you okay?

Dblack probably just made a mistake in attribution. Intentional misquotes aren't DB's style.

Well I followed the arrow back to the post he was quoting, and it is pretty obvious that he inserted a quote that didn't belong to me. That doesn't "just happen accidentally."

 

[ChrisL]

Not helping someone isn't the same as harming them.

Oh please is that the best that you can do? You're just playing idiotic and childish word games now because you have nothing better.

Not at all. It's fundamental to the discussion, and to a broader conception of what rights mean in the first place. It's the same discussion that comes up in every effort to establish a "right" to someone else's service. It's the same discussion that comes up with the so-called "right" to healthcare. If not having a cake baked for you is harming you, who is guilty of inflicting that harm? Everyone who didn't bake you a cake that day?

The issue on the tables was about harm to children when parents are not able to marry and adopt them. You are avoiding that for obvious reasons.

My apologies. I wasn't avoiding it - I misread. BTW, what are you presuming as "obvious reasons". Do you still think I have anti-gay agenda?

Apology accepted. I don't know if you have an anti gay agenda but you do not seem very concerned about gay rights and adapt a narrow reading of the constitution that justifies allowing discrimination to continue.

Of course he has an anti-gay agenda. Why spend so much time arguing about it if not?

 

[ChrisL]

The “beast” spoken of in Revelation 13:17 says that, and those who are on his side agree…

And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.​

It is becoming apparent to me that this “mark” is not a physical or visual mark, but an ideological one. We are seeing the beginning of a time in which refusing to go along with the evil and madness that the Beast wishes to force on us will be punished by disallowing us from engaging in necessary commerce.

OMG! The beast? Biblical references? Now I know what we are dealing with here. . We are totally done here!

It's interesting that for some reason you just can't seem to debate and automatically dismiss with people of a religious persuasion.

Bigot.

I debate facts . I debate the law. I do not debate nonsense and mythology. It has no place in a discussion of civil rights.

Go 'debate' with your latest 'bum-boy'.

Well, we know what you like to think about now.

That poster is a total mess. Melt down city. Lol.

 

[Skylar]

Of course you don’t see it in what he is writing. You don’t see it in your own writing. You don’t want to see it or your just being dishonest. I keep hearing this crap that “None of us has a right to be treated in any particular way by anyone else” but where exactly is that coming from?

It's coming from the basic concept of rights. A right is a freedom to act on your own, not the power to force others to serve you.

Of course people have a right to be treated equally! If they didn’t, it would open the door to all sorts of discrimination -AS I HAVE PREVIOUSLY POINTED OUT.

Really? So does a shop offering a senior citizen discount violate your rights? If a shop owner gives a good friend a discount - or even free service - is that violating your so-called 'right' to equal treatment?

Somewhere along the line we've confused equal treatment under the law with equal treatment by everyone else. And what you don't get is that those two approaches contradict each other.

This is not my post that you are addressing. Are you okay?

Dblack probably just made a mistake in attribution. Intentional misquotes aren't DB's style.

Well I followed the arrow back to the post he was quoting, and it is pretty obvious that he inserted a quote that didn't belong to me. That doesn't "just happen accidentally."

In complicated replies, its not uncommon to get attributions wrong. I'd give DB the benefit of the doubt on this one.

 

[ChrisL]

Of course you don’t see it in what he is writing. You don’t see it in your own writing. You don’t want to see it or your just being dishonest. I keep hearing this crap that “None of us has a right to be treated in any particular way by anyone else” but where exactly is that coming from?

It's coming from the basic concept of rights. A right is a freedom to act on your own, not the power to force others to serve you.

Of course people have a right to be treated equally! If they didn’t, it would open the door to all sorts of discrimination -AS I HAVE PREVIOUSLY POINTED OUT.

Really? So does a shop offering a senior citizen discount violate your rights? If a shop owner gives a good friend a discount - or even free service - is that violating your so-called 'right' to equal treatment?

Somewhere along the line we've confused equal treatment under the law with equal treatment by everyone else. And what you don't get is that those two approaches contradict each other.

This is not my post that you are addressing. Are you okay?

Dblack probably just made a mistake in attribution. Intentional misquotes aren't DB's style.

Well I followed the arrow back to the post he was quoting, and it is pretty obvious that he inserted a quote that didn't belong to me. That doesn't "just happen accidentally."

In complicated replies, its not uncommon to get attributions wrong. I'd give DB the benefit of the doubt on this one.

It wasn't complicated. He attributed two different quotes to me that were not mine.

 

[Skylar]

Oh please is that the best that you can do? You're just playing idiotic and childish word games now because you have nothing better.

Not at all. It's fundamental to the discussion, and to a broader conception of what rights mean in the first place. It's the same discussion that comes up in every effort to establish a "right" to someone else's service. It's the same discussion that comes up with the so-called "right" to healthcare. If not having a cake baked for you is harming you, who is guilty of inflicting that harm? Everyone who didn't bake you a cake that day?

The issue on the tables was about harm to children when parents are not able to marry and adopt them. You are avoiding that for obvious reasons.

My apologies. I wasn't avoiding it - I misread. BTW, what are you presuming as "obvious reasons". Do you still think I have anti-gay agenda?

Apology accepted. I don't know if you have an anti gay agenda but you do not seem very concerned about gay rights and adapt a narrow reading of the constitution that justifies allowing discrimination to continue.

Of course he has an anti-gay agenda. Why spend so much time arguing about it if not?

On the issue of say, wedding cakes.....there's a fair bit of overlap between the homophobes and libertarians on policy. Though with completely different motivations and rationale. The libertarians don't think that any group should be protected.....or being protected, that protection should be limited to issues of genuine harm. Like say, housing or travel.

I disagree. But the distinction is significant.

 

[martybegan]

Not at all. It's fundamental to the discussion, and to a broader conception of what rights mean in the first place. It's the same discussion that comes up in every effort to establish a "right" to someone else's service. It's the same discussion that comes up with the so-called "right" to healthcare. If not having a cake baked for you is harming you, who is guilty of inflicting that harm? Everyone who didn't bake you a cake that day?

The issue on the tables was about harm to children when parents are not able to marry and adopt them. You are avoiding that for obvious reasons.

My apologies. I wasn't avoiding it - I misread. BTW, what are you presuming as "obvious reasons". Do you still think I have anti-gay agenda?

Apology accepted. I don't know if you have an anti gay agenda but you do not seem very concerned about gay rights and adapt a narrow reading of the constitution that justifies allowing discrimination to continue.

Of course he has an anti-gay agenda. Why spend so much time arguing about it if not?

On the issue of say, wedding cakes.....there's a fair bit of overlap between the homophobes and libertarians on policy. Though with completely different motivations and rationale. The libertarians don't think that any group should be protected.....or being protected, that protection should be limited to issues of genuine harm. Like say, housing or travel.

I disagree. But the distinction is significant.

Thank you for recognizing the difference.

 

[ChrisL]

Not at all. It's fundamental to the discussion, and to a broader conception of what rights mean in the first place. It's the same discussion that comes up in every effort to establish a "right" to someone else's service. It's the same discussion that comes up with the so-called "right" to healthcare. If not having a cake baked for you is harming you, who is guilty of inflicting that harm? Everyone who didn't bake you a cake that day?

The issue on the tables was about harm to children when parents are not able to marry and adopt them. You are avoiding that for obvious reasons.

My apologies. I wasn't avoiding it - I misread. BTW, what are you presuming as "obvious reasons". Do you still think I have anti-gay agenda?

Apology accepted. I don't know if you have an anti gay agenda but you do not seem very concerned about gay rights and adapt a narrow reading of the constitution that justifies allowing discrimination to continue.

Of course he has an anti-gay agenda. Why spend so much time arguing about it if not?

On the issue of say, wedding cakes.....there's a fair bit of overlap between the homophobes and libertarians on policy. Though with completely different motivations and rationale. The libertarians don't think that any group should be protected.....or being protected, that protection should be limited to issues of genuine harm. Like say, housing or travel.

I disagree. But the distinction is significant.

I kind myself a libertarian, BUT I strongly believe that all American citizens should have equal rights. It doesn't matter what the so-called "religious" crowd believes one bit to me and many, many others. It's too bad the republican party has allowed itself to be infested with these so-called "religious" creatures.