Why does it matter if Homosexuality is a choice or not?

[kaz]

Why would it being genetic mean everyone is the same? We don't all have the same color hair

No shit Sherlock but is there anywhere the law treats you differently because of the color of your hair?

Nope, and gays weren't treated differently under the law either. They had exactly the same rights as everyone else. Now they have more, the courts decreed it

So a ban on redheads marrying each other would be constitutional since the could still marry brunettes?

Didn't think that through did you?

No, you didn't think that one through, it has nothing to do with my gay argument. Being red head would in your example change who you could marry. Unlike being gay which didn't

Exact same analogy. Redheads can't marry each other just like you don't believe gays should marry each other. They could still marry, just not who they want to. Same argument you are making. Dumb isn't it?

Your post is dumb and you suck at analogies. Straight people can't marry the same sex either, your analogy is just wrong. Maybe someone you know can explain it to you.

 

[Syriusly]

I think if it's not a life threatening thing, anyone can deny anyone service. Only in liberal looney land would you give someone money that doesn't want to do business with you.

Partially correct. A business can deny service to anyone. However the reason service is denied cannot be based on specific criteria. In Oregon that criteria is "race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older".

If you own a business and are booked or do not carry a type of product, you can refuse service to anyone. On the other hand you can't deny goods and service because of one of the specified characteristics of the customer.


>>>>

Okay then if I have my concealed carry permit, and a business owner doesn't want guns in his store. I am by law legally able to carry it. Right?

Logic is not your strong point is it?

By law you are allowed to carry your gun.
Also by law, a business owner can impose restrictions within the law.

Unless your state law require's business's to allow person's carrying guns on their property- then a business can exclude you.

 

[Syriusly]

Nope, and gays weren't treated differently under the law either. They had exactly the same rights as everyone else. Now they have more, the courts decreed it

Before the bans were fund unconstitutional:

• Bob had a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Joan did not have the right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Bob and Joan did not have the same right.

After the bans were fund unconstitutional:

• Bob has a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Joan has a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Bob and Joan can both Civilly Marry Jane**
  
• Bob and Joan have the same rights, not more.

(**individually of course, not together)


>>>>

Bob and Joan had the same rights in the first one too, Bob did not have a right to marry joe, joan did.
you forgot that one.

Nope didn't forget.

But you actually prove the point that was already made. If Joan could Civilly Marry Joe but Bob cannot. Then Joan and Bob were being treated differently under the law.

Thanks for proving my point.


>>>>

No, Bob and Joan could both enter into a man/woman government marriage. Nowhere does the Constitution say the law has to be gender blind. You're terrible at word parsing

And the courts have found that same gender couples are protected by the 14th Amendment- and they do have a right to get married.

 

[Flopper]

So you are okay with him losing his business? Even though he sold them every day items and thought of them as friends?

Where do you inject "he thought of them as friends" from? The Bowman-Cryers had brought a weeding cake for Cheryl McPherson two years previously. Just buying a product years ago counts as "being friends" now?


>>>>

I read in an article that the bakers said they would come in and buy pastries. And that they knew his religious stance, so he was shocked they asked. I could understand if there wasn't anymore bakeries, but there are and the queer couple were assholes for doing it in the first place. In a civil society you would say okay and go to a different bakery, queers aren't civil. It's all about the agenda. Well I say mind your own business, and fuck off.

In a civil society we wouldn't have you and other hateful bigots seeking to disadvantage gay Americans based solely on who they are.

I don't agree with queers, but they have the right to be happy. I've personally never done anything against a queer. I was actually for civil unions when this subject came up years ago. If they want a document saying they are life long partners. Then I'm all for it, and in that context I don't think the baker would've had a problem baking the cake. Marriage was defined to be between a male and female united by God. So maybe if they would've accepted civil unions we wouldn't be in this mess.

Marriage in the eyes of God and marriage in eyes of the law are not the same and never have been. From a legal standpoint using civil union as substitute for legal marriage would mean unequal treatment under the law. A civil union will not provide the same privileges and responsibilities as a legal marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

No shit Sherlock but is there anywhere the law treats you differently because of the color of your hair?

Nope, and gays weren't treated differently under the law either. They had exactly the same rights as everyone else. Now they have more, the courts decreed it

So a ban on redheads marrying each other would be constitutional since the could still marry brunettes?

Didn't think that through did you?

No, you didn't think that one through, it has nothing to do with my gay argument. Being red head would in your example change who you could marry. Unlike being gay which didn't

Exact same analogy. Redheads can't marry each other just like you don't believe gays should marry each other. They could still marry, just not who they want to. Same argument you are making. Dumb isn't it?

Your post is dumb and you suck at analogies. Straight people can't marry the same sex either, your analogy is just wrong. Maybe someone you know can explain it to you.

Actually it's your argument that has failed...twice now at the SCOTUS level.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So you are okay with him losing his business? Even though he sold them every day items and thought of them as friends?

Where do you inject "he thought of them as friends" from? The Bowman-Cryers had brought a weeding cake for Cheryl McPherson two years previously. Just buying a product years ago counts as "being friends" now?


>>>>

I read in an article that the bakers said they would come in and buy pastries. And that they knew his religious stance, so he was shocked they asked. I could understand if there wasn't anymore bakeries, but there are and the queer couple were assholes for doing it in the first place. In a civil society you would say okay and go to a different bakery, queers aren't civil. It's all about the agenda. Well I say mind your own business, and fuck off.

In a civil society we wouldn't have you and other hateful bigots seeking to disadvantage gay Americans based solely on who they are.

I don't agree with queers, but they have the right to be happy. I've personally never done anything against a queer. I was actually for civil unions when this subject came up years ago. If they want a document saying they are life long partners. Then I'm all for it, and in that context I don't think the baker would've had a problem baking the cake. Marriage was defined to be between a male and female united by God. So maybe if they would've accepted civil unions we wouldn't be in this mess.

'Separate but equal' is just as repugnant to the Constitution as 'civil unions.'

And there is no 'mess,' had the states simply obeyed the 14th Amendment when their gay residents sought to enter into marriage contracts there would have been no need to get the courts – including the Supreme Court – involved.

 

[deltex1]

If it's not a choice then the hatred and fear the homophobes have of gay people becomes just that, fear and hatred. It also makes the Bible dead wrong as then it is no longer a sin, it's people being as God created them. Open the door to religion being bullshit on something that fundamental and all hell breaks loose...

I for one neither hate nor fear them. Just shut up about it.

 

[Seawytch]

If it's not a choice then the hatred and fear the homophobes have of gay people becomes just that, fear and hatred. It also makes the Bible dead wrong as then it is no longer a sin, it's people being as God created them. Open the door to religion being bullshit on something that fundamental and all hell breaks loose...

I for one neither hate nor fear them. Just shut up about it.

Stop discriminating and we will.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Nope, and gays weren't treated differently under the law either. They had exactly the same rights as everyone else. Now they have more, the courts decreed it

Before the bans were fund unconstitutional:

• Bob had a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Joan did not have the right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Bob and Joan did not have the same right.

After the bans were fund unconstitutional:

• Bob has a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Joan has a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Bob and Joan can both Civilly Marry Jane**
  
• Bob and Joan have the same rights, not more.

(**individually of course, not together)


>>>>

Making life fair isn't a power of the courts. Being gay didn't change who you could marry, the job of the courts was over at that point and it became the job of the legislature

Making laws equal before the law though are the job of the court.

And the courts ruled- consistently that laws which prevented a person from marrying someone of the same gender, while allowing a person to marry someone of another gender- were not equal under the law.

Nothing about fair- just like you wanting for gays to pay for your marriage, but don't want to pay for a gay couple marriage is not about fair- just about you having yours and wanting to deny them theirs.

never understood that whole paying for my marriage thing, explain how that works. Gays getting married does not cost me or make me money. In actuality, I might actually save because of insurance liabilities if they pay for their own health insurance.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Because he wants a cake?

A cake baked by a Christian and eaten by a homosexual tastes different apparently.

I'm not really in the habit of demanding the businesses I use most frequently share their religious and/or political beliefs with me, I suppose he believes they should have asked and never used the baker.

He has no argument, he's just throwing everything against the wall and hoping something eventually sticks.

no, they are just afraid that the gay bakery adds splooge to the frosting.

Sorry, Im going to hell, I know it. LOL

 

[jknowgood]

I think if it's not a life threatening thing, anyone can deny anyone service. Only in liberal looney land would you give someone money that doesn't want to do business with you.

Partially correct. A business can deny service to anyone. However the reason service is denied cannot be based on specific criteria. In Oregon that criteria is "race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older".

If you own a business and are booked or do not carry a type of product, you can refuse service to anyone. On the other hand you can't deny goods and service because of one of the specified characteristics of the customer.


>>>>

Okay then if I have my concealed carry permit, and a business owner doesn't want guns in his store. I am by law legally able to carry it. Right?

Logic is not your strong point is it?

By law you are allowed to carry your gun.
Also by law, a business owner can impose restrictions within the law.

Unless your state law require's business's to allow person's carrying guns on their property- then a business can exclude you.

They don't own the property, so no they cannot deny my legal right to carry.

 

[jknowgood]

So you are okay with him losing his business? Even though he sold them every day items and thought of them as friends?

Where do you inject "he thought of them as friends" from? The Bowman-Cryers had brought a weeding cake for Cheryl McPherson two years previously. Just buying a product years ago counts as "being friends" now?


>>>>

I read in an article that the bakers said they would come in and buy pastries. And that they knew his religious stance, so he was shocked they asked. I could understand if there wasn't anymore bakeries, but there are and the queer couple were assholes for doing it in the first place. In a civil society you would say okay and go to a different bakery, queers aren't civil. It's all about the agenda. Well I say mind your own business, and fuck off.

In a civil society we wouldn't have you and other hateful bigots seeking to disadvantage gay Americans based solely on who they are.

I don't agree with queers, but they have the right to be happy. I've personally never done anything against a queer. I was actually for civil unions when this subject came up years ago. If they want a document saying they are life long partners. Then I'm all for it, and in that context I don't think the baker would've had a problem baking the cake. Marriage was defined to be between a male and female united by God. So maybe if they would've accepted civil unions we wouldn't be in this mess.

Marriage in the eyes of God and marriage in eyes of the law are not the same and never have been. From a legal standpoint using civil union as substitute for legal marriage would mean unequal treatment under the law. A civil union will not provide the same privileges and responsibilities as a legal marriage.

Well anyway marriage means nothing now, so your kind has done it's job.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I think if it's not a life threatening thing, anyone can deny anyone service. Only in liberal looney land would you give someone money that doesn't want to do business with you.

Partially correct. A business can deny service to anyone. However the reason service is denied cannot be based on specific criteria. In Oregon that criteria is "race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older".

If you own a business and are booked or do not carry a type of product, you can refuse service to anyone. On the other hand you can't deny goods and service because of one of the specified characteristics of the customer.


>>>>

Okay then if I have my concealed carry permit, and a business owner doesn't want guns in his store. I am by law legally able to carry it. Right?

Logic is not your strong point is it?

By law you are allowed to carry your gun.
Also by law, a business owner can impose restrictions within the law.

Unless your state law require's business's to allow person's carrying guns on their property- then a business can exclude you.

They don't own the property, so no they cannot deny my legal right to carry.

Sure they can.

Google Scholar

In the above cite a city leased public property to a private entity to hold an event. The private entity barred firearms. A challenge was made on the idea that the private entity could not bar firearms from the event on property leased by the city.

They lost.

*************************************

Here is a second examination of the question, this time by well known conservative Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli of Virginia.

http://www.oag.state.va.us/Opinions and Legal Resources/Opinions/2010opns/10-009-Greason.pdf


***********************************


Now it's your turn, I've presented two sources in support of what I've said.

Now in these cases is was the government leasing the property and the entity executing the lease could bar firearms as they control access to property during the terms of the lease.

Your counter evidence? (Not saying there isn't "a" state, maybe Texas for example, but as a general principal the leaser controls access to business property during the term of the lease.)


>>>>

 

[Flopper]

Because he wants a cake?

So would the white supremacists.

Sure.
I'm certain you're about to make a point any moment now.

Done made it.

No, you did not.

I think if a white supremacists walks into a black bakers shop and ask him to cater an event. The black man has the very right to tell him no. If a queer does the same, the baker has the right to say no. If either walks in and wants to buy off the shelf than yes sell it to them. Not hard to understand.

No, when you open a business and get a licences it is to serve the public. And the public means everyone, those you approve of and those you don't. For a black businessman to reject customers as a white supremacists is just as wrong as a devout Christian rejecting gay customers.

Discrimination is wrong and there are no exceptions. Discrimination is being prejudice against a person based on there their appearance, not their actions. That person could be a good customer, an asset to the community. Most of the world's problems are caused directly or indirection by treating people not as individuals but as gays, blacks, Muslims, Christians, Mexicans, or whatever without really considering the merits of individual and that is exactly what a business owner is doing when he denies service to a person because of the color, religion, ethnic background, or sexual preference.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Is it an actual question for anybody else? I feel that saying it is a choice somehow implies that something is fundamentally wrong with homosexual activity. If you were born loving dudes or one day woke up to find you only wanted to sleep with men, I fail to understand how either can justify persecution. Of course this applies to lesbians as well.
Having choice or not homosexuality has no sense...

It makes a difference because if it is a choice then you can debate the morality of that choice.

I'll teach people to be gay...I bend them over and shove my dick in there ass. That ought to show those faggots...wait...that doesn't seem right.

 

[idb]

Is it an actual question for anybody else? I feel that saying it is a choice somehow implies that something is fundamentally wrong with homosexual activity. If you were born loving dudes or one day woke up to find you only wanted to sleep with men, I fail to understand how either can justify persecution. Of course this applies to lesbians as well.
Having choice or not homosexuality has no sense...

It makes a difference because if it is a choice then you can debate the morality of that choice.

I'll teach people to be gay...I bend them over and shove my dick in there ass. That ought to show those faggots...wait...that doesn't seem right.

A question of morality implies that their 'choice' has a possible effect on other people.
How does you - or anyone else - fantasising about sticking your dick in someone's arse affect other people?

 

[Seawytch]

Well anyway marriage means nothing now, so your kind has done it's job.

"Your kind"? What "kind" would that be, fellow Americans? Because I'm now legally married in all 50 states, your marriage means nothing? That wasn't much of a marriage.

Marriage means a great deal to most people still.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Well anyway marriage means nothing now, so your kind has done it's job.

"Your kind"? What "kind" would that be, fellow Americans? Because I'm now legally married in all 50 states, your marriage means nothing? That wasn't much of a marriage.

Marriage means a great deal to most people still.

Congratulations. !

 

[kaz]

Nope, and gays weren't treated differently under the law either. They had exactly the same rights as everyone else. Now they have more, the courts decreed it

So a ban on redheads marrying each other would be constitutional since the could still marry brunettes?

Didn't think that through did you?

No, you didn't think that one through, it has nothing to do with my gay argument. Being red head would in your example change who you could marry. Unlike being gay which didn't

Exact same analogy. Redheads can't marry each other just like you don't believe gays should marry each other. They could still marry, just not who they want to. Same argument you are making. Dumb isn't it?

Your post is dumb and you suck at analogies. Straight people can't marry the same sex either, your analogy is just wrong. Maybe someone you know can explain it to you.

Actually it's your argument that has failed...twice now at the SCOTUS level.

And?

 

[kaz]

Nope, and gays weren't treated differently under the law either. They had exactly the same rights as everyone else. Now they have more, the courts decreed it

Before the bans were fund unconstitutional:

• Bob had a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Joan did not have the right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Bob and Joan did not have the same right.

After the bans were fund unconstitutional:

• Bob has a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Joan has a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Bob and Joan can both Civilly Marry Jane**
  
• Bob and Joan have the same rights, not more.

(**individually of course, not together)


>>>>

Making life fair isn't a power of the courts. Being gay didn't change who you could marry, the job of the courts was over at that point and it became the job of the legislature

Making laws equal before the law though are the job of the court.

And the courts ruled- consistently that laws which prevented a person from marrying someone of the same gender, while allowing a person to marry someone of another gender- were not equal under the law.

Nothing about fair- just like you wanting for gays to pay for your marriage, but don't want to pay for a gay couple marriage is not about fair- just about you having yours and wanting to deny them theirs.

never understood that whole paying for my marriage thing, explain how that works. Gays getting married does not cost me or make me money. In actuality, I might actually save because of insurance liabilities if they pay for their own health insurance.

If you don't let gays get government marriage, they don't pay for their own health insurance, if you let them get a government marriage they do



Um...OK?

Do you think gay government marriage cut down on gays robbing banks too?