Does it matter why people are gay?

That is factually incorrect. Many teachers in the catholic school systems have been fired OPENLY for being gay. Most other corporations try to hide it much more but have a clear unwritten policy to fire gay employees

 

This guy is a stalwart for all of those bakers who don't want to be a party to a faggish wedding.

First they will come for the Christian (*)(*)(*) hating bakers...

Then then they will come for the Christian (*)(*)(*) hating plumbers....

Then they will come for the Christian (*)(*)(*) hating mechanics....

Pretty soon there will be no trade in which a Christian (*)(*)(*) hater can feel comfortable....

 

Being gay in and of itself harms nobody thus why would anyone even care? Many do but their opposition to harmless action is strange to me.

 

So, it becomes tough on people who go around hating others. Oh my.

 

Nope. You are still around and a few others like you still want to do everything to put em back in the closet.

 

The "why" of it is sort of interesting, I suppose.

But from a public policy standpoint, no, it doesn't matter.

 

You are just gushing with paranoia and irrational animus.

Regards.

 

And those who want to put gays back in the closet, somehow think their irrational animus is undetectable. They are mistaken; there are indicators all over the place. They are only fooling themselves.

 

BINGO

and that includes "gay rights"

and in keeping with the theme of the thread, necrophiles and pedophiles then should also be given the accord as homosexuals regardless if they choose to be that way or were born that way.

 

then let's test the "plain stupid" theory

are pedophiles born with that orientation?
are necrophiles born with that orientation?

If you say yes to homosexual but no to others then your hypocrisy shows

now let's take the next step, if one then is "born that way" should one be punished for engaging in the activities of how one is born?

Before you reply let's revisit what some of the homosexuals in this thread have said

"laws on the books against sodomy"
"laws against gays"

then if that is wrong to have laws against it, then so too must it be wrong against bestiality, pedophilia and necrophilia.

Now one final question, given your strong "opinion", would you be so kind as to point us all to one medical test which confirms that one is "born homosexual"

How can we test a newborn to see that they are in fact, "homosexual"?

Or, is it just your feelings that one is "born that way" and we mean people need to leave "the gays" alone?

It's called common-sense and if you could stop the emotion and think for a moment, no medical test to confirm "born gay" so that leaves it to choice.

We then are giving special treatment to a particular group based upon a choice so that creates the slippery slope and you have no argument against any other sexual deviancy and granting rights to them as well.

 

Happy Monday!

So you are for legalizing child rape to support your position on homosexuals?

Seems odd to want kids to be raped.

 

the knee-jerk reaction you can get from the above comment is the same knee-jerk reaction people had 10-20 years ago about gay-sex and granting special accords to homosexuals.

You are trying to separate yourself from other sexual deviancies. I guess you figure that the homosexuals would be over here but the icky pedophiles and necrophiles are sexual deviants. In other words, you wish to use the same argument that I use to point out the danger of accepting sexual deviancies. But here's a newsflash, using the true definition of the word, homosexual sex is deviant sex

 

I understand perfectly.

Due to the allegiance to ancient Jewish mysticism, kids should be raped to justify hatred towards gays based on acts between consensual adults.

Makes perfect sense in a a Christian sort of way. You want kid rape to be legal because some made up god said gays are bad.

 

Pedophiles and necrophiles are disgusting psychopaths. Isn't it proven that most pedophiles were abused as kids? That is probably the source behind that "orientation".

Of course not.

8QUOTE]Before you reply let's revisit what some of the homosexuals in this thread have said

"laws on the books against sodomy"
"laws against gays"

then if that is wrong to have laws against it, then so too must it be wrong against bestiality, pedophilia and necrophilia.[/QUOTE]
It is rather unfair to compare these atrocious acts to homosexuality (which is between consenting. living adult humans). Though I get your point I do not consider it valid at all.

Can you prove the opposite?

I too am a strong believer in biology. And from a biological and evolutionary point of view it is indeed very much unnaturral and contra-productive to be homosexual as the primary purpose of all creatures is to ensure its survival through reproduction. However, I do not think homosexuality is a disease or psychological illness that can be cured with therapy. Some people are just born that way.

I do not think homosexual's can be turned into straights. Do you?

I have to add here that I do not think homosexual's should have equal right to wed as heterosexual couples. This not because I am religious (I am not) but because I respect religion and believe it is an ugly move by the state to force churches neglecting their laws and replace them with the laws of the state.

If you really are a tolerant relativist you should agree on above. The key is to respect the "native's point of view" and if the church rejects holding a gay-wedding referring to the Bible it is completely and fully rational and should not at all be classified as "discrimination". Quite the contrary, forcing a Church to reject its belief is what is to be considered as discrimination imo.

 

Using the true definition Einstein had deviant intelligence, Jordan had deviant athletic ability and Picasso had deviant artistic ability. Deviance from the norm can be a compliment.

 

Now you're getting it. So you can work toward making this happen. And you will be 1 happy camper.
Then all the hypocritical posts will cease and God may just look favorably.

 

Is getting married more than 1 time an adulterer? Yes, in most every case it is.
Are you married more than 1 time? Then your hypocrisy shows.
over and over and over.

 

When the bible was being played out, then written, there were no knee jerk reactions to adult-juvenile sex. For it was standard practice.
What do you have against the bible? You seem to be trying to promote certain parts to justify your hatred of people. Even though the bible is rife with actions you claim to dislike. You aren't trying to fool us all, are you?

Why isn't adultery considered deviant sex in your world. Oh, because you partake.

 

They did not have to go to a "special" counter, other people and offices were authorized to issue marriage licenses. The gays had options, instead of exercising those options and letting the legal issues play out properly (the clerk in question was on solid legal ground in asking for accommodation for her beliefs and in invoking both federal and state law that provided her with accommodation) the gays took to social media, set their attack mob on the clerk, and derailed the legal process and fairness.

The gays went to a Christian bakery, with Christian signs displayed in the bakery. They attempted to purchase a product that was not offered - just as if a person attempts to purchase a beef sandwich from a vegan deli.

There is a conflict between your view of "public law" which requires a business to serve all people, and property rights and religious freedom. You want to trump religious rights and private property rights with your interpretation of accommodation laws because in this one instance it suits your agenda. That does not solve the issue, its just made it worse.

 

Setting aside the legal aspect, here is the fairness aspect from the side opposite yours.

If I rent a room in my house, then I should be able to select a tenant due to the close living conditions, I should not be forced to have someone under my roof who not only rejects my lifestyle but actively ridicules my lifestyle. If I have to hire someone in my small business, a person who I have to sit next to all day, then I have a right to hire someone that will not cause conflict in my business - and that includes employee relations conflicts. If I invest my money and time in creating a business then I should have a choice as to who I hire and who I provide my skills to. Its my property - my money invested, my time, my skills. Not yours. You want to steal my time, my skills, and my money for your own purposes. Nobody has a right to demand I employ them, nobody has a right to demand I serve them.

And don't bother making the "well you use the public roads etc" argument. The business pays into that just as much as anyone, usually more. If you want to use the "public" infrastructure to enforce your personal morality then you must let people who oppose your morality opt out, you must let the public infrastructure be balkanized in order to accommodate different beliefs and rights - or let each segment have their day as dictator.

You want to be treated fairly, you want to live your life as you see fit - so does everyone else, but you don't want to allow people to live their lives as they choose.

And skip the "you want Jim Crow and the KKK etc". That's just BS and an attempt to dodge the issue. I believe homosexuality is wrong, its a sin, I won't allow an openly gay person in my house. What you do in your house is your business, what I do in mine is my business. That extends to my private property including my private company (and your lifestyle choice extends to your private property).

****

As to your boss, he was not "taken" to s strip club, he went to a strip club. I have been in such situations and stood up and politely said no. Many people stand up and say "no" to things that are wrong. I understand the pressure of not going along with the crowd - particularly at work - but each person makes their own choices. You boss made his, so he has to live with it. No sympathy from me.

 

And when those people were hired to work in a religious institution, they almost always have to state that a condition of employment is they will follow that religion or at least meet its basic requirements. They lied and deserved to be fired.

 

What if they didn't lie? Prove they did.

 

Kim Davis is not on solid federal or state legal ground as evidenced by the fact that a) she lost at the Federal District court level, b) the 6th Circuit refused to issue a stay pending appeal because of her unlikeliness to prevail, and c) the Supreme Court also refused her stay pending appeal.

As to the actions and options that the gay couple had, Kim Davis had made it clear that no one in her office would be issuing licenses. The only recourse given to the gay couple in question was to travel out of their home county to a neighboring county to get a license. As residents of the county, much less the state, they shouldn't be forced to travel from home to get services from their government when it is normally offered in every county in the state. The gay couple did not derail the legal process in any way shape or form. But apparently Kim Davis sought to derail the US Constitution and the authority of the USSC.

I haven't seen any proof that Sweet Cakes had lots of Christian symbols all over their establishment that would indicate to someone that they were devout Christians.
Sweet Cakes had made wedding cakes in the past, the lesbian couple were asking for a wedding cake. In fact, a wedding cake they had previously made was for the second marriage of one of the lesbian's mothers. If they were such devout Christians, why didn't they refuse to make a wedding cake for an adulterer? Your analogy fails completely on it's face.

Your interpretation of public accommodation laws appears to be the one that is incorrect as evidenced by all the judgements that have gone against people claiming religious freedom in their justification for refusal of service. Public accommodation laws have so far withstood religious freedom challenges and the Supreme Court has so far refused to take up the issue, leaving intact various lower court rulings that have favored the public accommodation laws.

 

Why???

 

Those aren't sexual orientations.

We say yes to the other sexual orientations. We say yes to heterosexuals and to bisexuals. That's all there is. Sexual orientation is which sex you are oriented toward. There are only two sexes. That means you can be oriented to, one, or the other, or both or neither. Those sexual orientations are all permitted.

I deleted the rest of your crap because it was based on an improper supposition.