Does it matter why people are gay?

I don't think a church doing that is illegal. It would be like Playboy firing a model that they found to be a man. Being gay is different than being straight.

There are many situations where we as a society have decided it's too costly to society to allow people to create conflict over that mostly meaningless difference... same as we have laws about some types of discrimination based on religion, race, or sex. But some types of discrimination are meaningful and allowed. It's OK for Playboy to discriminate by sex in hiring models, for Ebony to do the same based on race — because they can demonstrate that distinction is fundamental to their business model.

The Catholic church is in the business of selling Catholicism — they have a right to hire or fire people based on whether they abide by that religion. That's not to say Joe schmoe can use the same argument for his bakery. He's selling cakes, not Catholicism ... he can try, but he will loose that argument.



​

 

Funny how adulterers think their sins are somehow better. The self-righteous hypocrites don't know what they have in store for them based on their beliefs.

If they are truly concerned about sins, they'd start in their own house. All of them sin and they become nothing more than self-righteous hypocrites.
So their only true motive is they want to control lives of people they don't like.

 

Which you seem to be ok with. You're fine with gays being teased, made fun of. Don't ever bring sin or christianity into the topic again. Your unconcern of other people is a disgrace to Jesus and the religion.

- - - Updated - - -

Amen. Adultery is a sin. It is absolute truth to think christians can be adulterers. How can you a christian, live a life of adultery?

 

So your penis has been in exactly 1 vagina in your life. No other parts or other females or males? Doubtful.
So your for reproduction only lie is just that. A lie.

 

It is not allowed in christianity. The religion the 2 that post as self-righteous, say they belong to.

 

it's above my pay grade and none of my concern. If only people worried about their own lives with as much zeal as they stick their noses into the lives of others.

 

... dunno. I've seen a lot of Christians get away with it.



​

 

It doesn't give her blanket immunity from the responsibilities of doing her job, and more importantly, the duties of her government office. She is allowed reasonable accommodations in the least intrusive manner. That doesn't mean she gets off scot-free in this. If she were just a deputy clerk, and didn't want to issue the marriage licenses, and another clerk was willing to do it, then that would've been a reasonable accommodation to her religious beliefs. But the fact that she is the elected official in charge of marriage licenses, and prevented her deputy clerks from issuing marriage licenses, makes it a much different situation.

No, what happened is that the some members of the legislature expressed a willingness to come back to work in a special session to try to change the underlying statute that would provide accommodations for her religious objections. But given how soon the next session was to convene, the cost involved in the special session, and the relatively few county clerks who were having an issue (total of 2, I believe), it was a sound financial decision not to hold the special session.

The change hasn't actually been made yet. They just opened the legislative session. A bill has been introduced in the State Senate about changing the license, but it's been languishing in committee for the past 4 weeks. The executive order by the new Governor back in November to change the form is possibly not legal, and any licenses issued in the meantime could be invalid.

No, it was prolonged because the legal issues involved are not nearly as simple as you make them out to believe, or have been led to believe.

 

No where you go wrong is what is required for the job. Playboy can also discriminate against fat women for their models if they want because their version of beauty is inherent to the job. But Ebony could not only hire black people to work as editors at their magazine. Being black is not inherent to the position. Being gay has nothing to do with being a teacher

 

I never needed "gay rights" in the first place, what was got was equality .. something you would know little about . .and please do show where I wish to impose my morality on anyone. I merely provided you with the legal facts about necrophilia.

As usual your comments indulge in little but fallacies.

Of course you know that the above comment of yours is utter BS but you have to ignore everything else in order to continue your ignorance. You have been provided on numerous occasions with the research showing how hormonal influence during brain development in the womb have an effect on mental gender, but there again it doesn't fit your agenda.

 

"he is without sin cast the first stone" or "first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Perhaps they should study their own teachings before preaching to others

 

You just eliminated 1/3 of the Republican Party....the Social Conservatives/Religious Right.

 

Because a dead body cannot give consent. You can be a necrophiliac all day long, you just can't have sex without consent. No consent, then you committed a crime.

Agreed, we should. IF they can obtain legal consent from their sex partner(s). If they can't give consent because they are dead, a minor, are disabled aren't human etc then no, you can't have sex with them because they can't give consent.

Yes, that is true assuming your sexual behavior results in clear enthusiastic consent. As I've said, minors cannot legally give consent, sorry pedophiles. Dead people can't give consent, sorry necros. Cross dressers, go to town! They are allowed to dress how they want and have sex with who they want, as long as their partners can give consent, yep they can do what they want.

Just because a necrophiliac doesn't actually have sex with dead bodies doesn't mean they aren't a necro. They can fantasize and jerk off to whatever they want it's a free country. However a dead body cannot give consent and therefore it's illegal to act on those fantasies. As a gay woman I am able to give as well as obtain consent from another woman, so I can have sex with her until the cows come home.

What showers are little girls using that men have access to? Transphobic people keep bringing this concern up, but I've yet to hear one story of a man faking that he's trans so he can shower with little girls.

 

Again, a wedding cake is a baked good.
They were not requesting a special product that is not produced or available to the facility as in your "Muslum deli being asked for a pork product". Your legal justification is invalid.

No one forced the bakers to open shop, no one forced them to bake wedding cakes and advertise them for public consumption. They are being held to the same business standards as all other facilities.
The courts agree - religious wants have limits when they impact others.

 

As usual, you did not read the entire document and you certainly did not understand what it states.

It simply says to love the sinner, reject the sin.

I'll put some of the key statements from the link, but you ought to in good conscious read the entire statement:

By its very nature, the sexual act finds its proper fulfillment in the marital bond.

Because of both Original Sin and personal sin, moral disorder is all too common in our world. There are a variety of acts, such as adultery, fornication, masturbation, and contraception, that violate the proper ends of human sexuality. Homosexual acts also violate the true purpose of sexuality. They are sexual acts that cannot be open to life. Nor do they reflect the complementarity of man and woman that is an integral part of God’s design for human sexuality.8 Consequently, the Catholic Church has consistently taught that homosexual acts “are contrary to the natural law. . . . Under no circumstances can they be approved.”9

In support of this judgment, the Church points not only to the intrinsic order of creation, but also to what God has revealed in Sacred Scripture. In the book of Genesis we learn that God created humanity as male and female and that according to God’s plan a man and a woman come together and “the two of them become one body.”10 Whenever homosexual acts are mentioned in the Old Testament, it is clear that they are disapproved of, as contrary to the will of God.11 In the New Testament, St. Paul teaches that homosexual acts are not in keeping with our being created in God’s image and so degrade and undermine our authentic dignity as human beings. He tells how homosexual practices can arise among people who erroneously worship the creature rather than the Creator:

St. Paul listed homosexual practices among those things that are incompatible with the Christian life.13
​

And later there is this:

While the Church teaches that homosexual acts are immoral, she does distinguish between engaging in homosexual acts and having a homosexual inclination.

A considerable number of people who experience same-sex attraction experience it as an inclination that they did not choose. Many of these speak of their homosexual attractions as an unwanted burden. This raises the question of whether or not a homosexual inclination can be changed with the help of some kind of therapeutic intervention.
​

Yes, the Catholic Church supports the idea that homosexual tendencies can be removed via proper therapy.

And while the tendencies toward homosexuality are not considered sinful (by the Catholic Church, that's not at all universally accepted) the act of homosexual sex is a sin.

In other words, the Catholic policy is that you can be gay, just don't have homosexual sex.


You really should read and understand before you post.

 

Is the Bible or the Koran just a book? Is the Constitution just a piece of paper? Is the US Flag just a piece of cloth? Is a wedding cake just a baked good? Are all of these just ordinary physical items devoid of meaning, history, and symbolism? Or do they have significance and bring up fundamental emotions and beliefs that drive peoples actions? Think about it.

What you are claiming is that the business owner is a slave. The business owner can invest her money and time, take the risk and make the sacrifice, but then an outsider with no stake in the business steps in and operates the business.

And the Christian bakers are not being held to the same standards as all other businesses. There are several examples, here is one:

In Colorado, Christian baker Jack Phillips lost in court for refusing to bake a gay wedding cake. Meanwhile Azucar Bakery in Denver was found not guilty of discrimination by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Regulatory Agencies when it refused to make a cake requested by Christian activist Bill Jack.

You should google "azucar bakery gay". Read the various gay and "progressive" articles turning themselves into pretzels trying to explain why a bakery can refuse a cake with Bible verses on it but not refuse a gay wedding cake.

When it comes to the Christian baker refusing a gay wedding cake, they use your weak argument that a bakery must serve all the public and the baker must put all his/her beliefs aside, and that a cake is a cake is a cake - all just baked goods.

But when it comes to refusing the Christian cake, then the cake is not just a "baked good" but has meaning and delivers a message.

 

I simply don't understand what all the fuss is about from either side of this discussion. If, under a system that imagines itself to be 'free enterprise', a customer doesn't approve of the service they're getting, or in this case not getting, they are free to go elsewhere. Simple really.
There is however some significance in drawing attention to 'just' as flag, 'just' a wedding cake etc. If I was lucky enough to tie the not with another man I sure as hell wouldn't want to know the cake I was going to carve at my recepion had been made by a homophobe. Ruin my day it would.

 

It isn't necessary. I didn't reference any acts.

 

What is a gay wedding cake? That is hilarious. IT IS A CAKE.

 

I'll accept your copout as admission you realize your error and are ashamed of your childish post.

- - - Updated - - -

Is this too deep an issue for you? Reread the previous post.

 

IT IS A CAKE. They don't even put the couple on the top of it. The couple can do that themselves. It looks like any other cake in the store. There is not such thing as a GAY wedding cake. LOL

 

It may look the same, but a gay wedding cake has some fruit on top, and some more fruit inside. That's how I like my cake anyway so I am happy to indulge when I get offered a slice..

 

Copout? That's strange. If a homosexual is performing a sexual act in front of children or clergy, I have no issue with them being fired or even jailed. If they are talking about their sexual acts than yes they need to be fired and possibly jailed. But being homosexual is not a problem. If any organization is allowed to assume that gay people are participating in "homosexual acts" and thus fire them based on that assumption, than any organization can fire Christians on the assumption that they are engaging in acts of violence against those who commit heresy.

The point is that in some places employers are allowed to fire gay people simply because they don't like gay people. You can't do that because you don't like Jews or blacks, or people that are handicapped and so forth.

The fact that you argue that they should be allowed to fire homosexuals based on the assumptions that they engage in as you called it "homosexual acts" that is absolutely clearly discrimination. Further it violates the principles of the Catholic church as I pointed out in the link you posted.

Your post is a copout.

 

A better question.

Does it matter IF people are gay?

 

I was talking about black models... but I agree with your point about editors. Teaching in a Catholic school includes teaching the Bible... it includes selling Catholicism. People can make a reasonable argument that folks who live a lifestyle will be more compelling at selling it. *shrug* You're welcome to a different opinion, I might even agree with it. But you'd loose in court.




​