Airliners.net

[*]

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

its a Pyrrhic victory for Christian.

Give them a break—they’re just barely getting over interracial dating.

CCGPV wrote:

jetero wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

But the option to refuse service to a customer should be a right of a business owner. That's what this was all about.

Er, no. The Supreme Court stated otherwise in the decision today.

Read what I said again. Read it carefully and literally. Each sentence is unrelated to the others. You can do this.

A niche business (artists, high-skilled rare jobs, etc) is still able to deny service to a homosexual couple if it violates their personal beliefs in this case.

Regardless of the outcome of future cases a business should be allowed to turn away customers for any reason what so ever.

Wrong again.

Tugger wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

jetero wrote:

Er, no. The Supreme Court stated otherwise in the decision today.

Read what I said again. Read it carefully and literally. Each sentence is unrelated to the others. You can do this.

A niche business (artists, high-skilled rare jobs, etc) is still able to deny service to a homosexual couple if it violates their personal beliefs in this case.

Regardless of the outcome of future cases a business should be allowed to turn away customers for any reason what so ever.

Actually no, as a business owner you do not have the absolute right to deny service to the public you have opened your business to serve. While anyone can say "get out" for any reason, they risk being brought to the attention of those that enforce business permitting rules. And in general the right to refuse to serve is a "limited right to refuse to serve if it is damaging or otherwise harmfully impacting to your business". Refusing without fairly clear and "reasonable" cause could land you in a heap of costs. But I do think you know or understand this.

Tugg

Of course I understand it. The law is fairly clear.

What I think is that the free market should regulate things like this. A business owner (or customer) should be able to serve or deny service to anyone. Just like a customer or the public has the right to boycott, sue, or otherwise compete with a business they deem undesirable. Just like free speech. You can say whatever you want but you better be prepared for the backlash when you say it.

Forcing people who believe like this only entrenches them further into their hatred and ignites the fires of racism and prejudice even further.

Or maybe it doesn't I haven no idea.

Blerg wrote:

jetero wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Because it's not just about marriage, it's also about indoctrination.

Indoctrination of what?

The whole love-your-neighbor thing?

Just because Christians fight to defend natural marriage doesn't mean they hate their opponents. After all, it seems to me these two gentlemen (bride and groom?) were the ones who were hateful as their harassment of a random Colorado baker went all the way to the US Supreme Court.

Lol American Christianity is nothing but greed and hateful vengeance, just like its orange leader who has all but replaced that hippy dippy A-rab socialist. Christians will ultimately lose this fight too just as they’ve lost their fight for slavery and segregation—all in the Bible, and all excused by “sincerely held belief” until it could no longer be excused in polite company.

CCGPV wrote:

Tugger wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

Read what I said again. Read it carefully and literally. Each sentence is unrelated to the others. You can do this.

A niche business (artists, high-skilled rare jobs, etc) is still able to deny service to a homosexual couple if it violates their personal beliefs in this case.

Regardless of the outcome of future cases a business should be allowed to turn away customers for any reason what so ever.

Actually no, as a business owner you do not have the absolute right to deny service to the public you have opened your business to serve. While anyone can say "get out" for any reason, they risk being brought to the attention of those that enforce business permitting rules. And in general the right to refuse to serve is a "limited right to refuse to serve if it is damaging or otherwise harmfully impacting to your business". Refusing without fairly clear and "reasonable" cause could land you in a heap of costs. But I do think you know or understand this.

Tugg

Of course I understand it. The law is fairly clear.

What I think is that the free market should regulate things like this. A business owner (or customer) should be able to serve or deny service to anyone. Just like a customer or the public has the right to boycott, sue, or otherwise compete with a business they deem undesirable. Just like free speech. You can say whatever you want but you better be prepared for the backlash when you say it.

Forcing people who believe like this only entrenches them further into their hatred and ignites the fires of racism and prejudice even further.

Or maybe it doesn't I haven no idea.

I wouldn’t bother engaging Tugg. CC has, in the past, proudly stated that he or she doesn’t really believe the things he or she posts anyway.

2122M wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Actually no, as a business owner you do not have the absolute right to deny service to the public you have opened your business to serve. While anyone can say "get out" for any reason, they risk being brought to the attention of those that enforce business permitting rules. And in general the right to refuse to serve is a "limited right to refuse to serve if it is damaging or otherwise harmfully impacting to your business". Refusing without fairly clear and "reasonable" cause could land you in a heap of costs. But I do think you know or understand this.

Tugg

Of course I understand it. The law is fairly clear.

What I think is that the free market should regulate things like this. A business owner (or customer) should be able to serve or deny service to anyone. Just like a customer or the public has the right to boycott, sue, or otherwise compete with a business they deem undesirable. Just like free speech. You can say whatever you want but you better be prepared for the backlash when you say it.

Forcing people who believe like this only entrenches them further into their hatred and ignites the fires of racism and prejudice even further.

Or maybe it doesn't I haven no idea.

I wouldn’t bother engaging Tugg. CC has, in the past, proudly stated that he or she doesn’t really believe the things he or she posts anyway.

I agreed with him? What else can I say? Do you want me to disagree with him to give you some "proof" of this conspiracy theory you have?

People can agree with a law and still debate its merits and faults. You do know that, right? How else are we supposed to become familiar with such a complex case if we don't examine it from all sides?

CCGPV wrote:

2122M wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

Of course I understand it. The law is fairly clear.

What I think is that the free market should regulate things like this. A business owner (or customer) should be able to serve or deny service to anyone. Just like a customer or the public has the right to boycott, sue, or otherwise compete with a business they deem undesirable. Just like free speech. You can say whatever you want but you better be prepared for the backlash when you say it.

Forcing people who believe like this only entrenches them further into their hatred and ignites the fires of racism and prejudice even further.

Or maybe it doesn't I haven no idea.

I wouldn’t bother engaging Tugg. CC has, in the past, proudly stated that he or she doesn’t really believe the things he or she posts anyway.

I agreed with him? What else can I say? Do you want me to disagree with him to give you some "proof" of this conspiracy theory you have?

People can agree with a law and still debate its merits and faults. You do know that, right? How else are we supposed to become familiar with such a complex case if we don't examine it from all sides?

Because I don’t believe that you would be OK with discriminatory housing policy (as an example). I think you post not to back up a point, just to create more argument. Time waster.

2122M wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

2122M wrote:

I wouldn’t bother engaging Tugg. CC has, in the past, proudly stated that he or she doesn’t really believe the things he or she posts anyway.

I agreed with him? What else can I say? Do you want me to disagree with him to give you some "proof" of this conspiracy theory you have?

People can agree with a law and still debate its merits and faults. You do know that, right? How else are we supposed to become familiar with such a complex case if we don't examine it from all sides?

Because I don’t believe that you would be OK with discriminatory housing policy (as an example). I think you post not to back up a point, just to create more argument. Time waster.

To an extent, sure. Landlords discriminate all the time."I'm sorry we don't have any handicapped accessible units." "Oh, you don't make the arbitrary monthly income we require even though you have the deposit and a cosigner? Bye." "No students" Now, does that equal denying women only? Nope, but its legal discrimination that happens to people every day.

Say 4 young 18 year olds come to your beautifully renovated house looking to rent it out for their first semester away at college. What are 95% of landlords going to do? They aren't going to return phone calls because they know whats going to happen. Same with landlords that don't rent to Indian families because they know its going to cost hundreds or thousands of dollars to replace all the carpets and paint after the curry smell infiltrates everything. It might be a bit wrong, but it happens every day.

CitizenJustin wrote:

I just hope this doesn’t open the flood gates, where in 10 years all companies have a required list of banned people hanging on the door. I can see Christians feeling empowered to discriminate against all the other minorities they hate.

Honestly, I prefer the list on the door than to show up and then be told "no". I would know where to direct my business to in the first place. That, for the time being, seems to be the (un)happy medium we can reach. If it doesn't have the list, it can't say "no". Simple as that.

It also puts conservatives' favorite theory of "Free Market" to the test. The government can't force the baker to bake me a wedding cake...but it can't force me or anyone else to shop there either.

einsteinboricua wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

I just hope this doesn’t open the flood gates, where in 10 years all companies have a required list of banned people hanging on the door. I can see Christians feeling empowered to discriminate against all the other minorities they hate.

Honestly, I prefer the list on the door than to show up and then be told "no". I would know where to direct my business to in the first place. That, for the time being, seems to be the (un)happy medium we can reach. If it doesn't have the list, it can't say "no". Simple as that.

It also puts conservatives' favorite theory of "Free Market" to the test. The government can't force the baker to bake me a wedding cake...but it can't force me or anyone else to shop there either.

You have to remember that the religious right was really born out of opposition to Civil Rights, and depending on how you see their progress since then, is largely how this will play out as well. We've gone from starting universities like Liberty in order to skirt desegregation, and bans on interracial dating, to those things being generally passe...even under Trump.

seb146 wrote:

So it will be Constitutional when I refuse service to someone based only on their Christianity. Cool.

Yep just as the blowback and the boycotts. Can't move the goal posts.

Tugger wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Don't get it, if you are against same-sex marriage, just marry someone for the opposite sex, problem solved. Why do you want to put your own morals on others when it doesn't effect you.

Because it's not just about marriage, it's also about indoctrination. You live in Europe, we almost had the Estrella report passed in the European Parliament which would basically teach two year old how to masturbate and what interracial gay sex is. So it's not about who you marry it has to do with much more than that.

I am curious what is the concern with teaching kids about sex and relations etc? My children all knew about sexuality at a young age as it is a human condition (and are currently stable, non-sex-crazed nor confused young adults working on graduating from high school with straight A's etc.).

Are you thinking that you should not teach children if your religion proclaims that children should not be educated? Already we deal with the foolish idea that kids shouldn't be taught about evolution and the origins of the universe etc. Honestly it is the adults that have the problem, not the children.

Now regarding the baker and the "cake decision": Would a baker be required to bake a "halal" cake for a Muslim person, or a kosher cake for a Jewish person?

Tugg

Indeed. Catholics are big on not teaching their kids sex ed....and as a result Catholic Schools have much higher rates of teen pregnancy than others.

Blerg wrote:

The last time I checked it was two gays forcing a Christian to bake them a cake despite his primitive belief system that discriminated against them.

The Baker should have grown a paid and carried out the service that his business advertised.

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

So it will be Constitutional when I refuse service to someone based only on their Christianity. Cool.

Yep just as the blowback and the boycotts. Can't move the goal posts.

"Move the goal posts..." You righties are pros at that. Besides, refusing service to someone based only on their Christianity would probably get a lot of support. Don't clutch the pearls and whine about "why me???" That is what we have had to deal with for centuries. Maybe you evangelical White heterosexual males should be denied service based soley on that.

Blerg wrote:

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favour of a Colorado Christian who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple.

Two liberal judges joined the five conservative ones in a historic ruling. It's historic as it represents one of the first large and important victories for those who are fighting to preserve natural marriage.

The Court stated that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed impermissible hostility towards religion when it claimed the baker violated the state's anti-discrimination law. They concluded that the commission violated the baker's religious rights enshrined in the US Constitution (First Amendment). .

Well, they don´t want to go to the camps once Trump is done with his take over.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Blerg wrote:

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favour of a Colorado Christian who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple.

Two liberal judges joined the five conservative ones in a historic ruling. It's historic as it represents one of the first large and important victories for those who are fighting to preserve natural marriage.

The Court stated that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed impermissible hostility towards religion when it claimed the baker violated the state's anti-discrimination law. They concluded that the commission violated the baker's religious rights enshrined in the US Constitution (First Amendment). .

Well, they don´t want to go to the camps once Trump is done with his take over.

best regards
Thomas

Wait, did we define what natural is marriage yet? As far as I can tell evangelicals have redefined it as one man, one hooker/"model" while he's still married to the second wife, and like a dozen porn stars/hookers/mistresses/side chicks, many forcibly assaulted--for Jesus!

MaverickM11 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Blerg wrote:

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favour of a Colorado Christian who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple.

Two liberal judges joined the five conservative ones in a historic ruling. It's historic as it represents one of the first large and important victories for those who are fighting to preserve natural marriage.

The Court stated that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed impermissible hostility towards religion when it claimed the baker violated the state's anti-discrimination law. They concluded that the commission violated the baker's religious rights enshrined in the US Constitution (First Amendment). .

Well, they don´t want to go to the camps once Trump is done with his take over.

best regards
Thomas

Wait, did we define what natural is marriage yet? As far as I can tell evangelicals have redefined it as one man, one hooker/"model" while he's still married to the second wife, and like a dozen porn stars/hookers/mistresses/side chicks, many forcibly assaulted--for Jesus!

You know, you constantly mock and belittle Christians and conservatives but the only thing that's obvious from your posts is that you are full of anger and bitterness. I think your problem is not with us but with some unresolved issues you have with yourself. Then again, this anger and bitterness is common among the Left, this forum is best proof of it.

When it comes to bigotry, the far left is as bad as the far right.

Blerg wrote:

Then again, this anger and bitterness is common among the Left, this forum is best proof of it.

Nobody, but nobody does anger and bitterness better than "white religious man".

Blerg wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Well, they don´t want to go to the camps once Trump is done with his take over.

best regards
Thomas

Wait, did we define what natural is marriage yet? As far as I can tell evangelicals have redefined it as one man, one hooker/"model" while he's still married to the second wife, and like a dozen porn stars/hookers/mistresses/side chicks, many forcibly assaulted--for Jesus!

You know, you constantly mock and belittle Christians and conservatives but the only thing that's obvious from your posts is that you are full of anger and bitterness. I think your problem is not with us but with some unresolved issues you have with yourself. Then again, this anger and bitterness is common among the Left, this forum is best proof of it.

When it comes to bigotry, the far left is as bad as the far right.

No dear, it's not anger or bitterness bigotry--it's my sincerely held religious belief . How can you not mock a group of people that want to legislate morality while worshiping the most amoral conman that has ever occupied the presidency? Is it because he reflects their values? Or is that just a coincidence? So as soon as you ice your triggered feelings, will you share with us what "natural marriage" is?

scbriml wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Then again, this anger and bitterness is common among the Left, this forum is best proof of it.

Nobody, but nobody does anger and bitterness better than "white religious man".

Are you sure? I think Africans and Asians have proven that they are as capable of anger and bitterness just as the 'white religious man.' Furthermore, let's not forget about the atrocities of atheist, Leftist, Communist regimes.

MaverickM11 wrote:

Blerg wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Wait, did we define what natural is marriage yet? As far as I can tell evangelicals have redefined it as one man, one hooker/"model" while he's still married to the second wife, and like a dozen porn stars/hookers/mistresses/side chicks, many forcibly assaulted--for Jesus!

You know, you constantly mock and belittle Christians and conservatives but the only thing that's obvious from your posts is that you are full of anger and bitterness. I think your problem is not with us but with some unresolved issues you have with yourself. Then again, this anger and bitterness is common among the Left, this forum is best proof of it.

When it comes to bigotry, the far left is as bad as the far right.

No dear, it's not anger or bitterness--it's my sincerely held religious belief. So as soon as you ice your triggered feelings, will you share with us what "natural marriage" is?

I am not triggered, I just feel sorry for you because you have to live with all that anger and bitterness. Natural marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

Blerg wrote:

I am not triggered, I just feel sorry for you because you have to live with all that anger and bitterness. Natural marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

Yah I'm not the one that needs the government to protect me from interacting with people my imaginary friend has told me to hate. Who decided what is natural marriage? Is it just one of each? Is adultery cool now? And hookers? And sexual assault? And rape? Or is it just gay people you find icky.

Tugger wrote:

Now regarding the baker and the "cake decision": Would a baker be required to bake a "halal" cake for a Muslim person, or a kosher cake for a Jewish person?

Tugg

Good point, the baker (any business owner) should have the right to choose who they want to serve and who they do not.

If I was a butcher I wouldn't supply halal or kosher meat, I don't agree with how they kill beasts, nobody would have an issue with this so why should the baker be any different?

Kiwirob wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Now regarding the baker and the "cake decision": Would a baker be required to bake a "halal" cake for a Muslim person, or a kosher cake for a Jewish person?

Tugg

Good point, the baker (any business owner) should have the right to choose who they want to serve and who they do not.

If I was a butcher I wouldn't supply halal or kosher meat, I don't agree with how they kill beasts, nobody would have an issue with this so why should the baker be any different?

Are you able to tell the difference between meat and a person?

MaverickM11 wrote:

Blerg wrote:

I am not triggered, I just feel sorry for you because you have to live with all that anger and bitterness. Natural marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

Yah I'm not the one that needs the government to protect me from interacting with people my imaginary friend has told me to hate. Who decided what is natural marriage? Is it just one of each? Is adultery cool now? And hookers? And sexual assault? And rape? Or is it just gay people you find icky.

From what I read, the government needed to intervene because a Christian baker was being harassed by two gay guys. Also, aren't gays pushing for anti-discrimination laws to be passed? Wouldn't it mean that they are as bad as those wicked Christians who seek government protection?

Well. one of the most basic human instincts is the need to reproduce, this is not just evident among humans but animals as well. For it to be done naturally a sexual intercourse between a male and female needs t happen as that's the natural way to go at it. Any deviation from this is deviation from the natural order. That said, all those who deviate from the natural order should not be exterminated or killed but what we are saying is that these deviations should not be presented as something natural. The same way medicine considers gender dysphoria a diseases and where almost every second person ends committing suicide. What does the left do? They abuse this group of people by claiming high suicide rates are because of bigoted Christians.

As for adultery, hookers, rape ... they are all frowned upon and no Christian is fighting to legalize them. The last time I checked it was the leftist New York times that tried to normalize pedophilia... among other things.

Compare Obama and Trump, I don't see the "leftist" one as particularly bitter and angry. Both terms apply perfectly to Trump, though, along with a litany of others. Should whe compare radio/TV hosts perhaps ?

Blerg wrote:

Well. one of the most basic human instincts is the need to reproduce, this is not just evident among humans but animals as well. For it to be done naturally a sexual intercourse between a male and female needs t happen as that's the natural way to go at it. Any deviation from this is deviation from the natural order. That said, all those who deviate from the natural order should not be exterminated or killed but what we are saying is that these deviations should not be presented as something natural.

We all understand how human reproduction works (except for those poor kids brought up in fundamental religious schools who are just told "don't do it"). But in the rest of the animal kingdom, we also see asexual reproduction as well as hermaphroditic reproduction. Other species also exhibit homosexual behaviour. All perfectly natural.

But you still haven't answered the question, because "natural marriage" has nothing to do with reproduction.

Blerg wrote:

As for adultery, hookers, rape ... they are all frowned upon and no Christian is fighting to legalize them.

Frowned upon?

What about gays (since they were missing from your list of sins). Instead of being "frowned upon" we have christians calling for gays (for example) to be killed or threatening them with "eternal damnation and hellfire"? What would jesus say?

Blerg wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Blerg wrote:

I am not triggered, I just feel sorry for you because you have to live with all that anger and bitterness. Natural marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

Yah I'm not the one that needs the government to protect me from interacting with people my imaginary friend has told me to hate. Who decided what is natural marriage? Is it just one of each? Is adultery cool now? And hookers? And sexual assault? And rape? Or is it just gay people you find icky.

From what I read, the government needed to intervene because a Christian baker was being harassed by two gay guys. Also, aren't gays pushing for anti-discrimination laws to be passed? Wouldn't it mean that they are as bad as those wicked Christians who seek government protection?

Gay people want to be treated like everyone else. They don't want special treatment--like being able to discriminate against certain groups, or not paying taxes...like religion.

Blerg wrote:

Well. one of the most basic human instincts is the need to reproduce, this is not just evident among humans but animals as well. For it to be done naturally a sexual intercourse between a male and female needs t happen as that's the natural way to go at it. Any deviation from this is deviation from the natural order. That said, all those who deviate from the natural order should not be exterminated or killed but what we are saying is that these deviations should not be presented as something natural. The same way medicine considers gender dysphoria a diseases and where almost every second person ends committing suicide. What does the left do? They abuse this group of people by claiming high suicide rates are because of bigoted Christians.

Marriage is required to reproduce? Why permit childless/infertile/elderly people to marry then? Gender dysphoria is real. Your religion will eventually come to the same conclusion don't you worry, sorta like finally dropping opposition to interracial dating in 2000. When do you think evangelicals will come to the same inevitable conclusion? Will there be any evangelicals left at that point?

Blerg wrote:

As for adultery, hookers, rape ... they are all frowned upon and no Christian is fighting to legalize them. The last time I checked it was the leftist New York times that tried to normalize pedophilia... among other things.

Welp you've made your bed with an adulterous rapist who fancies hookers and porn stars and lies pathologically so well done there--he fits y'all like a glove. And you guys tried to elect a pedophile in Alabama cuz he was what? Say it with me now! A good Christian! And you know what they say about lying down with dogs...

scbriml wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Well. one of the most basic human instincts is the need to reproduce, this is not just evident among humans but animals as well. For it to be done naturally a sexual intercourse between a male and female needs t happen as that's the natural way to go at it. Any deviation from this is deviation from the natural order. That said, all those who deviate from the natural order should not be exterminated or killed but what we are saying is that these deviations should not be presented as something natural.

We all understand how human reproduction works (except for those poor kids brought up in fundamental religious schools who are just told "don't do it"). But in the rest of the animal kingdom, we also see asexual reproduction as well as hermaphroditic reproduction. Other species also exhibit homosexual behaviour. All perfectly natural.

But you still haven't answered the question, because "natural marriage" has nothing to do with reproduction.

Blerg wrote:

As for adultery, hookers, rape ... they are all frowned upon and no Christian is fighting to legalize them.

Frowned upon?

What about gays (since they were missing from your list of sins). Instead of being "frowned upon" we have christians calling for gays (for example) to be killed or threatening them with "eternal damnation and hellfire"? What would jesus say?

Well you can't compare human beings who are mammals with organisms that are hermaphrodites because they belong to a completely different species.
Schizophrenia also occurs in nature, are you proposing for it to be normalized as well? How shall we rename it? Humans with unusual awareness? Humans with visions of the beyond? Your kind is doing its best to normalize all sorts of things so why not make this your next big project.

As for your last sentence, well, no one really knows. You will have to ask St. Peter one day when you reach the Pearly Gates. Then again, the Left, mostly through its LGBT army, is calling for the closure of shops, businesses and even the imprisonment of people if they hurt their feelings. Isn't there a law being proposed in California that would ban Christians from actually speaking against homosexuality, even if they are just providing counsel to others. Yes, you are right, Christians are the only ones attacking others.

MaverickM11 wrote:

Blerg wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Yah I'm not the one that needs the government to protect me from interacting with people my imaginary friend has told me to hate. Who decided what is natural marriage? Is it just one of each? Is adultery cool now? And hookers? And sexual assault? And rape? Or is it just gay people you find icky.

From what I read, the government needed to intervene because a Christian baker was being harassed by two gay guys. Also, aren't gays pushing for anti-discrimination laws to be passed? Wouldn't it mean that they are as bad as those wicked Christians who seek government protection?

Gay people want to be treated like everyone else. They don't want special treatment--like being able to discriminate against certain groups, or not paying taxes...like religion.

Blerg wrote:

Well. one of the most basic human instincts is the need to reproduce, this is not just evident among humans but animals as well. For it to be done naturally a sexual intercourse between a male and female needs t happen as that's the natural way to go at it. Any deviation from this is deviation from the natural order. That said, all those who deviate from the natural order should not be exterminated or killed but what we are saying is that these deviations should not be presented as something natural. The same way medicine considers gender dysphoria a diseases and where almost every second person ends committing suicide. What does the left do? They abuse this group of people by claiming high suicide rates are because of bigoted Christians.

Marriage is required to reproduce? Why permit childless/infertile/elderly people to marry then? Gender dysphoria is real. Your religion will eventually come to the same conclusion don't you worry, sorta like finally dropping opposition to interracial dating in 2000. When do you think evangelicals will come to the same inevitable conclusion? Will there be any evangelicals left at that point?

Blerg wrote:

As for adultery, hookers, rape ... they are all frowned upon and no Christian is fighting to legalize them. The last time I checked it was the leftist New York times that tried to normalize pedophilia... among other things.

Welp you've made your bed with an adulterous rapist who fancies hookers and porn stars and lies pathologically so well done there--he fits y'all like a glove. And you guys tried to elect a pedophile in Alabama cuz he was what? Say it with me now! A good Christian! And you know what they say about lying down with dogs...

First of all, I am not an American so I will ignore your hateful and bigoted comments that have to do with US politics.

You are right, gender dysphoria is real. It's a real disease of the mind where there is a disconnect between the mind and the body. Surgical procedures rarely solve the problem because once the transition is complete the person is still unable to perform all of the natural roles. A man who transitions into a woman still can't have children, have periods or breastfeed. In other words the troubled person has not received what it wanted ... which makes sense as it's something that can't be achieved. There is a reason why roughly 40% of them end up killing themselves.
We are not the ones who need to accept it, we already have and are actually helping them. It's you who are refusing them the help they need so as to advance your agenda. By the way, all of the countries in the world officially recognize gender dysphoria as a disease, including some of the most liberal countries out there. I guess you know better so you should write them a letter.

Like I said, reproduction is the most natural and basic instinct. There are some who can and some who can't achieve it. When someone can't reproduce the normal way then it means that there is something wrong, either mentally or physically. I never mentioned banning them, that was all you. What I am saying is that those situations that are not normal should not be presented as otherwise. I guess your inner bitterness and anger got the better of you so you resorted to twisting my words.

Blerg wrote:

First of all, I am not an American so I will ignore your hateful and bigoted comments that have to do with US politics.

No dear, not hateful and bigoted, "sincerely held religious beliefs". Get with the program.

Blerg wrote:

You are right, gender dysphoria is real. It's a real disease of the mind where there is a disconnect between the mind and the body. Surgical procedures rarely solve the problem because once the transition is complete the person is still unable to perform all of the natural roles. A man who transitions into a woman still can't have children, have periods or breastfeed. In other words the troubled person has not received what it wanted ... which makes sense as it's something that can't be achieved. There is a reason why roughly 40% of them end up killing themselves.
We are not the ones who need to accept it, we already have and are actually helping them. It's you who are refusing them the help they need so as to advance your agenda. By the way, all of the countries in the world officially recognize gender dysphoria as a disease, including some of the most liberal countries out there. I guess you know better so you should write them a letter.

You're "actually helping them"? ...how? And schizophrenia? You just praying that away too?

MaverickM11 wrote:

Blerg wrote:

First of all, I am not an American so I will ignore your hateful and bigoted comments that have to do with US politics.

No dear, not hateful and bigoted, "sincerely held religious beliefs". Get with the program.

Blerg wrote:

You are right, gender dysphoria is real. It's a real disease of the mind where there is a disconnect between the mind and the body. Surgical procedures rarely solve the problem because once the transition is complete the person is still unable to perform all of the natural roles. A man who transitions into a woman still can't have children, have periods or breastfeed. In other words the troubled person has not received what it wanted ... which makes sense as it's something that can't be achieved. There is a reason why roughly 40% of them end up killing themselves.
We are not the ones who need to accept it, we already have and are actually helping them. It's you who are refusing them the help they need so as to advance your agenda. By the way, all of the countries in the world officially recognize gender dysphoria as a disease, including some of the most liberal countries out there. I guess you know better so you should write them a letter.

You're "actually helping them"? ...how? And schizophrenia? You just praying that away too?

Well, The French Revolutionary Tribunal also had ' sincerely held religious beliefs' and we all know what happened in the end.

No, we are not praying the crazy away but it's nice to see that you are still belittling, mocking and viciously attacking those who don't share your views and opinions. People with mental dysphoria, schizophrenia ... as well as other mental diseases are handled by medical professionals. They have their professional ways of dealing with them. It varies from light talk therapy to medication and restraint depending on the disease and the degree of severity.

MaverickM11 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Now regarding the baker and the "cake decision": Would a baker be required to bake a "halal" cake for a Muslim person, or a kosher cake for a Jewish person?

Tugg

Good point, the baker (any business owner) should have the right to choose who they want to serve and who they do not.

If I was a butcher I wouldn't supply halal or kosher meat, I don't agree with how they kill beasts, nobody would have an issue with this so why should the baker be any different?

Are you able to tell the difference between meat and a person?

I am, are you also able to comprehend that a butcher shouldn't be forced into serving halal or kosher meat to a jew or muslim just because they want to buy from him. It's the same with the bakery, why should the baker be forced into serving people he doesn't want to serve.

Maybe this is easier for you to understand, what if the baker was black and didn't want to serve white people I wouldn't have a problem with that either, I'd just go somewhere else, this couple were grandstanding and wanted to make an issue where there really wans't one. They could have easily gone to another baker for the cake.

Kiwirob wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Good point, the baker (any business owner) should have the right to choose who they want to serve and who they do not.

If I was a butcher I wouldn't supply halal or kosher meat, I don't agree with how they kill beasts, nobody would have an issue with this so why should the baker be any different?

Are you able to tell the difference between meat and a person?

I am, are you also able to comprehend that a butcher shouldn't be forced into serving halal or kosher meat to a jew or muslim just because they want to buy from him. It's the same with the bakery, why should the baker be forced into serving people he doesn't want to serve.

Maybe this is easier for you to understand, what if the baker was black and didn't want to serve white people I wouldn't have a problem with that either, I'd just go somewhere else, this couple were grandstanding and wanted to make an issue where there really wans't one. They could have easily gone to another baker for the cake.

Great so maybe you can understand how not selling to white people is different from a hardware store not selling cruises...to anyone.

Blerg wrote:

No, we are not praying the crazy away but it's nice to see that you are still belittling, mocking and viciously attacking those who don't share your views and opinions. People with mental dysphoria, schizophrenia ... as well as other mental diseases are handled by medical professionals. They have their professional ways of dealing with them. It varies from light talk therapy to medication and restraint depending on the disease and the degree of severity.

Who is “we”? What on earth are you on about? Trump and evangelicals want to deny the existence of transgender people and shut them out of any aspect of life they can find. Anyone sane, on the other hand, wants them to live their life and access the health care they need, let alone a god damn bathroom.

Blerg wrote:

No, we are not praying the crazy away but it's nice to see that you are still belittling, mocking and viciously attacking those who don't share your views and opinions. People with mental dysphoria, schizophrenia ... as well as other mental diseases are handled by medical professionals. They have their professional ways of dealing with them. It varies from light talk therapy to medication and restraint depending on the disease and the degree of severity.

Who is “we”? What on earth are you on about? Trump and evangelicals want to deny the existence of transgender people and shut them out of any aspect of life they can find. Anyone sane, on the other hand, wants them to live their life and access the health care they need, let alone a god damn bathroom.[/quote]

The last time I checked they can use the toilet of their biological sex, that is the one with which they were born. If a schizophrenic person thinks it can fly, should we open a window for them and let them jump out of it?

The whole toilet debate is beyond stupid and pointless. Luckily the Trump administration has put an end to it and no, they don't want to deny their existence. What they want to do is synchronize US policies with science which clearly states that these people are sick. The Left is desperately trying to present as if they are just like everyone else which is wrong especially when you look at suicide rates among people suffering from gender dysphoria. Normal people don't end up killing themselves.

Blerg wrote:

The last time I checked they can use the toilet of their biological sex, that is the one with which they were born. If a schizophrenic person thinks it can fly, should we open a window for them and let them jump out of it?

Last time you checked they were using whatever facilities they were most comfortable with, without any issue whatsoever, until the GOP and evangelicals decided they must be punished and be marginalized.

Blerg wrote:

The whole toilet debate is beyond stupid and pointless. Luckily the Trump administration has put an end to it and no, they don't want to deny their existence. What they want to do is synchronize US policies with science which clearly states that these people are sick. The Left is desperately trying to present as if they are just like everyone else which is wrong especially when you look at suicide rates among people suffering from gender dysphoria. Normal people don't end up killing themselves.

These people are sick says the guy who believes in an imaginary sky fairy A) Trump hasn't put an end to anything and B) why do you care if you're not American? "The left is...trying to present as if they are just like everyone else" How awful to treat them like human beings. Best to treat them like garbage. For Jesus!

Blerg wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Blerg wrote:

From what I read, the government needed to intervene because a Christian baker was being harassed by two gay guys. Also, aren't gays pushing for anti-discrimination laws to be passed? Wouldn't it mean that they are as bad as those wicked Christians who seek government protection?

Gay people want to be treated like everyone else. They don't want special treatment--like being able to discriminate against certain groups, or not paying taxes...like religion.

Blerg wrote:

Well. one of the most basic human instincts is the need to reproduce, this is not just evident among humans but animals as well. For it to be done naturally a sexual intercourse between a male and female needs t happen as that's the natural way to go at it. Any deviation from this is deviation from the natural order. That said, all those who deviate from the natural order should not be exterminated or killed but what we are saying is that these deviations should not be presented as something natural. The same way medicine considers gender dysphoria a diseases and where almost every second person ends committing suicide. What does the left do? They abuse this group of people by claiming high suicide rates are because of bigoted Christians.

Marriage is required to reproduce? Why permit childless/infertile/elderly people to marry then? Gender dysphoria is real. Your religion will eventually come to the same conclusion don't you worry, sorta like finally dropping opposition to interracial dating in 2000. When do you think evangelicals will come to the same inevitable conclusion? Will there be any evangelicals left at that point?

Blerg wrote:

As for adultery, hookers, rape ... they are all frowned upon and no Christian is fighting to legalize them. The last time I checked it was the leftist New York times that tried to normalize pedophilia... among other things.

Welp you've made your bed with an adulterous rapist who fancies hookers and porn stars and lies pathologically so well done there--he fits y'all like a glove. And you guys tried to elect a pedophile in Alabama cuz he was what? Say it with me now! A good Christian! And you know what they say about lying down with dogs...

First of all, I am not an American so I will ignore your hateful and bigoted comments that have to do with US politics.

You are right, gender dysphoria is real. It's a real disease of the mind where there is a disconnect between the mind and the body. Surgical procedures rarely solve the problem because once the transition is complete the person is still unable to perform all of the natural roles. A man who transitions into a woman still can't have children, have periods or breastfeed. In other words the troubled person has not received what it wanted ... which makes sense as it's something that can't be achieved. There is a reason why roughly 40% of them end up killing themselves.
We are not the ones who need to accept it, we already have and are actually helping them. It's you who are refusing them the help they need so as to advance your agenda. By the way, all of the countries in the world officially recognize gender dysphoria as a disease, including some of the most liberal countries out there. I guess you know better so you should write them a letter.

Like I said, reproduction is the most natural and basic instinct. There are some who can and some who can't achieve it. When someone can't reproduce the normal way then it means that there is something wrong, either mentally or physically. I never mentioned banning them, that was all you. What I am saying is that those situations that are not normal should not be presented as otherwise. I guess your inner bitterness and anger got the better of you so you resorted to twisting my words.

While you are correct that gender dysphoria is a recognized illness, including in the United States, what your post does not reflect is the fact that one can be recognized as transgender without having dysphoria. And for the record Europe does gender reassignment surgeries, for many years being where Americans would go for the treatment. As for the rest of your statement, I as a psychiatrist (aka a Medical Doctor) don’t have time to correct your misunderstanding about gender vs. sex, nor do I think I will ever dislodge what appears to be a firmly-planted, one-dimensional, misguided, Catholic belief about what marriage means even for straight people. I can only encourage you to keep your comments to yourself, lest the lack of nuance and understanding make you seem more ignorant than you already do, because in spite of your earnest attempts to make this about science and facts, you clearly do not have a concrete grasp of them. Just a piece of advice, take it as you like.

MaverickM11 wrote:

Blerg wrote:

The last time I checked they can use the toilet of their biological sex, that is the one with which they were born. If a schizophrenic person thinks it can fly, should we open a window for them and let them jump out of it?

Last time you checked they were using whatever facilities they were most comfortable with, without any issue whatsoever, until the GOP and evangelicals decided they must be punished and be marginalized.

Blerg wrote:

The whole toilet debate is beyond stupid and pointless. Luckily the Trump administration has put an end to it and no, they don't want to deny their existence. What they want to do is synchronize US policies with science which clearly states that these people are sick. The Left is desperately trying to present as if they are just like everyone else which is wrong especially when you look at suicide rates among people suffering from gender dysphoria. Normal people don't end up killing themselves.

These people are sick says the guy who believes in an imaginary sky fairy A) Trump hasn't put an end to anything and B) why do you care if you're not American? "The left is...trying to present as if they are just like everyone else" How awful to treat them like human beings. Best to treat them like garbage. For Jesus!

Once again your tirade of attacks continues. The sheer fact that you have to resort to personal attacks just goes to show that you have some personal issues you need to make peace with.

We are talking about people with gender dysphoria and 'attacks' on them have nothing to do with Jesus but with black on white scientific facts. It's science that says they are troubled and that they need medical treatment/assistance. Furthermore, it's not 40% of Christians that end up killing themselves for them to be labelled mentally unstable members of the society.

luckyone wrote:

Blerg wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Gay people want to be treated like everyone else. They don't want special treatment--like being able to discriminate against certain groups, or not paying taxes...like religion.


Marriage is required to reproduce? Why permit childless/infertile/elderly people to marry then? Gender dysphoria is real. Your religion will eventually come to the same conclusion don't you worry, sorta like finally dropping opposition to interracial dating in 2000. When do you think evangelicals will come to the same inevitable conclusion? Will there be any evangelicals left at that point?

Welp you've made your bed with an adulterous rapist who fancies hookers and porn stars and lies pathologically so well done there--he fits y'all like a glove. And you guys tried to elect a pedophile in Alabama cuz he was what? Say it with me now! A good Christian! And you know what they say about lying down with dogs...

First of all, I am not an American so I will ignore your hateful and bigoted comments that have to do with US politics.

You are right, gender dysphoria is real. It's a real disease of the mind where there is a disconnect between the mind and the body. Surgical procedures rarely solve the problem because once the transition is complete the person is still unable to perform all of the natural roles. A man who transitions into a woman still can't have children, have periods or breastfeed. In other words the troubled person has not received what it wanted ... which makes sense as it's something that can't be achieved. There is a reason why roughly 40% of them end up killing themselves.
We are not the ones who need to accept it, we already have and are actually helping them. It's you who are refusing them the help they need so as to advance your agenda. By the way, all of the countries in the world officially recognize gender dysphoria as a disease, including some of the most liberal countries out there. I guess you know better so you should write them a letter.

Like I said, reproduction is the most natural and basic instinct. There are some who can and some who can't achieve it. When someone can't reproduce the normal way then it means that there is something wrong, either mentally or physically. I never mentioned banning them, that was all you. What I am saying is that those situations that are not normal should not be presented as otherwise. I guess your inner bitterness and anger got the better of you so you resorted to twisting my words.

While you are correct that gender dysphoria is a recognized illness, including in the United States, what your post does not reflect is the fact that one can be recognized as transgender without having dysphoria. And for the record Europe does gender reassignment surgeries, for many years being where Americans would go for the treatment. As for the rest of your statement, I as a psychiatrist (aka a Medical Doctor) don’t have time to correct your misunderstanding about gender vs. sex, nor do I think I will ever dislodge what appears to be a firmly-planted, one-dimensional, misguided, Catholic belief about what marriage means even for straight people. I can only encourage you to keep your comments to yourself, lest the lack of nuance and understanding make you seem more ignorant than you already do. Just a piece of advice, take it as you like.

Didn't you write that you are married to a guy earlier? That would make you as biased on this topic as I am.

For the record I am not even Catholic so once again you are making assumptions based on your own personal paradigms. You are making a conclusion without having all the facts available to you. Of course I understand the difference between gender and sex. That's not a discussion here. What we are discussing is the consequences of politicizing gender dysphoria and its impact on the lives of people with this mental disease.

Blerg wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Blerg wrote:

First of all, I am not an American so I will ignore your hateful and bigoted comments that have to do with US politics.

You are right, gender dysphoria is real. It's a real disease of the mind where there is a disconnect between the mind and the body. Surgical procedures rarely solve the problem because once the transition is complete the person is still unable to perform all of the natural roles. A man who transitions into a woman still can't have children, have periods or breastfeed. In other words the troubled person has not received what it wanted ... which makes sense as it's something that can't be achieved. There is a reason why roughly 40% of them end up killing themselves.
We are not the ones who need to accept it, we already have and are actually helping them. It's you who are refusing them the help they need so as to advance your agenda. By the way, all of the countries in the world officially recognize gender dysphoria as a disease, including some of the most liberal countries out there. I guess you know better so you should write them a letter.

Like I said, reproduction is the most natural and basic instinct. There are some who can and some who can't achieve it. When someone can't reproduce the normal way then it means that there is something wrong, either mentally or physically. I never mentioned banning them, that was all you. What I am saying is that those situations that are not normal should not be presented as otherwise. I guess your inner bitterness and anger got the better of you so you resorted to twisting my words.

While you are correct that gender dysphoria is a recognized illness, including in the United States, what your post does not reflect is the fact that one can be recognized as transgender without having dysphoria. And for the record Europe does gender reassignment surgeries, for many years being where Americans would go for the treatment. As for the rest of your statement, I as a psychiatrist (aka a Medical Doctor) don’t have time to correct your misunderstanding about gender vs. sex, nor do I think I will ever dislodge what appears to be a firmly-planted, one-dimensional, misguided, Catholic belief about what marriage means even for straight people. I can only encourage you to keep your comments to yourself, lest the lack of nuance and understanding make you seem more ignorant than you already do. Just a piece of advice, take it as you like.

Didn't you write that you are married to a guy earlier? That would make you as biased on this topic as I am.

For the record I am not even Catholic so once again you are making assumptions based on your own personal paradigms. You are making a conclusion without having all the facts available to you. Of course I understand the difference between gender and sex. That's not a discussion here. What we are discussing is the consequences of politicizing gender dysphoria and its impact on the lives of people with this mental disease.

Being married to a same sex partner has nothing to do with gender dysphoria or being transgender. And no, clearly you do not because if you did, you would not have made several of the statements you have, including the inference I just corrected. Stop while you’re behind, sir.

Blerg wrote:

Once again your tirade of attacks continues. The sheer fact that you have to resort to personal attacks just goes to show that you have some personal issues you need to make peace with.

We are talking about people with gender dysphoria and 'attacks' on them have nothing to do with Jesus but with black on white scientific facts. It's science that says they are troubled and that they need medical treatment/assistance. Furthermore, it's not 40% of Christians that end up killing themselves for them to be labelled mentally unstable members of the society.

I think we both know i'm right on the money with the "personal attacks". "It's science!" And yet you can't support it with any...you know...science. Just like your religion!

MaverickM11 wrote:

Blerg wrote:

The last time I checked they can use the toilet of their biological sex, that is the one with which they were born. If a schizophrenic person thinks it can fly, should we open a window for them and let them jump out of it?

Last time you checked they were using whatever facilities they were most comfortable with, without any issue whatsoever, until the GOP and evangelicals decided they must be punished and be marginalized.

Blerg wrote:

The whole toilet debate is beyond stupid and pointless. Luckily the Trump administration has put an end to it and no, they don't want to deny their existence. What they want to do is synchronize US policies with science which clearly states that these people are sick. The Left is desperately trying to present as if they are just like everyone else which is wrong especially when you look at suicide rates among people suffering from gender dysphoria. Normal people don't end up killing themselves.

These people are sick says the guy who believes in an imaginary sky fairy A) Trump hasn't put an end to anything and B) why do you care if you're not American? "The left is...trying to present as if they are just like everyone else" How awful to treat them like human beings. Best to treat them like garbage. For Jesus!

Last time you checked they were using whatever facilities they were most comfortable with? On the subject of comfortable how about the comfort of others who use that same facility? I am kind of a live and let live person but my problem with you liberals is you want to impose your issues and lifestyles on everyone else and their feelings be dammed. A little girl goes in to use the ladies room and with the mother or father outside and some dude decides I feel feminine today or a crossdresser decides he is going into the ladies room I can see the issues a parent would have with this. Not saying that trans or crossdressers are molesters or anything but I can see why people have issues with it. Time for businesses to go to a gender neutral one hole bathroom for those that are confused as to what gender they are and regular mens and womans rooms for the rest of society.

luckyone wrote:

Blerg wrote:

luckyone wrote:

While you are correct that gender dysphoria is a recognized illness, including in the United States, what your post does not reflect is the fact that one can be recognized as transgender without having dysphoria. And for the record Europe does gender reassignment surgeries, for many years being where Americans would go for the treatment. As for the rest of your statement, I as a psychiatrist (aka a Medical Doctor) don’t have time to correct your misunderstanding about gender vs. sex, nor do I think I will ever dislodge what appears to be a firmly-planted, one-dimensional, misguided, Catholic belief about what marriage means even for straight people. I can only encourage you to keep your comments to yourself, lest the lack of nuance and understanding make you seem more ignorant than you already do. Just a piece of advice, take it as you like.

Didn't you write that you are married to a guy earlier? That would make you as biased on this topic as I am.

For the record I am not even Catholic so once again you are making assumptions based on your own personal paradigms. You are making a conclusion without having all the facts available to you. Of course I understand the difference between gender and sex. That's not a discussion here. What we are discussing is the consequences of politicizing gender dysphoria and its impact on the lives of people with this mental disease.

Being married to a same sex partner has nothing to do with gender dysphoria or being transgender. And no, clearly you do not because if you did, you would not have made several of the statements you have, including the inference I just corrected. Stop while you’re behind, sir.

Being someone who is not only gay but also married to a man means that you are much more prone to be sympathetic to the Leftist cause and to defend the normalization of gender dysphoria.

Blerg wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Didn't you write that you are married to a guy earlier? That would make you as biased on this topic as I am.

For the record I am not even Catholic so once again you are making assumptions based on your own personal paradigms. You are making a conclusion without having all the facts available to you. Of course I understand the difference between gender and sex. That's not a discussion here. What we are discussing is the consequences of politicizing gender dysphoria and its impact on the lives of people with this mental disease.

Being married to a same sex partner has nothing to do with gender dysphoria or being transgender. And no, clearly you do not because if you did, you would not have made several of the statements you have, including the inference I just corrected. Stop while you’re behind, sir.

Being someone who is not only gay but also married to a man means that you are much more prone to be sympathetic to the Leftist cause and to defend the normalization of gender dysphoria.

Talk about broad-stroke assumptions...and inability to read since I haven’t said anything about the defense of gender dysphoria. It’s beyond clear you haven’t a clue what’s coming out of your mouth. I’ll waste no more time attempting to engage in this discussion with you.

Good to see we're all getting along in 2018. We've come so far.

Its amazing how everything was so nice before 2017.

CCGPV wrote:

2122M wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

I agreed with him? What else can I say? Do you want me to disagree with him to give you some "proof" of this conspiracy theory you have?

People can agree with a law and still debate its merits and faults. You do know that, right? How else are we supposed to become familiar with such a complex case if we don't examine it from all sides?

Because I don’t believe that you would be OK with discriminatory housing policy (as an example). I think you post not to back up a point, just to create more argument. Time waster.

To an extent, sure. Landlords discriminate all the time."I'm sorry we don't have any handicapped accessible units." "Oh, you don't make the arbitrary monthly income we require even though you have the deposit and a cosigner? Bye." "No students" Now, does that equal denying women only? Nope, but its legal discrimination that happens to people every day.

You're funny. I suppose it's "legal discrimination" by the Porsche dealership not to sell me a car I can't afford too.

Gimme a break.

The responses on this site are predictable, to be sure, as usual. What people are sort of omitting here is that the ruling for Phillips was more a rebuke of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's hostility than anything--it's not a broad ruling by any means (which also explains why it was 7-2 and not 5-4 or what have you---because the majority ruling was deliberately non-provoking). It's a rebuke of administrative law overreach, simply.

But when I contemplate this on a larger picture--which this ruling isn't--freedom of association is and remains a fundament of the republic. I may not be pro-union, but I defend those who choose to voluntarily affiliate with one for purposes of collectively bargaining. I may not subscribe to your religious views, but you have a freedom to worship and congregate freely. I reserve the right to refuse service--no shoes, no shirt, etc. Commerce and the exchange of goods are services in a free market economy is absolutely founded upon the voluntary nature of it, free from duress. And Justice Kennedy, no less, made explicit mention that tolerance needs to go BOTH ways. And the majority argument summed up "Creative expression in any form is free speech which, along with freedom of religion, is supposedly protected in the First Amendment. People should not be compelled to write or say things they do not believe or agree with, whether it be in the form of ink on paper or frosting on wedding cakes." I take the live and let live position on most of this stuff.

I remember the Muslim cab driver in MSP a few years back who wouldn't give someone a ride who had been drinking alcohol. Whatever. He made his decision and other transportation options exist--it's his loss. Market forces should be used MORE frequently, not less. The problem with this most profound misunderstanding of the nature of rights in our country extends beyond the usual kneejerk faux-outrage SJW types who immediately brand anyone who disagrees with them a bigot or a homophobe. It's that they're endorsing a tyranny of the minority.

Many commentators have noticed that the line between providing a service and expressing a view are being deliberately blurred by leftists to destroy both free speech and religious liberty. And there's a lot to contemplate there that is far deeper than this very watered down ruling.

Still imagine being such an asshole that you overlooked countless other bakeries to force one specific one to bake you a cake with the sole intent and purpose to sue them. Tort reform would fix this crap quickly. Loser pays for the winner's court costs. Gays can pursue relationships with each other all they want. Get married. Have civil and legal protections and recognition of their status. Hey, fine. What has changed is that everyone else has been forced to accept it and now at times even participate in it--and that's where things have gone askew.

Jack Phillips has made plenty of cakes for gay customers before, BTW. He simply objected to this one in context.

Finally, just think what would have happened if Craig and Mullins tried to have a relationship, much less get married, much less try to get a cake made for them in any of 58 countries around the world where homosexuality is forbidden or any of the roughly 13+ where they could be stoned or executed summarily for it. So yeah, I'm not onboard with the outrage over this.

Blerg wrote:

Being someone who is not only gay but also married to a man means that you are much more prone to be sympathetic to the Leftist cause and to defend the normalization of gender dysphoria.

I'm sorry, what were your qualifications? Besides not knowing what you're talking about and just repeating "it's science!" when you've made it clear you couldn't point to the science if it hit you on the head?

slider wrote:

Finally, just think what would have happened if Craig and Mullins tried to have a relationship, much less get married, much less try to get a cake made for them in any of 58 countries around the world where homosexuality is forbidden or any of the roughly 13+ where they could be stoned or executed summarily for it. So yeah, I'm not onboard with the outrage over this.

Oh yawn. Four GOP candidates hammed it up in the primaries with a well known preacher that calls for the extermination of gays and that is by no means an outlier for evangelicals or republicans at all. Plenty of both groups would if they could; hell many of them couldn't contain their glee after the Pulse night club massacre. Christian discrimination *cough* I mean "religious liberty" *wink wink nudge nudge* has always entailed discrimination not as a bug, but as a feature, and they are absolutely using this case as wedge to get the ball rolling.

stratosphere wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Blerg wrote:

The last time I checked they can use the toilet of their biological sex, that is the one with which they were born. If a schizophrenic person thinks it can fly, should we open a window for them and let them jump out of it?

Last time you checked they were using whatever facilities they were most comfortable with, without any issue whatsoever, until the GOP and evangelicals decided they must be punished and be marginalized.

Blerg wrote:

The whole toilet debate is beyond stupid and pointless. Luckily the Trump administration has put an end to it and no, they don't want to deny their existence. What they want to do is synchronize US policies with science which clearly states that these people are sick. The Left is desperately trying to present as if they are just like everyone else which is wrong especially when you look at suicide rates among people suffering from gender dysphoria. Normal people don't end up killing themselves.

These people are sick says the guy who believes in an imaginary sky fairy A) Trump hasn't put an end to anything and B) why do you care if you're not American? "The left is...trying to present as if they are just like everyone else" How awful to treat them like human beings. Best to treat them like garbage. For Jesus!

Last time you checked they were using whatever facilities they were most comfortable with? On the subject of comfortable how about the comfort of others who use that same facility? I am kind of a live and let live person but my problem with you liberals is you want to impose your issues and lifestyles on everyone else and their feelings be dammed. A little girl goes in to use the ladies room and with the mother or father outside and some dude decides I feel feminine today or a crossdresser decides he is going into the ladies room I can see the issues a parent would have with this. Not saying that trans or crossdressers are molesters or anything but I can see why people have issues with it. Time for businesses to go to a gender neutral one hole bathroom for those that are confused as to what gender they are and regular mens and womans rooms for the rest of society.

A couple things...
First: Can we stop using things like "You liberals/you conservatives." It doesn't do anything but antagonize, and it limits everyone into a circumscribed corner that prevents us from allowing ourselves to actually think. Most of us, if not penned into these ideological boxing rings, often find ourselves finding merit, and agreeing with different points of view.

Second: I don't think anyone but the most intransigent mouthpiece disagrees with you about wanting to keep kids safe. Trust me, I know. I have several of the Catholic altar boys as patients. But the reasoning is a bit clumsy. To begin, no bathroom laws as they exist now or ever can exist is stopping a creep from dressing as opposite sex and trying to diddle a poor kid in the bathroom, or nabbing your kid from the playground. And none of this accounts for the reality that a man can try to molest a boy in the boy's room, and a woman in the girls room. That's just a cold hard reality and why our parents are supposed to teach us not to talk to strangers, get in a stranger's car, or let ANYONE touch you, least of all THERE, and if anyone does scream bloody murder. Next, why do men get the bad rap? I can assure you that boys get molested by grown women with just as alarming regularity. It happens. So I get it. The concern is justified. The extrapolation, is not, because the reality doesn't back up the panic. The reality is rooted in stigma. The reality it far more kids have been molested in church than in public bathrooms by either the opposite or same sex--and where is the outrage to ban anything? The reality is the overwhelming majority of kids who are molested, are molested at home, by someone they know. So again, while I don't blame anyone for wanting to keep their kid safe, let's try to get our facts and understanding in line. Because the reality is...I don't care who's in that bathroom or what's in between their legs. Even once the kid is old enough to use the bathroom by themselves, I'm not taking my eye off that door until my kid comes out. This reminds me a bit of the tennis player Rene Richards. If you're a tennis fan, you've probably heard of it. Rene Richards was a man who was a very successful college tennis player who became a physician, who received gender reassignment surgery, and then in his/her 40's sued to be permitted to enter women's tournaments. In the melee, one of the loudest concerns voiced was that men would lop off their bits in order to play as a woman and have an unfair advantage--which is ludicrous. Richards won, and there hasn't yet been another transgender female tennis player. Let's try to be reasonable.

slider wrote:

"Creative expression in any form is free speech which, along with freedom of religion, is supposedly protected in the First Amendment. People should not be compelled to write or say things they do not believe or agree with, whether it be in the form of ink on paper or frosting on wedding cakes."

So this is interesting. I think you and I see the world quite differently in a lot of ways, but I found myself agreeing with most of this post. I highlighted the above text in particular because part of me was thinking, "why force this one baker to make a cake when you have options" and the other part was thinking "where does it end? Where do you draw the line between freedom of religion/speech and discrimination along the lines of redlining, housing discrimination, employment discrimination ect.."

Using 'creative expression' as the framework for this ruling makes sense to me and at least attempts to draw that line between the types of business a company should be compelled to engage in (regardless of the customer) and the types of business they can refuse.

However,

I think for the most part (some exceptions), there is no 'tyranny of the minority', just minorities that wish more people would subscribe to your 'live and let live (with equal status)' philosophy.

2122M wrote:

slider wrote:

"Creative expression in any form is free speech which, along with freedom of religion, is supposedly protected in the First Amendment. People should not be compelled to write or say things they do not believe or agree with, whether it be in the form of ink on paper or frosting on wedding cakes."

So this is interesting. I think you and I see the world quite differently in a lot of ways, but I found myself agreeing with most of this post. I highlighted the above text in particular because part of me was thinking, "why force this one baker to make a cake when you have options" and the other part was thinking "where does it end? Where do you draw the line between freedom of religion/speech and discrimination along the lines of redlining, housing discrimination, employment discrimination ect.."

Using 'creative expression' as the framework for this ruling makes sense to me and at least attempts to draw that line between the types of business a company should be compelled to engage in (regardless of the customer) and the types of business they can refuse.

However,

I think for the most part (some exceptions), there is no 'tyranny of the minority', just minorities that wish more people would subscribe to your 'live and let live (with equal status)' philosophy.

They look at it as being forced to do something they don't want to do for no real reason than to prove a point. And they're right. Go somewhere else to get your cake don't drag me in court because you want to force me to make you a cake. People find that oppressive. Forcing someone through courts and threat of jail (in this situation) isn't the way to change hearts and minds.

The LGBT community can demand certain kinds of treatment because of who they are but the religious community cannot because of who they are. Many people find this off putting and hypocritical. People defend by saying "they can't help who they are" but neither can someone who was indoctrinated into a religion since birth. Its who they are, too. To many it has nothing to do with LGBT or religion- its the simple fact of being forced to do something that in the end has no effect on the customer what so ever.

CCGPV wrote:

2122M wrote:

slider wrote:

"Creative expression in any form is free speech which, along with freedom of religion, is supposedly protected in the First Amendment. People should not be compelled to write or say things they do not believe or agree with, whether it be in the form of ink on paper or frosting on wedding cakes."

So this is interesting. I think you and I see the world quite differently in a lot of ways, but I found myself agreeing with most of this post. I highlighted the above text in particular because part of me was thinking, "why force this one baker to make a cake when you have options" and the other part was thinking "where does it end? Where do you draw the line between freedom of religion/speech and discrimination along the lines of redlining, housing discrimination, employment discrimination ect.."

Using 'creative expression' as the framework for this ruling makes sense to me and at least attempts to draw that line between the types of business a company should be compelled to engage in (regardless of the customer) and the types of business they can refuse.

However,

I think for the most part (some exceptions), there is no 'tyranny of the minority', just minorities that wish more people would subscribe to your 'live and let live (with equal status)' philosophy.

They look at it as being forced to do something they don't want to do for no real reason than to prove a point. And they're right. Go somewhere else to get your cake don't drag me in court because you want to force me to make you a cake. People find that oppressive. Forcing someone through courts and threat of jail (in this situation) isn't the way to change hearts and minds.

The LGBT community can demand certain kinds of treatment because of who they are but the religious community cannot because of who they are. Many people find this off putting and hypocritical. People defend by saying "they can't help who they are" but neither can someone who was indoctrinated into a religion since birth. Its who they are, too. To many it has nothing to do with LGBT or religion- its the simple fact of being forced to do something that in the end has no effect on the customer what so ever.

Fair or unfair, would you look upon a group that actively sought to discriminate you for decades with any particular degree of fondness? Would you find it easy to generate any amount of sympathy for them when all of a sudden they start whining after you being on the receiving end of all that, and they’re getting a taste of their own medicine?