One Objection Versus A Second on Homosexuality

[1750Texan]

So the right to associate has not been or is not being threatened, just like it wasn't in the 60s

The right of association exists. There is no threat. The law concenrs itself with violation of the right...not threats.

 

[Paxaeon]

There is a religious objection to homosexuality and there is non-religious objectors, which is more "acceptable"?

`
Neither. Recently in this forum, someone brought up the fact that the US LGBT population is anywhere between 3.2 to 3.8% homosexual. Considering that small amount, it would seem to me that regardless of the spiritual or secular objections are to homosexuality, the attention being spent on this issue is psychologically and dysfunctionally disproportionate. This is to say, many men (who are in the forefront of of being homophobic) are actually gay or bisexual in denial. My guess would be about 40% but it could be a lot more.

 

[CLAX1911]

The right of association exists. There is no threat. The law concenrs itself with violation of the right...not threats.

I agree.

 

[CLAX1911]

Wear a tie, don't kiss with a full mouth, don't flaunt your sex, leave your dog a home. That kind of thing.

You mean rules.

 

[1750Texan]

Wear a tie, don't kiss with a full mouth, don't flaunt your sex, leave your dog a home. That kind of thing.

"Those kinds of things" are unrealted and not a charter. A charter are precepts by which an entity operates.

If the restaurants has rules of ties for all males patrons and no public displays of affection by any patrons that is within their right. Its is also within the right of the partron to accept or reject that resaurant's rules. The rule has to be all or none. All males must wear ties. No specific group of males is excluded or made to comply.

As for PDA...that is making its way through the courts.

Dogs in restaurants is a public health rule that the owner excepts to operate his business and the patron accepts to dine out...the exception being service dogs.

 

[chromium]

I tend to agree with you in as much as there are and have always been a large proportion of homosexuals in the circle of my friends and acquaintances. But I do not think that people that want their bar to be traditional or that gay activity is a grave sin should be forced to interact or serve them. I would certainly prefer going where I was liked.

see: "no coloreds" jim crow south

of course i would choose to go elsewhere, but it should still be a choice. I wouldn't have any sympathy for a bar owner like that being sued or whatever either.

 

[joG]

"Those kinds of things" are unrealted and not a charter. A charter are precepts by which an entity operates.

If the restaurants has rules of ties for all males patrons and no public displays of affection by any patrons that is within their right. Its is also within the right of the partron to accept or reject that resaurant's rules. The rule has to be all or none. All males must wear ties. No specific group of males is excluded or made to comply.

As for PDA...that is making its way through the courts.

Dogs in restaurants is a public health rule that the owner excepts to operate his business and the patron accepts to dine out...the exception being service dogs.

Well, if someone is not demonstrating love and affection, who will know?

PS: I know what a charter is. I have written them.
PPS: Where I live, dogs are generally allowed into restaurants.

 

[CLAX1911]

Well, if someone is not demonstrating love and affection, who will know?

I met some people through friends at a restaurant, I introduced myself and my spouse as my husband.

So one doesn't need to show amorous affection.

 

[Dragonfly]

Well, if someone is not demonstrating love and affection, who will know?

You mean you don't have gaydar ??????? :shock:

 

[joG]

You mean you don't have gaydar ??????? :shock:

Well, I do. But don't tell or everyone will come asking.

 

[joG]

I met some people through friends at a restaurant, I introduced myself and my spouse as my husband.

So one doesn't need to show amorous affection.

As far as I am concerned and you aren't loud about it, who cares? Nobody will notice. If you come in like Christopher's parade? Then I would say you are showing of your sex.

 

[CLAX1911]

As far as I am concerned and you aren't loud about it, who cares? Nobody will notice. If you come in like Christopher's parade? Then I would say you are showing of your sex.

Nobody has but I live in a rather gay friendly city.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I am a Christian. I beleive [sic] we all have and do sin and come short of the glory of God. Every day. One of the most difficlut [sic] things for me to understand is why a Christian bakery would not want to bake a cake for SSM. If they consider that a sin, where do they draw the line? How bout a couple that has lived in sin before marriage? How about extremely obese people wanting the same cake? I think it would be an excelllent [sic] time for Christians to deomonstrate [sic] what joy it is to be Christian and act a bit more like I think Jesus probably would.

I think there's a clear line here.

If I owned a bakery, and someone can in to buy any generic item that I had on the shelves, offered for sale, nothing about the personal lives of the prospective customer, or what he intended to do with that item, would be any of my business. If he bought a cake I had already made, and intended to use it in a sick mockery of a wedding, I would not know or care. None of my business.

But wedding cakes are usually not generic items. They are nearly always custom-made items, specific to that one wedding. They represent an artistic expression on the part of the one who creates them, in support of the wedding at which they will be used.

If I were a baker, and someone came into my shop wanting me to make a custom “wedding” cake to be used a sick mockery of a wedding, with two “grooms” or two “brides” depicted thereon, I would refuse. Marriage is sacred to me, and I would never willingly take part in such a disgusting mockery of it. I cannot force others to refrain from such sickness and immorality, but I certainly can and will refuse to take any active part in it myself.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So the right to associate has not been or is not being threatened, just like it wasn't in the 60s

…just as long as you associate with those with whom Big Brother says you have to associate.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

`
Neither. Recently in this forum, someone brought up the fact that the US LGBT population is anywhere between 3.2 to 3.8% homosexual. Considering that small amount, it would seem to me that regardless of the spiritual or secular objections are to homosexuality, the attention being spent on this issue is psychologically and dysfunctionally [sic] disproportionate. This is to say, many men (who are in the forefront of of being homophobic) are actually gay or bisexual in denial. My guess would be about 40% but it could be a lot more.

What we really have here, then is a a tiny, mentally-sick, morally-deranged, freakish minority of less than 4%, demanding that the remaining 96%+ of us redefine our most essential social structures and conventions, and discard our deeply and sincerely-held moral convictions, just to cater to this <4%.

What is truly amazing is how many people think that this <4% should be able to gain so much traction at making such demands on the >96%.

 

[Lakryte]

I think there's a clear line here.

If I owned a bakery, and someone can in to buy any generic item that I had on the shelves, offered for sale, nothing about the personal lives of the prospective customer, or what he intended to do with that item, would be any of my business. If he bought a cake I had already made, and intended to use it in a sick mockery of a wedding, I would not know or care. None of my business.

But wedding cakes are usually not generic items. They are nearly always custom-made items, specific to that one wedding. They represent an artistic expression on the part of the one who creates them, in support of the wedding at which they will be used.

If I were a baker, and someone came into my shop wanting me to make a custom “wedding” cake to be used a sick mockery of a wedding, with two “grooms” or two “brides” depicted thereon, I would refuse. Marriage is sacred to me, and I would never willingly take part in such a disgusting mockery of it. I cannot force others to refrain from such sickness and immorality, but I certainly can and will refuse to take any active part in it myself.

Do you support repealing all anti-discrimination laws?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Do you support repealing all anti-discrimination laws?

I'm ambivalent about anti-discrimination laws.

On the one hand, it seems to me that a reasonable view of freedom of association should allow any person to choose for himself who he will or will not associate with in any setting; and for whatever reasons he deems valid for making such choices.

On the other hand, I recognize the wrongness of the situation that once existed, where certain persons were unable to obtain basic needs and accommodations because too many merchants were unwilling to do business with them.

However, I think that any reasonable person can conclude that anti-discrimination laws have gone too far, when they are used to prosecute a person for refusing to take part in something that is clearly immoral, such as a “gay wedding”.

 

[Lakryte]

I'm ambivalent about anti-discrimination laws.

On the one hand, it seems to me that a reasonable view of freedom of association should allow any person to choose for himself who he will or will not associate with in any setting; and for whatever reasons he deems valid for making such choices.

On the other hand, I recognize the wrongness of the situation that once existed, where certain persons were unable to obtain basic needs and accommodations because too many merchants were unwilling to do business with them.

I would say that describes my view pretty spot on as well. Cheers to common ground!

However, I think that any reasonable person can conclude that anti-discrimination laws have gone too far, when they are used to prosecute a person for refusing to take part in something that is clearly immoral, such as a “gay wedding”.

Who decides what is clearly immoral? If a bakery refused to serve cake at an interracial marriage because they argued it was clearly immoral would you say that was a good enough reason?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I would say that describes my view pretty spot on as well. Cheers to common ground!


Who decides what is clearly immoral? If a bakery refused to serve cake at an interracial marriage because they argued it was clearly immoral would you say that was a good enough reason?

I would disagree with him, but would staunchly defend his right not to be forced to participate in something he thought immoral.

In fact, if I were also a baker, I'd welcome the opportunity to get for myself the business that my racist competitor rejected. Surely, some other baker who has no no moral values would similarly welcome the opportunity to cater to the sick homosexual mockery of a wedding with which I wanted nothing to do.

 

[Lakryte]

I would disagree with him, but would staunchly defend his right not to be forced to participate in something he thought immoral.

In fact, if I were also a baker, I'd welcome the opportunity to get for myself the business that my racist competitor rejected. Surely, some other baker who has no no moral values would similarly welcome the opportunity to cater to the sick homosexual mockery of a wedding with which I wanted nothing to do.

Can you give an example of an anti-discrimination law you support? Also, answer the question. Who decides what is clearly immoral? What if I thought selling anything to black people was clearly immoral. Would you defend me then?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Can you give an example of an anti-discrimination law you support?

Not really. I find any anti-discrimination law to be a violation of the concept of freedom of association; and I cannot be comfortable with any such violation.

I can accept, as a “necessary evil”, broad anti-discrimination laws, that prohibit one from discriminating against anyone in any transaction over traits that are not relevant to that transaction.

Also, answer the question. Who decides what is clearly immoral?

Surely the most relevant judgement as to what is moral and what is immoral would be that of the person whose actions are under consideration, don't you think? Especially in a situation where it is being discussed whether an individual should be compelled to act, or to allow his property to be used, in a manner that he considers to be immoral.

What if I thought selling anything to black people was clearly immoral. Would you defend me then?

Probably not. What relevance does the color of his skin have to the product he wants to buy from you, or the value of the money that he would give you in exchange for that product?

If, on the other hand, you're a print shop owner, and he wants you to print up posters advertising a “Black Power”*rally, and you are someone who, for whatever reason, completely opposes the agenda of that rally, then yes, I would absolutely defend your right not to be compelled to print those posters; just as I would defend your choice not to print posters for a neo-Nazi or Ku Klux Klan event.

 

[Paxaeon]

What we really have here, then is a a tiny, mentally-sick, morally-deranged, freakish minority of less than 4%, demanding that the remaining 96%+ of us redefine our most essential social structures and conventions, and discard our deeply and sincerely-held moral convictions, just to cater to this <4%.What is truly amazing is how many people think that this <4% should be able to gain so much traction at making such demands on the >96%.

`
You are welcome to your opinions no doubt, but that still isn't going to stop the large group of god-fearing, married conservative heterosexuals trolling around at night secretly, for that man-meat you homophobics claim to be be so much against. Perhaps I should give you a refresher course on the amount of down-low males of your grouping who have already been busted but are desperate to keep these activities a secret.
`

 

[Bob Blaylock]

`
You are welcome to your opinions no doubt, but that still isn't going to stop the large group of god-fearing, married conservative heterosexuals trolling around at night secretly, for that man-meat you homophobics claim to be be so much against. Perhaps I should give you a refresher course on the amount of down-low males of your grouping who have already been busted but are desperate to keep these activities a secret.
`

Since when is less than four percent (probably much less than that when you narrow it down to the specified subset) a “large group”?

And the fact that there is a small portion of any population that engages in behavior which a much larger portion regards as immoral doesn't make that behavior any less immoral.

 

[opendebate]

I am a Christian. I beleive we all have and do sin and come short of the glory of God. Every day. One of the most difficlut things for me to understand is why a Christian bakery would not want to bake a cake for SSM. If they consider that a sin, where do they draw the line? How bout a couple that has lived in sin before marriage? How about extremely obese people wanting the same cake? I think it would be an excelllent time for Christians to deomonstrate what joy it is to be Christian and act a bit more like I think Jesus probably would.

:applaud:applaud:applaud

 

[Paxaeon]

Since when is less than four percent (probably much less than that when you narrow it down to the specified subset) a “large group”?And the fact that there is a small portion of any population that engages in behavior which a much larger portion regards as immoral doesn't make that behavior any less immoral.

`