The "Gay Agenda"[W:504]

[AGENT J]

1st amendment says you're wrong; 2nd amendment keeps the argument honest. People will exercise their religion as they see fit.

Nope, 1st amendment is fully in tact as the constitution, rights, laws and court cases already prove. Try again
you can keep trying to post lies and make up rights if you want but youll keep failing.
Maybe in your next post youll be able to support your claims with ONE single fact . . just one . . thanks LOL

 

[calamity]

How do you know a baker is a religious nut job before you go in there? Why is discrimination acceptable on the grounds of some nut religion?

As heterosexuals we flaunt our sexuality every day. I hold hands with my man walking down the street. I peck him on the cheek. I'm not into tongue exchanges in public but many heteros are - some damn near get one away from full sex in parks and on trains etc. Yet you expect gays to hide away and be grateful if they can find some baker somewhere who "doesn"t mind" doing a cake for the "perverts"? What right do you, or any baker have to disapprove of sex acts between consenting adults? I can respect Quakers and Liberal Jews and any other religion that doesn't discriminate against gays. But if your twisted religion tells you to disapprove of gays then I don't respect it, I despise it.

Get with the program honey - homosexuality is legal and SSM is a reality, and going to get more and more widespread. Just like racists before them, the homophobe's day is done. Get over it.

And remember:
"Judge not lest ye be judged" (Matthew 7:1-5)

Freedom of religion means people are free to practice any nut religion they choose, including those that despise the act of gay sex.

I despise religion too. But, I understand that some of those who are devout followers of it have strong opinions against homosexual acts. The believe their god does too, says so in their books.

I don't care if people are gay. It doesn't bother me in the least bit. But, then again, I'm not religious.

 

[calamity]

Nope, 1st amendment is fully in tact as the constitution, rights, laws and court cases already prove. Try again
you can keep trying to post lies and make up rights if you want but youll keep failing.
Maybe in your next post youll be able to support your claims with ONE single fact . . just one . . thanks LOL

If people can use freedom of religion to avoid going to war or eat normal prison food, they can certainly use it to avoid baking a wedding cake for a gay wedding. Hobby lobby was even able to use freedom of religion to avoid following all the tenets of Obamacare. SCOTUS gave them their seal of approval.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)If people can use freedom of religion to avoid going to war or eat normal prison food, they can certainly use it to avoid baking a wedding cake for a gay wedding.
3.) Hobby lobby was even able to use freedom of religion to avoid following all the tenets of Obamacare. SCOTUS gave them their seal of approval.

1.) Wrong again as the constitution, rights, laws and court cases already prove.
Getting drafted not the same as CHOOSING to enter in to a public business with rules that apply to us all
Getting ones self arrested then forced to eat something that could damn them to hell is not the same as CHOOSING to enter in to a public business with rules that apply to us all
2.) again that was not thier CHOICE
sorry you complete fail again

SO i repeat, what rights are you talking about because so far you gotta nothing and everything is against you.
please post these factual rights you keep making up in your next post. thanks

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Those who are reasonable, moderate, non-judgemental, respectful of others, no.

You are ill placed to lecture on ignorance, folly and bigotry.

I do not count “tolerance”, being “non-judgemental”, nor a lack of “bigotry” among my defining virtues. I fully recognize the distinction between good and evil, and why this distinction is important, and why I must stand for the former, and against the latter; and I am not being hypocritical nor inconsistent in so doing.

You, on the other hand, are claiming these virtues, but it is clear that you do not practice them any more than I do. In fact, you express much greater and more overt judgement, intolerance, and outright bigotry against me because of the values for which I stand, than I do against anyone. You are a far worse bigot than I am, and you are a horrendous hypocrite as well, for practicing this bigotry while piously proclaiming your opposition to bigotry. And worse, you are openly bigoted against that which is good and wholesome, while condemning me for being bigoted against that which is evil and immoral.

 

[AGENT J]

I do not count “tolerance”, being “non-judgemental”, nor a lack of “bigotry” among my defining virtues. I fully recognize the distinction between good and evil, and why this distinction is important, and why I must stand for the former, and against the latter; and I am not being hypocritical nor inconsistent in so doing.

You, on the other hand, are claiming these virtues, but it is clear that you do not practice them any more than I do. In fact, you express much greater and more overt judgement, intolerance, and outright bigotry against me because of the values for which I stand, than I do against anyone. You are a far worse bigot than I am, and you are a horrendous hypocrite as well, for practicing this bigotry while piously proclaiming your opposition to bigotry. And worse, you are openly bigoted against that which is good and wholesome, while condemning me for being bigoted against that which is evil and immoral.

as anybody ever bought one of these melt downs and thought they contain a thread of truth or honesty? I dont think one honest, educated and respected poster has.

Its very simply bob. Your views and wants will infringe on others rights and make them lessers, that makes your views bigoted, others views of people may not like you views but they still respect your rights and leave them alone.

You views are in fact bigoted, dont like that fact, change them :Shrug:

 

[Urethra Franklin]

Freedom of religion means people are free to practice any nut religion they choose, including those that despise the act of gay sex.

They can despise the act of gay sex. But they don't have the right to discriminate against gay people.

I despise religion too. But, I understand that some of those who are devout followers of it have strong opinions against homosexual acts. The believe their god does too, says so in their books.

As above. Though I personally find it odd that anybody would get so hot and bothered about what other consenting adults do behind closed doors, of course it's their right to feel that way. But it's not their right to discriminate.

I don't care if people are gay. It doesn't bother me in the least bit

:liar

 

[Urethra Franklin]

I do not count “tolerance”, being “non-judgemental”, nor a lack of “bigotry” among my defining virtues. I fully recognize the distinction between good and evil, and why this distinction is important, and why I must stand for the former, and against the latter; and I am not being hypocritical nor inconsistent in so doing.

You, on the other hand, are claiming these virtues, but it is clear that you do not practice them any more than I do. In fact, you express much greater and more overt judgement, intolerance, and outright bigotry against me because of the values for which I stand, than I do against anyone. You are a far worse bigot than I am, and you are a horrendous hypocrite as well, for practicing this bigotry while piously proclaiming your opposition to bigotry. And worse, you are openly bigoted against that which is good and wholesome, while condemning me for being bigoted against that which is evil and immoral.

Agent J has very eloquently responded above and I second his sentiments.

You claim I am the bigot here, yet I have already demonstrated to you that in my work I don't refuse to see anybody even if I disagree with their views or their practices. I respect the law, and my ethical and professional code, and I see EVERYBODY regardless of my own personal feelings. You on the other hand, condone people who refuse to serve gays because for some strange reason they are obsessed with what consulting adults do in private, and actually, doesn't concern them. Now come on, really, who's the bigot here?

You work on the assumption that you are right because you are religiously inspired, and I am wrong because I am an atheist. Patronising bullcr@p. Religion = good and secularism = bad. A simplistic black and white argument that sinks like a stone. I believe in no God but I am certainly a better person than any paedo priest or Islamic jihadi. You think you have the monopoly on defining what is evil and immoral - you're seriously deluded on all levels.

 

[winston53660]

I do not count “tolerance”, being “non-judgemental”, nor a lack of “bigotry” among my defining virtues. I fully recognize the distinction between good and evil, and why this distinction is important, and why I must stand for the former, and against the latter; and I am not being hypocritical nor inconsistent in so doing.

You, on the other hand, are claiming these virtues, but it is clear that you do not practice them any more than I do. In fact, you express much greater and more overt judgement, intolerance, and outright bigotry against me because of the values for which I stand, than I do against anyone. You are a far worse bigot than I am, and you are a horrendous hypocrite as well, for practicing this bigotry while piously proclaiming your opposition to bigotry. And worse, you are openly bigoted against that which is good and wholesome, while condemning me for being bigoted against that which is evil and immoral.

Ya see your kind of tolerance wants to make at the very least certain people's' marriages illegal and classify them as mentally ill worthy of institution and at the very worst wants to classify them as evil and potentially imprison them. OTOH my kind of tolerance says you have the right to say what you say although you might need some help with a personality disorder. But hey as long as you can function in society all is good enough.

 

[roguenuke]

Freedom of religion means people are free to practice any nut religion they choose, including those that despise the act of gay sex.

I despise religion too. But, I understand that some of those who are devout followers of it have strong opinions against homosexual acts. The believe their god does too, says so in their books.

I don't care if people are gay. It doesn't bother me in the least bit. But, then again, I'm not religious.

There are people who are devout followers of many different religions who have strong opinions against a whole lot of things, including interfaith marriages, marriages after divorce, divorce itself, and same sex relationships being legal to begin with. So what? None of those things matter to the law.

 

[calamity]

1.) Wrong again as the constitution, rights, laws and court cases already prove.
Getting drafted not the same as CHOOSING to enter in to a public business with rules that apply to us all
Getting ones self arrested then forced to eat something that could damn them to hell is not the same as CHOOSING to enter in to a public business with rules that apply to us all
2.) again that was not thier CHOICE
sorry you complete fail again

SO i repeat, what rights are you talking about because so far you gotta nothing and everything is against you.
please post these factual rights you keep making up in your next post. thanks

Hobby Lobby won. So too will the baker. You can't force a person to ignore their religion while they are earning a living. And gay sex violates the religious decree of many believers. Sorry about your luck.

 

[calamity]

They can despise the act of gay sex. But they don't have the right to discriminate against gay people.


As above. Though I personally find it odd that anybody would get so hot and bothered about what other consenting adults do behind closed doors, of course it's their right to feel that way. But it's not their right to discriminate.

:liar

1. They don't discriminate against gay people. They just won't cater to a sinful wedding. I've made that clear.

2. Forcing a religious baker to cater a gay wedding is not "behind closed doors." What part of this blows over your head?

3. Some of us debate the merits of an argument without personal interest in the outcome. I agree the gay agenda people are not going to see it that way.

 

[calamity]

There are people who are devout followers of many different religions who have strong opinions against a whole lot of things, including interfaith marriages, marriages after divorce, divorce itself, and same sex relationships being legal to begin with. So what? None of those things matter to the law.

Recent SCOTUS decisions disagree with your non-legal opinion. Freedom of religion and right to bear arms trump emotions of the liberal left.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Hobby Lobby won.
2.) So too will the baker.
3.) You can't force a person to ignore their religion while they are earning a living.
4.) And gay sex violates the religious decree of many believers.
5.) Sorry about your luck.

1.) yes differnet legality and prcedend completely but thankj you for continue to show how severly unedcuated you are on this specific topic.
2.) bakers already lost and anti-discrimitnion laws are strong and not going anywhere
3.) what force, there you go making up things you cant support like the last 10 posts of yours that completely failed lol
4.) true and meanignless to equal rights
5.) no need to apolpogize for you being wrong and luckily for the american people equal rights are winning

so here we are again, you on the losing end and us still waiting for you to presnet one facts that supports the lies you posted . . one
I bet you dodhge it in the next post too
facts win again

 

[AGENT J]

1. They don't discriminate against gay people. They just won't cater to a sinful wedding. I've made that clear.

2. Forcing a religious baker to cater a gay wedding is not "behind closed doors." What part of this blows over your head?

3. Some of us debate the merits of an argument without personal interest in the outcome. I agree the gay agenda people are not going to see it that way.

1.) yes thats the same thing as facts laws, and court cases proves .. remind us whats on your side again?
2.) there is not fact, what part of that blows over your head
3.) there is no gay agenda nor has this thread proves
you post fails and facts win again

 

[roguenuke]

Recent SCOTUS decisions disagree with your non-legal opinion. Freedom of religion and right to bear arms trump emotions of the liberal left.

No recent SCOTUS decisions disagree with what I just said. The one I know you are thinking of was a very narrow decision, which shouldn't have been an issue if we would have simply put into place universal healthcare rather than mandatory health insurance for all.

 

[calamity]

1.) yes differnet legality and prcedend completely but thankj you for continue to show how severly unedcuated you are on this specific topic.
2.) bakers already lost and anti-discrimitnion laws are strong and not going anywhere
3.) what force, there you go making up things you cant support like the last 10 posts of yours that completely failed lol
4.) true and meanignless to equal rights
5.) no need to apolpogize for you being wrong and luckily for the american people equal rights are winning

so here we are again, you on the losing end and us still waiting for you to presnet one facts that supports the lies you posted . . one
I bet you dodhge it in the next post too
facts win again

Interesting is calling someone uneducated with spelling and grammar like that. Ironic much?

 

[calamity]

No recent SCOTUS decisions disagree with what I just said. The one I know you are thinking of was a very narrow decision, which shouldn't have been an issue if we would have simply put into place universal healthcare rather than mandatory health insurance for all.

If things were different they wouldn't be the same. We know.

 

[roguenuke]

If things were different they wouldn't be the same. We know.

Then why are you assuming that SCOTUS decisions based on completely different issues would apply to the cases you are mentioning? The SCOTUS refused to hear at least one of the cases of a "religious" business owner being sued for refusing a wedding. This indicates that they don't agree with you that religious exemptions apply to antidiscrimination laws/public accommodation laws.

 

[calamity]

Then why are you assuming that SCOTUS decisions based on completely different issues would apply to the cases you are mentioning? The SCOTUS refused to hear at least one of the cases of a "religious" business owner being sued for refusing a wedding. This indicates that they don't agree with you that religious exemptions apply to antidiscrimination laws/public accommodation laws.

That was a case where NM law specifically states discrimination law applies to sexual orientation. SCOTUS was correct to refuse the photographer's appeal.

I'm referring only to cases/instances where there is no such state discrimination law in place. The federal government's discrimination law does not include sexual orientation.

 

[Gardener]

3. Some of us debate the merits of an argument without personal interest in the outcome. .

I hadn't even realized you were lacking genitalia.

How else could you have no personal interest in the outcome, eh?

 

[roguenuke]

That was a case where NM law specifically states discrimination law applies to sexual orientation. SCOTUS was correct to refuse the photographer's appeal.

I'm referring only to cases/instances where there is no such state discrimination law in place. The federal government's discrimination law does not include sexual orientation.

Yes. There have been no such cases (at least so far) where bakers or anyone else has been sued because they denied service to a gay person (here in the US) but sexuality wasn't included in the laws. There have only been cases where people have protested those businesses that did it, something that is completely legal and the SCOTUS cannot interfere with. Businesses do not have a right at all to force people to shop with them, to not be upset with their "business" decisions or claimed potential business decisions.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

1. They don't discriminate against gay people.

Yes they do. You provide your services to whites and not blacks - discrimination. You provide your services to straights and not gays - discrimination. You can't make up the rules to suit your own prejudices, much as you'd like to. And before you come back with accusing me of discriminating against religious people, I'll remind you again that I respect the law by providing my services to all without judgement.

They just won't cater to a sinful wedding. I've made that clear.

"Sinful" is a subjective judgement. They won't cater to a legal wedding - discrimination.

2. Forcing a religious baker to cater a gay wedding is not "behind closed doors." What part of this blows over your head?

Will they be having sex at the ceremony or in the bakery? Probably not. By your logic we shouldn't "force" racists to cater to black people, or white people, or yellow people etc. Maybe you'd like that? You've already said you'd condone a Rastafarian baker refusing services to whites. Do they still have seperate rest rooms for the coloured folk on planet Calamity?

3. Some of us debate the merits of an argument without personal interest in the outcome. I agree the gay agenda people are not going to see it that way.

And as many posters have demonstrated eloquently, the gay "agenda" doesn't really exist. People just want to be treated with equality and dignity, that's all. Like many religious people, these bakers preach love but practice hate.

 

[AGENT J]

Interesting is calling someone uneducated with spelling and grammar like that. Ironic much?

LMAO
Interesting is you made another post and with ZERO facts to support yous lies and not ONE single actual RIGHT listed that you are talking about
lets us jnow when you can lol
Your post fails and facts when again

 

[calamity]

LMAO
Interesting is you made another post and with ZERO facts to support yous lies and not ONE single actual RIGHT listed that you are talking about
lets us jnow when you can lol
Your post fails and facts when again

Is this written in some kind of code?