Discrimination and the New Inclusive America: Bake me a cake or go to Jail!

[G.T.]

The debate didn't get so inflamed until your side started to get religious vendors punished and even shut down for not wanting to service gay ceremonies. Not one single case has involved a religious vendor refusing to provide a regular, basic service to gays--all have involved the gay rights bullies punishing religious vendors for the "crime" of not wanting to facilitate a ceremony that they found offensive.

NO, guy, here's the thing. Religious people weren't offended by gay marriages until they were legalized.

They had no problem with ceremonies where the couple lived together before marriage, where the woman was not a virgin, where there were second marriages, where the woman wore braids or jewelry, where they served pork or shrimp at the reception, or a bunch of other things that were against rules in the bible.

Saying "guy" to people is so condescending.

 

[JoeMoma]

And as I stated before, the gays may buy the EXACT same product form the businesses as the Straight people can buy. It is the product that is being limited.

Theres no such thing as gay pizza.

The product is the exact same.

Its them denying the product to a certain venue they dont like, not making a product they dont like.

And gays were welcome to the pizza place to buy and consume pizza. The product that was said to not be available was "catering" for a same sex wedding. As same sex wedding is different event than a traditional wedding between a man and a woman.

And herein lies a canard.

In my opinion anyhow.

"They cater weddings. Just not gay weddings. But arent descriminating against gays cuz the gays are free to buy pizza for a straight wedding all they want."

Thats kinda where some dissonance is necessary to justify oneself.

Catering would imply that employees from the pizza place would have to be present at the wedding ( reception) to serve the pizza. This is similar to having a conscientious objector for the draft in the military. The military draft was the law of the land, but there was a carve out to people that could not handle killing people even as part of the military, often on religious grounds. If the pizza were simply delivered, it would not be any of the business of the pizza establishment about the nature of the event.

Do you really want to force people that don't want to attend a same sex wedding function to have to be there to provide a service? That doesn't seem very smart to me?

Yes, if they offer catering at all they should not be able to discriminate based on religious doctrine, sexual orientation, sex, race.....

If theres events you simply wont cater b/c you discriminate.......you dont get to cater at all, per anti discriminatory commerce law.

Yes, but discriming against an event because there is a gay theme to the event is not the same as discriminating against individuals because they are gay. As long as the business will cater events for gays that do not have a gay theme, then business is not disminating against the individuals because of their sexual orientation, the business is discriminating against the event because of its theme.

 

[emilynghiem]

People who provide gay-to-straight conversion therapy are committing fraud if they describe homosexuality as a mental disorder that can be cured, a state judge said Tuesday in a ruling a civil rights group predicted would deal a serious blow to the treatment's future across the nation.

The decision by Superior Court Judge Peter F. Bariso Jr., sitting in Hudson County, gives an edge to the four men and two parents suing Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing or JONAH, accusing the Jersey City organization that promotes the treatment of violating New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

The decision is bound to have a far-reaching impact, said David Dinielli, deputy legal director for the Southern Poverty Law Center which brought the lawsuit.

"This ruling is monumental and devastating to the conversion therapy industry," Dinelli said. "For the first time, a court has ruled that it is fraudulent as a matter of law for conversion therapists to tell clients that they have a mental disorder that can be cured. This is the principal lie the conversion therapy industry uses throughout the country to peddle its quackery to vulnerable clients."

In his Tuesday ruling Bariso said: "It is a misrepresentation in violation of the Consumer Fraud Act, in advertising or selling conversion therapy services to describe homosexuality, not as being a normal variation of human sexuality, but as being a mental illness, disease (or) disorder." Barsio wrote on Tuesday.

The ruling also said conversion therapists could not advertise their "success rate" of turning people into heterosexuals because "there is no factual basis for calculating these statistics."

Moreover:

5 Things You Should Know About Gay Conversion Therapy

Homosexuality is not considered a mental disorder, so the American Psychological Association (APA) does not recommend "curing" same-sex attraction in any case. Instead, societal ignorance, prejudice and pressure to conform to heterosexual desires are the real dangers to gay people's mental health, according to a 1997 statement on "conversion" or "reparative" therapy by the APA.

Hi orogenicman I am talking about Spiritual Healing which is the opposite of any coercion or abuse:

How To Defeat Homosexual Activists 101 A Real Education Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

If you look at successful cases of people voluntarily freed from unwanted homosexual attractions,
this is a wholly different and opposite process than the failed systems of torture and abuse.

The best way I see to end religious and cult and ritual abuse is to teach freely chosen spiritual healing based on forgiveness and consistent with science, medicine, and positive recovery therapy that has no negative elements.

Here are more examples of people who have freely changed to heterosexual relations without any abuse or coercion:
De Blasio s wife Chirlane McCray talks about lesbian past - NY Daily News
People Can Change - An alternative healing response to unwanted homosexual desires.
Ex-Gays We Should Get an Apology from Exodus as Well EDGE Boston MA

 

[G.T.]

Theres no such thing as gay pizza.

The product is the exact same.

Its them denying the product to a certain venue they dont like, not making a product they dont like.

And gays were welcome to the pizza place to buy and consume pizza. The product that was said to not be available was "catering" for a same sex wedding. As same sex wedding is different event than a traditional wedding between a man and a woman.

And herein lies a canard.

In my opinion anyhow.

"They cater weddings. Just not gay weddings. But arent descriminating against gays cuz the gays are free to buy pizza for a straight wedding all they want."

Thats kinda where some dissonance is necessary to justify oneself.

Catering would imply that employees from the pizza place would have to be present at the wedding ( reception) to serve the pizza. This is similar to having a conscientious objector for the draft in the military. The military draft was the law of the land, but there was a carve out to people that could not handle killing people even as part of the military, often on religious grounds. If the pizza were simply delivered, it would not be any of the business of the pizza establishment about the nature of the event.

Do you really want to force people that don't want to attend a same sex wedding function to have to be there to provide a service? That doesn't seem very smart to me?

Yes, if they offer catering at all they should not be able to discriminate based on religious doctrine, sexual orientation, sex, race.....

If theres events you simply wont cater b/c you discriminate.......you dont get to cater at all, per anti discriminatory commerce law.

Yes, but discriming against an event because there is a gay theme to the event is not the same as discriminating against individuals because they are gay. As long as the business will cater events for gays that do not have a gay theme, then business is not disminating against the individuals because of their sexual orientation, the business is discriminating against the event because of its theme.

This is a other agree to disagree point my man.

Anyhoo. Ny strips have 7mins of rest then dinner!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

And for libertarians, taxation is moral and not theft in a republican style country. That is never going to change in the next several lifetimes.

IF they consent to the tax policies.

Your legislator holds your 'right of consent', Emily. If he votes in a way that is not to your liking, vote in the next election. You have no other legal recourse, for your legislator is working constitutionally.

 

[JoeMoma]

The debate didn't get so inflamed until your side started to get religious vendors punished and even shut down for not wanting to s

The debate didn't get so inflamed until your side started to get religious vendors punished and even shut down for not wanting to service gay ceremonies. Not one single case has involved a religious vendor refusing to provide a regular, basic service to gays--all have involved the gay rights bullies punishing religious vendors for the "crime" of not wanting to facilitate a ceremony that they found offensive.

NO, guy, here's the thing. Religious people weren't offended by gay marriages until they were legalized.

They had no problem with ceremonies where the couple lived together before marriage, where the woman was not a virgin, where there were second marriages, where the woman wore braids or jewelry, where they served pork or shrimp at the reception, or a bunch of other things that were against rules in the bible.

And gays were welcome to the pizza place to buy and consume pizza. The product that was said to not be available was "catering" for a same sex wedding. As same sex wedding is different event than a traditional wedding between a man and a woman.

And herein lies a canard.

In my opinion anyhow.

"They cater weddings. Just not gay weddings. But arent descriminating against gays cuz the gays are free to buy pizza for a straight wedding all they want."

Thats kinda where some dissonance is necessary to justify oneself.

Catering would imply that employees from the pizza place would have to be present at the wedding ( reception) to serve the pizza. This is similar to having a conscientious objector for the draft in the military. The military draft was the law of the land, but there was a carve out to people that could not handle killing people even as part of the military, often on religious grounds. If the pizza were simply delivered, it would not be any of the business of the pizza establishment about the nature of the event.

Do you really want to force people that don't want to attend a same sex wedding function to have to be there to provide a service? That doesn't seem very smart to me?

Yes, if they offer catering at all they should not be able to discriminate based on religious doctrine, sexual orientation, sex, race.....

If theres events you simply wont cater b/c you discriminate.......you dont get to cater at all, per anti discriminatory commerce law.

Yes, but discriming against an event because there is a gay theme to the event is not the same as discriminating against individuals because they are gay. As long as the business will cater events for gays that do not have a gay theme, then business is not disminating against the individuals because of their sexual orientation, the business is discriminating against the event because of its theme.

This is a other agree to disagree point my man.

Anyhoo. Ny strips have 7mins of rest then dinner!!!

True. I must admit, our discussion has helped me to have better understanding of your point of view and give me something to think about.

 

[JoeMoma]

And gays were welcome to the pizza place to buy and consume pizza. The product that was said to not be available was "catering" for a same sex wedding. As same sex wedding is different event than a traditional wedding between a man and a woman.

And herein lies a canard.

In my opinion anyhow.

"They cater weddings. Just not gay weddings. But arent descriminating against gays cuz the gays are free to buy pizza for a straight wedding all they want."

Thats kinda where some dissonance is necessary to justify oneself.

Catering would imply that employees from the pizza place would have to be present at the wedding ( reception) to serve the pizza. This is similar to having a conscientious objector for the draft in the military. The military draft was the law of the land, but there was a carve out to people that could not handle killing people even as part of the military, often on religious grounds. If the pizza were simply delivered, it would not be any of the business of the pizza establishment about the nature of the event.

Do you really want to force people that don't want to attend a same sex wedding function to have to be there to provide a service? That doesn't seem very smart to me?

Yes, if they offer catering at all they should not be able to discriminate based on religious doctrine, sexual orientation, sex, race.....

If theres events you simply wont cater b/c you discriminate.......you dont get to cater at all, per anti discriminatory commerce law.

Yes, but discriming against an event because there is a gay theme to the event is not the same as discriminating against individuals because they are gay. As long as the business will cater events for gays that do not have a gay theme, then business is not disminating against the individuals because of their sexual orientation, the business is discriminating against the event because of its theme.

This is a other agree to disagree point my man.

Anyhoo. Ny strips have 7mins of rest then dinner!!!

Now I'm hungry.

 

[G.T.]

The debate didn't get so inflamed until your side started to get religious vendors punished and even shut down for not wanting to s

The debate didn't get so inflamed until your side started to get religious vendors punished and even shut down for not wanting to service gay ceremonies. Not one single case has involved a religious vendor refusing to provide a regular, basic service to gays--all have involved the gay rights bullies punishing religious vendors for the "crime" of not wanting to facilitate a ceremony that they found offensive.

NO, guy, here's the thing. Religious people weren't offended by gay marriages until they were legalized.

They had no problem with ceremonies where the couple lived together before marriage, where the woman was not a virgin, where there were second marriages, where the woman wore braids or jewelry, where they served pork or shrimp at the reception, or a bunch of other things that were against rules in the bible.

And herein lies a canard.

In my opinion anyhow.

"They cater weddings. Just not gay weddings. But arent descriminating against gays cuz the gays are free to buy pizza for a straight wedding all they want."

Thats kinda where some dissonance is necessary to justify oneself.

Catering would imply that employees from the pizza place would have to be present at the wedding ( reception) to serve the pizza. This is similar to having a conscientious objector for the draft in the military. The military draft was the law of the land, but there was a carve out to people that could not handle killing people even as part of the military, often on religious grounds. If the pizza were simply delivered, it would not be any of the business of the pizza establishment about the nature of the event.

Do you really want to force people that don't want to attend a same sex wedding function to have to be there to provide a service? That doesn't seem very smart to me?

Yes, if they offer catering at all they should not be able to discriminate based on religious doctrine, sexual orientation, sex, race.....

If theres events you simply wont cater b/c you discriminate.......you dont get to cater at all, per anti discriminatory commerce law.

Yes, but discriming against an event because there is a gay theme to the event is not the same as discriminating against individuals because they are gay. As long as the business will cater events for gays that do not have a gay theme, then business is not disminating against the individuals because of their sexual orientation, the business is discriminating against the event because of its theme.

This is a other agree to disagree point my man.

Anyhoo. Ny strips have 7mins of rest then dinner!!!

True. I must admit, our discussion has helped me to have better understanding of your point of view and give me something to think about.

Same, to be honest.

 

[FA_Q2]

Laws are not suppose to go against religious belief. That, whether or not you like it or will admit it, is what you are doing.

I think that's a gross inversion of the First amendment, which requires that government make no laws regarding religion. If legislators did as you suggest, and avoid going against any religious belief when making laws, they'd be doing exactly the opposite of what the First amendment demands.

You are incorrect, in my opinion.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on thefreedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

The VERY FIRST amendment to the COTUS addresses what? Freedom of religion from the government.

How would you apply this interpretation of the first amendment to a religion that practiced ritual human sacrifice?

In the cases at hand people are being forced to do something against their (religious) beliefs. So a better analogy would be to ask what if there were a law that required a business to provide human sacrifices, would the business owner have the right to deny that service based on the 1st ammendment. (I know this is absurd, but you brought up human sacrifices.). When the business owner gets his way, is is not forced to do something that he finds morraly objectionable.

With the question, you are asking if someone can do sonething that society has lawfully deemed unacceptable for religious reasons. In the business cases at hand, the business owner wants to choose the omission of an action rather than the commission of an objectionable action.

Two questions for ya bruv.

Can religions be denied some of their doctrine based on law?

Can government regulate commerce?

We can restart the whole convo.

Entertain those two, if you would, as yes or no's.

There is a severe problem with this loaded question though. Of course the answer is yes to both. That is a given and you know it. The real problem is that law is traditionally used to LIMIT ones abilities. Tell you that you cannot murder, steal or go over a certain speed limit. This applies to religious tenets like stoning. You cannot stone someone to death as a part of your religion - that would violate the other persons rights.

HOWEVER, the law we are talking about here is completely different than this. This problem does not occur with laws that restrict your ability to act on others but rather with laws that are forcing you to actually do something rather than restricting your actions. There is a world of difference in telling someone that they cannot practice a tenant of their religion because it is against the law and compelling someone to act in any manner counter to their wishes. There is a world of difference in drawing lines that you are not legally able to cross and compelling people into action.

 

[G.T.]

I think that's a gross inversion of the First amendment, which requires that government make no laws regarding religion. If legislators did as you suggest, and avoid going against any religious belief when making laws, they'd be doing exactly the opposite of what the First amendment demands.

You are incorrect, in my opinion.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on thefreedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

The VERY FIRST amendment to the COTUS addresses what? Freedom of religion from the government.

How would you apply this interpretation of the first amendment to a religion that practiced ritual human sacrifice?

In the cases at hand people are being forced to do something against their (religious) beliefs. So a better analogy would be to ask what if there were a law that required a business to provide human sacrifices, would the business owner have the right to deny that service based on the 1st ammendment. (I know this is absurd, but you brought up human sacrifices.). When the business owner gets his way, is is not forced to do something that he finds morraly objectionable.

With the question, you are asking if someone can do sonething that society has lawfully deemed unacceptable for religious reasons. In the business cases at hand, the business owner wants to choose the omission of an action rather than the commission of an objectionable action.

Two questions for ya bruv.

Can religions be denied some of their doctrine based on law?

Can government regulate commerce?

We can restart the whole convo.

Entertain those two, if you would, as yes or no's.

There is a severe problem with this loaded question though. Of course the answer is yes to both. That is a given and you know it. The real problem is that law is traditionally used to LIMIT ones abilities. Tell you that you cannot murder, steal or go over a certain speed limit. This applies to religious tenets like stoning. You cannot stone someone to death as a part of your religion - that would violate the other persons rights.

HOWEVER, the law we are talking about here is completely different than this. This problem does not occur with laws that restrict your ability to act on others but rather with laws that are forcing you to actually do something rather than restricting your actions. There is a world of difference in telling someone that they cannot practice a tenant of their religion because it is against the law and compelling someone to act in any manner counter to their wishes. There is a world of difference in drawing lines that you are not legally able to cross and compelling people into action.

Im too tired anymore on this one my bruvva...


Smackk me with a PM convo if you wanna hash it out. Think im done with this one to be honest with ya

Helluva sat. Im having. Lol

 

[dblack]

You said "laws are not supposed to go ahainst religious belief."

The old testament allows capital punishment against adulterers and gays.

So does Islam.

Laws cant go against that religious belief? Its not murder?

You fail. Laws go against religious beliefs. ALL THE TIME!!!

Try thinking before you post, jeebus.

So easy to argue from the absurd.

Hell by the time of the founding of the country and the first amendment to the COTUS hardly a witch had been burned in 100 years and the scarlet letters? A thing of the past. BTW, what religious belief today stones adulterers or gays or cuts off hands of thieves? Oh right, not Judaism or Christianity.

Using your thinking the law is supreme. We have many laws that say "thous shalt not kill." yet we send predator drones to kill every single day, how in the hell does that work? We do it without trial which by any measure is murder.

So if I read you right, as long as you allow a religious belief it is Ok to observe that religious belief. But if that belief gets in the way of your belief then there will be trouble?

In my state there never was a provision made, voted on by the people's representatives, to allow for gay marriage. But yet it is legal, how can that be? Especially considering that the representatives of the people had voted to define marriage between a man and a woman. Intersting how belief systems get forced onto the majority. Usually as pretext of a right.

Islam, you weirdo.

I asked you to think. You really failed. Wow

What you are really asking, or demanding, is that I think like you. No thanks, I like freedom and I usually don't resort to name calling.

No. Im asking if us law can negate religious doctrine.

It clearly can. Or it would be legal for muslims to stone gays.

If you cant be honest within a discussion, thats not on me bro.

People sould not be able to commit murder using religion as an excuse. However, people should be able to do "nothing" using religious freedom as an excuse.

People should be able to do nothing using nothing as an excuse.

 

[emilynghiem]

And quit looking for cases to sue over that involve Crosses, Bibles, prayers
just because these are more visible.

quit trying to put your bibles and crosses and prayers in public venue and impose them on people who didn't ask for them.

1. who are you addressing as "you"
I am a Constitutionalist. Just because I defend gay rights or Muslim rights doesn't make me gay or Muslim.

2. I agree with not forcing beliefs on others. That is my whole point JoeB131.
For equality, that means the same way Christian beliefs should NOT be pushed through public institutions
then the same holds for beliefs about homosexuality NOT pushed through public institutions.

AGREED!

 

[emilynghiem]

In Indiana, a gay person can still be fired from a job or denied a job, simply for being gay.

Please forgive me for doubting you but since we all know what lying scum dimocraps are, can you provide a link to the last person to be fired for being gay in Indiana (or anywhere else).

There are still laws on the books that require a man to walk in front of an automobile at night carrying a gas lamp, too.

I'm smarter than you. Give it up

Yeah that was tough to find.

Marriage Rights Won t Save Gays From Being Fired in Most States - Bloomberg Politics

Yet Indiana and Arkansas already were among the 28 states, primarily in the South and middle of the country, where gays can be denied private-sector jobs or housing purely on the basis of sexual orientation. In 29 states, gays can be refused service in retail stores.

And people that look funny, smell funny, have tattoos or piercings or a billion other things can be denied employment as well. That does not mean that government needs to get involved. Now, if gays were not able to find employment that would be another story altogether – there would be a situation occurring that was holding an entire demographic back but there is no significant barrier for gays becoming employed anywhere.
There are even jobs where gays are PREFERRED. I know – the horror.

You are comparing unrelated things...and in some places appearance has been added to public accommodation and employment laws.

Why are Christians protected by FEDERAL Employment Discrimination and Public Accommodation laws? Can't Christians find employment elsewhere?

How about get rid of the Federal laws protecting Christians before going after local laws protecting gays.

???? wouldn't getting rid of federal laws protecting Christians also remove the same protections for gays?
what laws are you citing that only apply to Christians and not gays?

 

[emilynghiem]

Next gays will give their wedding guest lists to the police who will drag unwilling attendees to celebrate under penalty of arrest.

Tipsycatlover
No, but maybe if Christian businesses are required to serve all people, gay or straight or whatever,
they could post publicly that they will require all customers to go through spiritual prayer and healing as part of their services. No exceptions.

This fee cleansing prayer would be clearly stated as mandatory part of the services because it is a Christian business and the owners are committed to conducting business with fellow believers and make sure they are fully healed -- and not adulterers, fornicators, liars or deniers of truth. As long as this service is provided to all customers, there is no discrimination. Straight people would all be screened for any abusive or addictive condition that healing prayer can possibly resolve, equally as those of alternative orientation or gender.

If accommodations are going to be strictly enforced, then businesses could add this condition for screening and healing people in advance, as mandatory if they are going to be required to serve all people as mandatory.

 

[emilynghiem]

No, not really. What's going to change their mind is when we get to a point where saying "faggot" or "dyke" out loud gets you the stink-eye, and when people laugh at you when you blurt out a bible verse to try to rationalize your bigotry.

In the mean time, we have public accommodation laws, and you homophobes have to follow them just like the racists do.

And likewise JoeB131 when spiritual healing is established by science to naturally consistently and voluntarily cure cancer, schizophrenia, and other physical and mental conditions, then people will quit mocking and discrediting Christianity as a cult, and understand why Christians feel such a moral and spiritual calling to share with others. When it is finally understood that these healing prayers and divine process of forgiveness really does cure root causes of diseases, as well as healing abusive relations and addiction.

One unintended side benefit of rallying for gay rights and public acceptance
is the equal publicity and recognition for spiritual healing therapy which has helped people recover from abuse
and to change unwanted homosexual attractions and relations.

The effects of this knowledge will save more lives from unrelated conditions equally healed with the same methods. Once this is established as a natural process consistent with science and medicine, the real meaning and purpose of Christianity will be understood and not confused with abusive cult rituals and fraud.

 

[JoeB131]

1. who are you addressing as "you"
I am a Constitutionalist. Just because I defend gay rights or Muslim rights doesn't make me gay or Muslim.

2. I agree with not forcing beliefs on others. That is my whole point JoeB131.
For equality, that means the same way Christian beliefs should NOT be pushed through public institutions
then the same holds for beliefs about homosexuality NOT pushed through public institutions.

uh, no. Non discrimination is a public interest. That's why we have civil rights laws.

This school wants public (government) accreditation. Probably a lot of other government benefits like tax breaks and grants and stuff. Ergo, it is not allowed to discriminate.

 

[JoeB131]

And likewise JoeB131 when spiritual healing is established by science to naturally consistently and voluntarily cure cancer, schizophrenia, and other physical and mental conditions, then people will quit mocking and discrediting Christianity as a cult, and understand why Christians feel such a moral and spiritual calling to share with others. When it is finally understood that these healing prayers and divine process of forgiveness really does cure root causes of diseases, as well as healing abusive relations and addiction.

Well, that ain't going to ever happen. When God heals an amputee, then I'll take that shit seriously.

 

[dblack]

1. who are you addressing as "you"
I am a Constitutionalist. Just because I defend gay rights or Muslim rights doesn't make me gay or Muslim.

2. I agree with not forcing beliefs on others. That is my whole point JoeB131.
For equality, that means the same way Christian beliefs should NOT be pushed through public institutions
then the same holds for beliefs about homosexuality NOT pushed through public institutions.

uh, no. Non discrimination is a public interest. That's why we have civil rights laws.

Honey Boo Boo is also a public interest.

This school wants public (government) accreditation. Probably a lot of other government benefits like tax breaks and grants and stuff. Ergo, it is not allowed to discriminate.

Yep. That's why they hand that shit out like candy - so they can use it as leverage for arm twisting later.

 

[JoeB131]

Yep. That's why they hand that shit out like candy - so they can use it as leverage for arm twisting later.

True, dat. What's your point?

 

[dblack]

Yep. That's why they hand that shit out like candy - so they can use it as leverage for arm twisting later.

True, dat. What's your point?

Just raising awareness. A lot of people seem to see such "incentives" as harmless freebies.