Why does it matter if Homosexuality is a choice or not?

[jknowgood]

So then you are okay with a white supremacists walks into a black bakers shop and makes him do confederate flag cakes?

That is a ridiculous argument.

First, I've never met a white supremacist willing to patronize the business of anyone other than other whites.

Second, the refusal wouldn't be considered discrimination based on any of the protected categories. Try again.

Okay using your same logic why would a queer go into a christian bakery and demand him bake them a cake?

Because he wants a cake?

So would the white supremacists.

Sure.
I'm certain you're about to make a point any moment now.

Done made it.

 

[MsnBama]

That is a ridiculous argument.

First, I've never met a white supremacist willing to patronize the business of anyone other than other whites.

Second, the refusal wouldn't be considered discrimination based on any of the protected categories. Try again.

Okay using your same logic why would a queer go into a christian bakery and demand him bake them a cake?

Because he wants a cake?

So would the white supremacists.

Sure.
I'm certain you're about to make a point any moment now.

Done made it.

No, you did not.

 

[idb]

That is a ridiculous argument.

First, I've never met a white supremacist willing to patronize the business of anyone other than other whites.

Second, the refusal wouldn't be considered discrimination based on any of the protected categories. Try again.

Okay using your same logic why would a queer go into a christian bakery and demand him bake them a cake?

Because he wants a cake?

So would the white supremacists.

Sure.
I'm certain you're about to make a point any moment now.

Done made it.

You know what?
I believe you have.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I think if it's not a life threatening thing, anyone can deny anyone service. Only in liberal looney land would you give someone money that doesn't want to do business with you.

Partially correct. A business can deny service to anyone. However the reason service is denied cannot be based on specific criteria. In Oregon that criteria is "race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older".

If you own a business and are booked or do not carry a type of product, you can refuse service to anyone. On the other hand you can't deny goods and service because of one of the specified characteristics of the customer.


>>>>

 

[jknowgood]

Okay using your same logic why would a queer go into a christian bakery and demand him bake them a cake?

Because he wants a cake?

So would the white supremacists.

Sure.
I'm certain you're about to make a point any moment now.

Done made it.

No, you did not.

I think if a white supremacists walks into a black bakers shop and ask him to cater an event. The black man has the very right to tell him no. If a queer does the same, the baker has the right to say no. If either walks in and wants to buy off the shelf than yes sell it to them. Not hard to understand.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Okay using your same logic why would a queer go into a christian bakery and demand him bake them a cake?

They went into the bakery to order a cake, "queer" or "christian" had nothing to do with it.

The bakers had previously supplied a cake for one of the couples mother a couple of years before and done a good job. Many businesses excel because of word or mouth and repeat business for doing good work.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nope, and gays weren't treated differently under the law either. They had exactly the same rights as everyone else. Now they have more, the courts decreed it

Before the bans were fund unconstitutional:

• Bob had a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Joan did not have the right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Bob and Joan did not have the same right.

After the bans were fund unconstitutional:

• Bob has a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Joan has a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Bob and Joan can both Civilly Marry Jane**
  
• Bob and Joan have the same rights, not more.

(**individually of course, not together)


>>>>

Bob and Joan had the same rights in the first one too, Bob did not have a right to marry joe, joan did.
you forgot that one.

Nope didn't forget.

But you actually prove the point that was already made. If Joan could Civilly Marry Joe but Bob cannot. Then Joan and Bob were being treated differently under the law.

Thanks for proving my point.


>>>>

 

[jknowgood]

I think if it's not a life threatening thing, anyone can deny anyone service. Only in liberal looney land would you give someone money that doesn't want to do business with you.

Partially correct. A business can deny service to anyone. However the reason service is denied cannot be based on specific criteria. In Oregon that criteria is "race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older".

If you own a business and are booked or do not carry a type of product, you can refuse service to anyone. On the other hand you can't deny goods and service because of one of the specified characteristics of the customer.


>>>>

Okay then if I have my concealed carry permit, and a business owner doesn't want guns in his store. I am by law legally able to carry it. Right?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I don't agree with queers, but they have the right to be happy. I've personally never done anything against a queer. I was actually for civil unions when this subject came up years ago. If they want a document saying they are life long partners. Then I'm all for it, and in that context I don't think the baker would've had a problem baking the cake. Marriage was defined to be between a male and female united by God. So maybe if they would've accepted civil unions we wouldn't be in this mess.

Psst...

There was no Civil Marriage in Oregon at the time of the incident.

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I think if a white supremacists walks into a black bakers shop and ask him to cater an event. The black man has the very right to tell him no. If a queer does the same, the baker has the right to say no. If either walks in and wants to buy off the shelf than yes sell it to them. Not hard to understand.

Political views are not protected under Oregon's Public Accommodation laws and therefore a black baker can legally reject a white supremacist's order. However a gay baker cannot refuse equal service to a Christian because of their religion - that is Federal and State law.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Okay then if I have my concealed carry permit, and a business owner doesn't want guns in his store. I am by law legally able to carry it. Right?

Sure you can carry it.

Just not on his property unless the State has a law that provides that business owners must permit weapons on their property.

However weapons carry is not a factor in Public Accommodation laws.


>>>>

 

[MsnBama]

I think if a white supremacists walks into a black bakers shop and ask him to cater an event. The black man has the very right to tell him no. If a queer does the same, the baker has the right to say no. If either walks in and wants to buy off the shelf than yes sell it to them. Not hard to understand.

Political views are not protected under Oregon's Public Accommodation laws and therefore a black baker can legally reject a white supremacist's order. However a gay baker cannot refuse equal service to a Christian because of their religion - that is Federal and State law.


>>>>

Already tried to explain this. Good luck. He's thick in the head.

 

[Seawytch]

So you are okay with him losing his business? Even though he sold them every day items and thought of them as friends?

ETA: I wrote this with Jack Phillips in mind, forgive me if I'm speaking about a different incident than that which you are referencing.

1) If he sold to them on a regular basis, why the discrimination in the first place?

2) As far as I've seen, he's not losing his business. He's choosing not to make wedding cakes any longer.

Do you not understand that it is illegal for a public entity to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, creed, or sexual orientation? Illegal. That's Colorado state law and if he had a problem operating his business while abiding by the law then he probably shouldn't have opened in the first place.

Either way, he's making a choice to stop doing wedding cakes. A CHOICE. No one is forcing him to stop, he's doing that all on his own.

And, for the record, the Mullins couple was married in Massachusetts, he was not participating in ANY wedding. They wanted a cake for a reception back in Colorado after the fact. He discriminated against two people and now he is complaining about facing those consequences.

So then you are okay with a white supremacists walks into a black bakers shop and makes him do confederate flag cakes?

So you're okay with non sequiturs? Nobody has to provide a service they would not otherwise provide.

You sell a WEDDING CAKE to couple A, you must also sell a WEDDING CAKE to coupleB even if couple B is black, Muslim or in some places, gay.

I think if it's not a life threatening thing, anyone can deny anyone service. Only in liberal looney land would you give someone money that doesn't want to do business with you.

I'm delighted that's what you believe. That and $3 will get you a cup of coffee. The LAW says in all 50 states at the Federal level, that I cannot discriminate against a Christian. Get rid of THAT law before you go after state laws, eh?

 

[Seawytch]

The EVIDENCE is history!
If homosexuality was entirely genetics based there would be no human reproduction right????
I mean seriously how would mankind reproduce if we were ALL GENETICALLY predisposed to same sex?
NOW there are those that are genetically predisposed. I've NEVER NEVER said there weren't!
I'm saying that the gay population has increased simply because it is not considered rape to get a blow job from another guy! Simple as that!
Lot easier.

Why would it being genetic mean everyone is the same? We don't all have the same color hair

No shit Sherlock but is there anywhere the law treats you differently because of the color of your hair?

Nope, and gays weren't treated differently under the law either. They had exactly the same rights as everyone else. Now they have more, the courts decreed it

So a ban on redheads marrying each other would be constitutional since the could still marry brunettes?

Didn't think that through did you?

No, you didn't think that one through, it has nothing to do with my gay argument. Being red head would in your example change who you could marry. Unlike being gay which didn't

Exact same analogy. Redheads can't marry each other just like you don't believe gays should marry each other. They could still marry, just not who they want to. Same argument you are making. Dumb isn't it?

 

[jknowgood]

Okay then if I have my concealed carry permit, and a business owner doesn't want guns in his store. I am by law legally able to carry it. Right?

Sure you can carry it.

Just not on his property unless the State has a law that provides that business owners must permit weapons on their property.

However weapons carry is not a factor in Public Accommodation laws.


>>>>

Not if they lease the building. They own the business, not the building.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think if it's not a life threatening thing, anyone can deny anyone service. Only in liberal looney land would you give someone money that doesn't want to do business with you.

Partially correct. A business can deny service to anyone. However the reason service is denied cannot be based on specific criteria. In Oregon that criteria is "race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older".

If you own a business and are booked or do not carry a type of product, you can refuse service to anyone. On the other hand you can't deny goods and service because of one of the specified characteristics of the customer.


>>>>

Okay then if I have my concealed carry permit, and a business owner doesn't want guns in his store. I am by law legally able to carry it. Right?

You don't understand.

Public accommodations laws are authorized by the Commerce Clause, they're necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures enacted to ensure the integrity of the local markets and all other interrelated markets, where to deny service to a patron based solely because of who he is, is disruptive to the markets.

Not all public accommodations laws are the same; indeed, some jurisdictions' public accommodations laws have no provision for sexual orientation, where business owners in such jurisdictions are at liberty to refuse service to gay patrons.

Carrying a concealed firearm in a business whose owner prohibits firearms on his property could be a provision of a public accommodations law; however, in most (if not all) jurisdictions the issue is addressed via state gun laws. In Florida, for example, a business owner cannot prohibit a patron from keeping a firearm in his car when the patron's car is located on the business owner's property. In fact, Florida law prohibits business owners from even inquiring as to whether or not a patron has a firearm in his car.

 

[Seawytch]

Okay using your same logic why would a queer go into a christian bakery and demand him bake them a cake?

Nobody did that. The couple that walked into Sweet Cakes went into a bakery to buy a cake. Where in the name "Sweet Cakes" is "Christian" implied?

The same bakery was willing to bake an atheist cake, a divorced cake and a cake celebrating stem cell research.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Okay then if I have my concealed carry permit, and a business owner doesn't want guns in his store. I am by law legally able to carry it. Right?

Sure you can carry it.

Just not on his property unless the State has a law that provides that business owners must permit weapons on their property.

However weapons carry is not a factor in Public Accommodation laws.


>>>>

Not if they lease the building. They own the business, not the building.

Sure they can.

When you lease a building, unless access control is specified in the lease contract, then the business has access control to the property. Typically lease agreements provide access by the owner to the property for inspection purposes to ensure the property is maintained in good order and then it may require an appointment unless it's a case of emergency (fire, crime, that sort of thing).

The owner does not grant access to customers of the business.

Kind of like renting an appointment. The apartment manager does not say who can come and go from an apartment you might lease, you so as the renter. However the manager can have access by appointment to inspect the premises.

>>>>

 

[kaz]

Nope, and gays weren't treated differently under the law either. They had exactly the same rights as everyone else. Now they have more, the courts decreed it

Before the bans were fund unconstitutional:

• Bob had a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Joan did not have the right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Bob and Joan did not have the same right.

After the bans were fund unconstitutional:

• Bob has a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Joan has a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Bob and Joan can both Civilly Marry Jane**
  
• Bob and Joan have the same rights, not more.

(**individually of course, not together)


>>>>

Bob and Joan had the same rights in the first one too, Bob did not have a right to marry joe, joan did.
you forgot that one.
and if you say she did not have the same right because she did not want to marry joe, then is she denying joe his right to marry her, or is Mary Jane denying joan her rights if she did not want to marry her

Word games. Nothing in the Constitution says that government has to be gender blind. All men and all women, gay or straight, could enter into a man/woman government marriage and they then had the same rights. That was the appropriate job for the courts. They decided to throw the Constitution aside and rewrite it because they didn't like it.

 

[kaz]

Nope, and gays weren't treated differently under the law either. They had exactly the same rights as everyone else. Now they have more, the courts decreed it

Before the bans were fund unconstitutional:

• Bob had a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Joan did not have the right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Bob and Joan did not have the same right.

After the bans were fund unconstitutional:

• Bob has a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Joan has a legal right to Civilly Marry Jane.
• Bob and Joan can both Civilly Marry Jane**
  
• Bob and Joan have the same rights, not more.

(**individually of course, not together)


>>>>

Bob and Joan had the same rights in the first one too, Bob did not have a right to marry joe, joan did.
you forgot that one.

Nope didn't forget.

But you actually prove the point that was already made. If Joan could Civilly Marry Joe but Bob cannot. Then Joan and Bob were being treated differently under the law.

Thanks for proving my point.


>>>>

No, Bob and Joan could both enter into a man/woman government marriage. Nowhere does the Constitution say the law has to be gender blind. You're terrible at word parsing