Amazing, Six Members of the Clown Car did WHAT?

[rightwinger]

People who believe being gay is a choice, must be attracted to both men and women and chose only one. How'd you choose? You flip a coin? See, there was never any choice for me, I was just attracted to other girls.

BUt you chose to act on it There's your choice.

Yes, so? As long as I'm acting on it with consenting adults, why do you bigots care so much?

So you agree it's a choice. Good.

Religion is a choice....you are free to pick another one if it interferes with your work

You keep repeating that like it's true. It is not. The Constitution protects exercise of religion. And the Supreme Court agrees.

Of course it is true.....people get to pick their religion
Sexuality? Not so much

People pick a religion that hates gays. Then expect gays to conform to their hatreds

 

[Seawytch]

Let me quote Rabbi to Rabbi:

"They claim it violates their religious beliefs. Have you examined their souls or something?"

And the racists were just as sure of THEIR bible versus as the anti gay bigots are of theirs.

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red and he placed them on separate continents. . . . The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
Judge Leon M. Bazile

Anecdote is not evidence.
Next.

Your words Rabbi...

"They claim it violates their religious beliefs. Have you examined their souls or something?"

I have no idea whether those were his religious beliefs or not. In any case he's been dead for years.
Another failed attempt at a point by Seabytch.

So original...Seabytch. Did you break your arm patting yourself on the back for that one?

It's a FACT, Rabbi, that people had (and still have) a religious objection to desegregation and interracial marriage. We did not grant these bigots exceptions to our laws, why should anti gay bigots get to ignore laws when we didn't let racist bigots do it?

There was also resistance rooted in religion to laws barring discrimination in public accommodations and education. For example, a barbeque franchise resisted compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, refusing to serve African-Americans on the ground that the Act “contravene[d] the will of God.”29 The court rejected the defense, stating that, while the franchise owner “has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing . . . he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens.” Most famously, Bob Jones University and its companion plaintiff, Goldsboro Christian Schools, invoked religion to resist integration in education.31 Goldsboro regarded “[c]ultural or biological mixing of the races . . . as a violation of God’s command,”32 and sponsors of Bob Jones University maintained that “the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage.”33 In the Supreme Court, the schools argued that the loss of their tax-exempt status because of their discriminatory policies violated their Free Exercise rights. The Supreme Court rejected the claim, reasoning that “the interests asserted by petitioners cannot be accommodated with [the] compelling governmental interest” in “eradicating racial discrimination in education—discrimination that prevailed, with official approval, for the first 165 years of this Nation’s constitutional history.”​

Strawman. No one today has objections to serving blacks on religious grounds.

Pay attention Rabbi, I said that we did not give racists who had religious objections to blacks any exemptions back then, why should anti gay bigots get exemptions now?

And yes, I'm sure there are still people that have religious objections to serving blacks, but there's a law that they can't circumvent.

 

[The Rabbi]

BUt you chose to act on it There's your choice.

Yes, so? As long as I'm acting on it with consenting adults, why do you bigots care so much?

So you agree it's a choice. Good.

Religion is a choice....you are free to pick another one if it interferes with your work

You keep repeating that like it's true. It is not. The Constitution protects exercise of religion. And the Supreme Court agrees.

Of course it is true.....people get to pick their religion
Sexuality? Not so much

People pick a religion that hates gays. Then expect gays to conform to their hatreds

Mere assertion by the uber-hack of USMB.
Maybe gays should choose not being gay instead.

 

[Seawytch]

People who believe being gay is a choice, must be attracted to both men and women and chose only one. How'd you choose? You flip a coin? See, there was never any choice for me, I was just attracted to other girls.

BUt you chose to act on it There's your choice.

Yes, so? As long as I'm acting on it with consenting adults, why do you bigots care so much?

So you agree it's a choice. Good.

No, Rabbi, that is not what I said. I said acting upon our natural inclinations is a choice, the inclinations themselves are not. Gay people do not choose to be attracted to members of the same sex, only whether or not to act upon it.

Distinction without a difference.
People have urges to all sorts of things but dont act on them.

No, Rabbi, it isn't a distinction without a difference. It's a huge difference. We don't choose our attractions. Why shouldn't gay people act upon their natural inclinations? Becuase it gets Rabbi "bothered"? Not a good enough reason, Rabbi.

 

[The Rabbi]

Anecdote is not evidence.
Next.

Your words Rabbi...

"They claim it violates their religious beliefs. Have you examined their souls or something?"

I have no idea whether those were his religious beliefs or not. In any case he's been dead for years.
Another failed attempt at a point by Seabytch.

So original...Seabytch. Did you break your arm patting yourself on the back for that one?

It's a FACT, Rabbi, that people had (and still have) a religious objection to desegregation and interracial marriage. We did not grant these bigots exceptions to our laws, why should anti gay bigots get to ignore laws when we didn't let racist bigots do it?

There was also resistance rooted in religion to laws barring discrimination in public accommodations and education. For example, a barbeque franchise resisted compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, refusing to serve African-Americans on the ground that the Act “contravene[d] the will of God.”29 The court rejected the defense, stating that, while the franchise owner “has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing . . . he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens.” Most famously, Bob Jones University and its companion plaintiff, Goldsboro Christian Schools, invoked religion to resist integration in education.31 Goldsboro regarded “[c]ultural or biological mixing of the races . . . as a violation of God’s command,”32 and sponsors of Bob Jones University maintained that “the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage.”33 In the Supreme Court, the schools argued that the loss of their tax-exempt status because of their discriminatory policies violated their Free Exercise rights. The Supreme Court rejected the claim, reasoning that “the interests asserted by petitioners cannot be accommodated with [the] compelling governmental interest” in “eradicating racial discrimination in education—discrimination that prevailed, with official approval, for the first 165 years of this Nation’s constitutional history.”​

Strawman. No one today has objections to serving blacks on religious grounds.

Pay attention Rabbi, I said that we did not give racists who had religious objections to blacks any exemptions back then, why should anti gay bigots get exemptions now?

And yes, I'm sure there are still people that have religious objections to serving blacks, but there's a law that they can't circumvent.

Yawn. Gays are not Negroes c.1960.
No one voiced objections to serving blacks based on religion.
Gays choose their lifestyle. According to Rightwinger they should choose a different lifestyle if this one is making things difficult for them.

 

[The Rabbi]

BUt you chose to act on it There's your choice.

Yes, so? As long as I'm acting on it with consenting adults, why do you bigots care so much?

So you agree it's a choice. Good.

No, Rabbi, that is not what I said. I said acting upon our natural inclinations is a choice, the inclinations themselves are not. Gay people do not choose to be attracted to members of the same sex, only whether or not to act upon it.

Distinction without a difference.
People have urges to all sorts of things but dont act on them.

No, Rabbi, it isn't a distinction without a difference. It's a huge difference. We don't choose our attractions. Why shouldn't gay people act upon their natural inclinations? Becuase it gets Rabbi "bothered"? Not a good enough reason, Rabbi.

It is a choice. You have stated so yourself.
So choose not to be gay and all problems go away.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes, so? As long as I'm acting on it with consenting adults, why do you bigots care so much?

So you agree it's a choice. Good.

Religion is a choice....you are free to pick another one if it interferes with your work

You keep repeating that like it's true. It is not. The Constitution protects exercise of religion. And the Supreme Court agrees.

Of course it is true.....people get to pick their religion
Sexuality? Not so much

People pick a religion that hates gays. Then expect gays to conform to their hatreds

Mere assertion by the uber-hack of USMB.
Maybe gays should choose not being gay instead.

You can't choose not to be gay, Rabbi, you know that. Sure, you can pretend to be straight or you can just be celibate, but you're still gay.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes, so? As long as I'm acting on it with consenting adults, why do you bigots care so much?

So you agree it's a choice. Good.

No, Rabbi, that is not what I said. I said acting upon our natural inclinations is a choice, the inclinations themselves are not. Gay people do not choose to be attracted to members of the same sex, only whether or not to act upon it.

Distinction without a difference.
People have urges to all sorts of things but dont act on them.

No, Rabbi, it isn't a distinction without a difference. It's a huge difference. We don't choose our attractions. Why shouldn't gay people act upon their natural inclinations? Becuase it gets Rabbi "bothered"? Not a good enough reason, Rabbi.

It is a choice. You have stated so yourself.
So choose not to be gay and all problems go away.

No I did not state being gay is a choice, acting on it is. Being gay is not a choice any more than being straight is a choice. You're born with your inclinations, you don't choose them. I did not choose to be attracted to women, I only choose to act upon my attractions (and as often as life allows )

 

[The Rabbi]

So you agree it's a choice. Good.

Religion is a choice....you are free to pick another one if it interferes with your work

You keep repeating that like it's true. It is not. The Constitution protects exercise of religion. And the Supreme Court agrees.

Of course it is true.....people get to pick their religion
Sexuality? Not so much

People pick a religion that hates gays. Then expect gays to conform to their hatreds

Mere assertion by the uber-hack of USMB.
Maybe gays should choose not being gay instead.

You can't choose not to be gay, Rabbi, you know that. Sure, you can pretend to be straight or you can just be celibate, but you're still gay.

But so what? People choose to be gay. They choose to act on their inclinations. Thus gay is a choice. And not a protected choice, like religion, either.
Quit being gay.

 

[The Rabbi]

So you agree it's a choice. Good.

No, Rabbi, that is not what I said. I said acting upon our natural inclinations is a choice, the inclinations themselves are not. Gay people do not choose to be attracted to members of the same sex, only whether or not to act upon it.

Distinction without a difference.
People have urges to all sorts of things but dont act on them.

No, Rabbi, it isn't a distinction without a difference. It's a huge difference. We don't choose our attractions. Why shouldn't gay people act upon their natural inclinations? Becuase it gets Rabbi "bothered"? Not a good enough reason, Rabbi.

It is a choice. You have stated so yourself.
So choose not to be gay and all problems go away.

No I did not state being gay is a choice, acting on it is. Being gay is not a choice any more than being straight is a choice. You're born with your inclinations, you don't choose them. I did not choose to be attracted to women, I only choose to act upon my attractions (and as often as life allows )

You chose the lifestyle. You chose to act on your inclinations. When pedophiles do that we prosecute them. We do not prosecute people for having inclinations to pedophilia.

 

[Seawytch]

Your words Rabbi...

"They claim it violates their religious beliefs. Have you examined their souls or something?"

I have no idea whether those were his religious beliefs or not. In any case he's been dead for years.
Another failed attempt at a point by Seabytch.

So original...Seabytch. Did you break your arm patting yourself on the back for that one?

It's a FACT, Rabbi, that people had (and still have) a religious objection to desegregation and interracial marriage. We did not grant these bigots exceptions to our laws, why should anti gay bigots get to ignore laws when we didn't let racist bigots do it?

There was also resistance rooted in religion to laws barring discrimination in public accommodations and education. For example, a barbeque franchise resisted compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, refusing to serve African-Americans on the ground that the Act “contravene[d] the will of God.”29 The court rejected the defense, stating that, while the franchise owner “has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing . . . he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens.” Most famously, Bob Jones University and its companion plaintiff, Goldsboro Christian Schools, invoked religion to resist integration in education.31 Goldsboro regarded “[c]ultural or biological mixing of the races . . . as a violation of God’s command,”32 and sponsors of Bob Jones University maintained that “the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage.”33 In the Supreme Court, the schools argued that the loss of their tax-exempt status because of their discriminatory policies violated their Free Exercise rights. The Supreme Court rejected the claim, reasoning that “the interests asserted by petitioners cannot be accommodated with [the] compelling governmental interest” in “eradicating racial discrimination in education—discrimination that prevailed, with official approval, for the first 165 years of this Nation’s constitutional history.”​

Strawman. No one today has objections to serving blacks on religious grounds.

Pay attention Rabbi, I said that we did not give racists who had religious objections to blacks any exemptions back then, why should anti gay bigots get exemptions now?

And yes, I'm sure there are still people that have religious objections to serving blacks, but there's a law that they can't circumvent.

Yawn. Gays are not Negroes c.1960.
No one voiced objections to serving blacks based on religion.
Gays choose their lifestyle. According to Rightwinger they should choose a different lifestyle if this one is making things difficult for them.

OMG, you didn't fucking read what I posted. Here it is again:

a barbeque franchise resisted compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, refusing to serve African-Americans on the ground that the Act “contravene[d] the will of God.”29 The court rejected the defense, stating that, while the franchise owner “has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing . . . he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens.”

It went to the Supreme Court, Rabbi.

 

[The Rabbi]

I have no idea whether those were his religious beliefs or not. In any case he's been dead for years.
Another failed attempt at a point by Seabytch.

So original...Seabytch. Did you break your arm patting yourself on the back for that one?

It's a FACT, Rabbi, that people had (and still have) a religious objection to desegregation and interracial marriage. We did not grant these bigots exceptions to our laws, why should anti gay bigots get to ignore laws when we didn't let racist bigots do it?

There was also resistance rooted in religion to laws barring discrimination in public accommodations and education. For example, a barbeque franchise resisted compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, refusing to serve African-Americans on the ground that the Act “contravene[d] the will of God.”29 The court rejected the defense, stating that, while the franchise owner “has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing . . . he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens.” Most famously, Bob Jones University and its companion plaintiff, Goldsboro Christian Schools, invoked religion to resist integration in education.31 Goldsboro regarded “[c]ultural or biological mixing of the races . . . as a violation of God’s command,”32 and sponsors of Bob Jones University maintained that “the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage.”33 In the Supreme Court, the schools argued that the loss of their tax-exempt status because of their discriminatory policies violated their Free Exercise rights. The Supreme Court rejected the claim, reasoning that “the interests asserted by petitioners cannot be accommodated with [the] compelling governmental interest” in “eradicating racial discrimination in education—discrimination that prevailed, with official approval, for the first 165 years of this Nation’s constitutional history.”​

Strawman. No one today has objections to serving blacks on religious grounds.

Pay attention Rabbi, I said that we did not give racists who had religious objections to blacks any exemptions back then, why should anti gay bigots get exemptions now?

And yes, I'm sure there are still people that have religious objections to serving blacks, but there's a law that they can't circumvent.

Yawn. Gays are not Negroes c.1960.
No one voiced objections to serving blacks based on religion.
Gays choose their lifestyle. According to Rightwinger they should choose a different lifestyle if this one is making things difficult for them.

OMG, you didn't fucking read what I posted. Here it is again:

a barbeque franchise resisted compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, refusing to serve African-Americans on the ground that the Act “contravene[d] the will of God.”29 The court rejected the defense, stating that, while the franchise owner “has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing . . . he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens.”

It went to the Supreme Court, Rabbi.

That's one anecdote. Meaningless.

 

[Seawytch]

No, Rabbi, that is not what I said. I said acting upon our natural inclinations is a choice, the inclinations themselves are not. Gay people do not choose to be attracted to members of the same sex, only whether or not to act upon it.

Distinction without a difference.
People have urges to all sorts of things but dont act on them.

No, Rabbi, it isn't a distinction without a difference. It's a huge difference. We don't choose our attractions. Why shouldn't gay people act upon their natural inclinations? Becuase it gets Rabbi "bothered"? Not a good enough reason, Rabbi.

It is a choice. You have stated so yourself.
So choose not to be gay and all problems go away.

No I did not state being gay is a choice, acting on it is. Being gay is not a choice any more than being straight is a choice. You're born with your inclinations, you don't choose them. I did not choose to be attracted to women, I only choose to act upon my attractions (and as often as life allows )

You chose the lifestyle. You chose to act on your inclinations. When pedophiles do that we prosecute them. We do not prosecute people for having inclinations to pedophilia.

You're comparing consenting adults with pedophiles. Talk about a strawman. That's the strawmen of strawmen. We choose to act upon our inclinations just like heterosexuals do.

 

[The Rabbi]

Distinction without a difference.
People have urges to all sorts of things but dont act on them.

No, Rabbi, it isn't a distinction without a difference. It's a huge difference. We don't choose our attractions. Why shouldn't gay people act upon their natural inclinations? Becuase it gets Rabbi "bothered"? Not a good enough reason, Rabbi.

It is a choice. You have stated so yourself.
So choose not to be gay and all problems go away.

No I did not state being gay is a choice, acting on it is. Being gay is not a choice any more than being straight is a choice. You're born with your inclinations, you don't choose them. I did not choose to be attracted to women, I only choose to act upon my attractions (and as often as life allows )

You chose the lifestyle. You chose to act on your inclinations. When pedophiles do that we prosecute them. We do not prosecute people for having inclinations to pedophilia.

You're comparing consenting adults with pedophiles. Talk about a strawman. That's the strawmen of strawmen. We choose to act upon our inclinations just like heterosexuals do.

So it is a choice. Thank you. So you can choose to refrain from acting out and causing yourself problems. Why should society tolerate people acting out and expecting everyone else to go along? Esp for 3% of the population.

 

[Seawytch]

So original...Seabytch. Did you break your arm patting yourself on the back for that one?

It's a FACT, Rabbi, that people had (and still have) a religious objection to desegregation and interracial marriage. We did not grant these bigots exceptions to our laws, why should anti gay bigots get to ignore laws when we didn't let racist bigots do it?

There was also resistance rooted in religion to laws barring discrimination in public accommodations and education. For example, a barbeque franchise resisted compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, refusing to serve African-Americans on the ground that the Act “contravene[d] the will of God.”29 The court rejected the defense, stating that, while the franchise owner “has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing . . . he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens.” Most famously, Bob Jones University and its companion plaintiff, Goldsboro Christian Schools, invoked religion to resist integration in education.31 Goldsboro regarded “[c]ultural or biological mixing of the races . . . as a violation of God’s command,”32 and sponsors of Bob Jones University maintained that “the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage.”33 In the Supreme Court, the schools argued that the loss of their tax-exempt status because of their discriminatory policies violated their Free Exercise rights. The Supreme Court rejected the claim, reasoning that “the interests asserted by petitioners cannot be accommodated with [the] compelling governmental interest” in “eradicating racial discrimination in education—discrimination that prevailed, with official approval, for the first 165 years of this Nation’s constitutional history.”​

Strawman. No one today has objections to serving blacks on religious grounds.

Pay attention Rabbi, I said that we did not give racists who had religious objections to blacks any exemptions back then, why should anti gay bigots get exemptions now?

And yes, I'm sure there are still people that have religious objections to serving blacks, but there's a law that they can't circumvent.

Yawn. Gays are not Negroes c.1960.
No one voiced objections to serving blacks based on religion.
Gays choose their lifestyle. According to Rightwinger they should choose a different lifestyle if this one is making things difficult for them.

OMG, you didn't fucking read what I posted. Here it is again:

a barbeque franchise resisted compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, refusing to serve African-Americans on the ground that the Act “contravene[d] the will of God.”29 The court rejected the defense, stating that, while the franchise owner “has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing . . . he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens.”

It went to the Supreme Court, Rabbi.

That's one anecdote. Meaningless.

Uh no, that was a Supreme Court case and therefore hardly meaningless. Bigots had religious objections to serving blacks and marrying blacks to whites. We didn't let the racist bigots get away with it. Why do you believe that anti gay bigots deserve accommodations we did not give racists bigots? (I already know the answer, it's rhetorical...it's because you're an anti gay bigot)

 

[The Rabbi]

Strawman. No one today has objections to serving blacks on religious grounds.

Pay attention Rabbi, I said that we did not give racists who had religious objections to blacks any exemptions back then, why should anti gay bigots get exemptions now?

And yes, I'm sure there are still people that have religious objections to serving blacks, but there's a law that they can't circumvent.

Yawn. Gays are not Negroes c.1960.
No one voiced objections to serving blacks based on religion.
Gays choose their lifestyle. According to Rightwinger they should choose a different lifestyle if this one is making things difficult for them.

OMG, you didn't fucking read what I posted. Here it is again:

a barbeque franchise resisted compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, refusing to serve African-Americans on the ground that the Act “contravene[d] the will of God.”29 The court rejected the defense, stating that, while the franchise owner “has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing . . . he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens.”

It went to the Supreme Court, Rabbi.

That's one anecdote. Meaningless.

Uh no, that was a Supreme Court case and therefore hardly meaningless. Bigots had religious objections to serving blacks and marrying blacks to whites. We didn't let the racist bigots get away with it. Why do you believe that anti gay bigots deserve accommodations we did not give racists bigots? (I already know the answer, it's rhetorical...it's because you're an anti gay bigot)

Yes everyone who objects to homosexuality is a bigot. Keep singing it.
Meanwhile society is sick of gays. T hey are a blight.

 

[Seawytch]

No, Rabbi, it isn't a distinction without a difference. It's a huge difference. We don't choose our attractions. Why shouldn't gay people act upon their natural inclinations? Becuase it gets Rabbi "bothered"? Not a good enough reason, Rabbi.

It is a choice. You have stated so yourself.
So choose not to be gay and all problems go away.

No I did not state being gay is a choice, acting on it is. Being gay is not a choice any more than being straight is a choice. You're born with your inclinations, you don't choose them. I did not choose to be attracted to women, I only choose to act upon my attractions (and as often as life allows )

You chose the lifestyle. You chose to act on your inclinations. When pedophiles do that we prosecute them. We do not prosecute people for having inclinations to pedophilia.

You're comparing consenting adults with pedophiles. Talk about a strawman. That's the strawmen of strawmen. We choose to act upon our inclinations just like heterosexuals do.

So it is a choice. Thank you. So you can choose to refrain from acting out and causing yourself problems. Why should society tolerate people acting out and expecting everyone else to go along? Esp for 3% of the population.

,
Blacks marrying whites is a choice Rabbi. What percentage of the population interracially marry, Rabbi?

We're not going back in the closet so the bigot Rabbi won't feel all "uncomfortable".

 

[Seawytch]

Yes everyone who objects to homosexuality is a bigot.

Finally Rabbi posts the truth

 

[Iceweasel]

Yes everyone who objects to homosexuality is a bigot.

Finally Rabbi posts the truth

You're that desperate for a win huh? This is a religion for you, like a Moonie, there's nothing else that really matters, you are a slave to militant homosexuality.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, so? As long as I'm acting on it with consenting adults, why do you bigots care so much?

So you agree it's a choice. Good.

Religion is a choice....you are free to pick another one if it interferes with your work

You keep repeating that like it's true. It is not. The Constitution protects exercise of religion. And the Supreme Court agrees.

Of course it is true.....people get to pick their religion
Sexuality? Not so much

People pick a religion that hates gays. Then expect gays to conform to their hatreds

Mere assertion by the uber-hack of USMB.
Maybe gays should choose not being gay instead.

If your religion is telling you that God hates fags and you need to do everything you can to oppress them......you are free to choose another religion
Gays are not free to marry those they are not attracted to.