Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Business Owners To Refuse Service To Gays

[dblack]

How do you figure that? Does the law say people HAVE to discriminate against anyone? I don't think so. Nor is it "endorsing religion", insofar as it is protecting the rights of ALL religions to choose associations, not just one.

It's endorsing religions specifically by selecting which religious beliefs will be exempt from the law - because certainly not any view that someone claims is religious will qualify. It endorses religious views in general by giving them special status above and beyond secular convictions. Why should a religious person be allowed to discriminate against gays because they believe God told them to, but a secular person can't do likewise if they happen to think homosexuality is an affront to evolution?

Dimwit, THE US CONSTITUTION gives religious beliefs special status. Do you now want to tell us that your extra-special, personal revelation that any thought anyone happens to pass through their minds at any given moment should be given the exact same weight should take precedent over the most basic, fundamental legal framework we have? Because the answer is going to be, "Shut the **** up" if that's the case.

Well, if that's all you got...

As I said, I don't think intent of the first was to give religious views special status, but to prevent them from being specific targets. Many early Americans came here to escape religious persecution and they wanted to make sure it didn't happen again.

Sorry if that doesn't jibe with the hate-filled religiophobic world you'd like to live in, but . . . actually, I'm not sorry. I'm kinda glad it chafes your hide.

"Hate-filled, religiophobic" ?? Heh... seriously, you don't know me at all.

 

[Silhouette]

Gay Marriage is merely the mechanism by which the floodgates are opened.

The legitimizing of homosexuality in all its aspects is where the potential danger lies.

The creation of a licentious, libertine, dissipated, effeminate, emasculated and degenerate state is the risk.

The strength of The Nation is far too important to risk upon such accommodation.

Here's the Biblical/1st Amendment passages of Jude 1 & Romans 1 to clarify exactly what type of sin homosexuality is and more particularly the sin of allowing it to spread unchecked without earnestly contending for the common welfare:

JUDE 1

3. Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

4. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

5. I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not...

..7. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire...

...14. And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

15. To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

16. These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

17. But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

18. How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

19. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

20. But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

21. Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

22. And of some have compassion, making a difference:

23. And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

24. Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy..

ROMANS 1

22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29. Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30. Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31. Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32. Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

So getting more specific about the crime of homosexuality and how much it pisses God off... Jude 1 says that God will condemn those who enable homosexuality to the same pit of fire if they do not "earnestly contend" for the "common salvation".

Romans 1 says at the very end there that not only will the gays go down to the pit, but also those who "have pleasure in them that do". ie: if you smile upon this new LGBT fad and support it with your vote, your on-board assistance, your arguments and smooth speech, you're going to the Pit with those already damned.

That's not an ambiguous decree to christians. Nor is it a diet sin, a venial matter. It's the hard core stuff that is one and the same as completely abandoning your faith. That's where it takes a giant leap into 1st Amendment territory..

 

[Bfgrn]

Look to your own state, and leave me to mine.

Thank you for embracing, reinforcing and restating my position on gay rights, and exposing the fatal flaw of everything you have posted...

game, set, match...

 

[Cecilie1200]

This isn't a freedom of religion issue. It's a freedom of association issue, which is much broader and actually encompasses freedom of religion. But I'd oppose this law, if I lived in Arizona, because I agree with your assessment that it's a mis-application of the first amendment.

How so?

Well, first, let me acknowledge that my take on this isn't mainstream. For the left, or the right. Probably not even for most libertarians. But in my view, the notion that the first amendment justifies ad hoc exemption from a law whenever it conflicts with a person's religious belief actually perverts the intent, causing it to inflict the very thing it was intended to prevent.

The point of the religion clause of the first amendment was to prevent government from dictating our religious beliefs, by preventing the state from both targeting religions for persecution, or endorsing particular faiths as 'state' authorized religion. I believe it was intended to ensure that religious people weren't denied freedom because of their religion. I don't believe it was intended to give them special perks - freedoms others don't enjoy - because of their religious beliefs. And that's the net result when we exempt compliance with a law on 'religious grounds'. It not only violates the basic concept of equal protection, it amounts to the state endorsing certain religious beliefs and spurning others. The exact opposite of the intent of the First.

I don't know if I consider this a "special perk". It's not like anyone is saying, "Woo hoo! I get to take on a battle with raging lesbians and drag queens and have my business vilified! Let's get to it!"

The First Amendment does a lot more than merely protect religious organizations and people from persecution, or prevent the government from setting up a state religion. What we are addressing right now is the OTHER part of that clause: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". There's simply no way you can say that it's opposite the intent of the First Amendment to protect the right of Christians - or any religion - to exercise their religious beliefs by associating or not associating with other people. The fact that we have somehow concocted the screwy notion that people have a "right" to associate with people who don't want to participate, or have a "right" to not be made to feel bad because they've encountered someone who doesn't approve of them, does not change the wording or the intent of the First Amendment. I simply don't think you can rationally argue that our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with the intention of forcing businesses to attend and service gay weddings against their will.

Don't let yourself get sucked in by the latest leftist strawman of an innocent gay couple, all nicely dressed for dinner, being turned away by the maitre'd at a fancy restaurant because, "We don't serve your kind." That's not what this is about, nor is that what's going to happen. Always remember that whatever or whoever the left is passionately arguing to protect is virtually NEVER the actual point of the issue.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So your right to own a gun ends when it infringes upon the rights of others to be safe from mentally ill people obtaining guns?

I don't believe anyone's ever objected to preventing the mentally ill from obtaining guns. In fact, if anything, it would be the LEFT that prevents that, with all their distracting blather about magazine sizes and "assault weapons" and their persistent ACLU actions on behalf of "the right not to be treated".

ah i see you went for the retard argument that its the lefts fault. No the left going after those things listed does not take away from keeping the mentally ill from getting weapons.

You see as an adult people can list more than two things at once they would like or like to do. Your argument fails on the point of you being a motherfucking retard.

you literally have no argument in this thread.

It never ceases to amaze me that you continue to address me as though you think you matter. Please observe that I wasn't talking to you, would not dignify your joke of an existence by debating with you, and laugh my ass off at your belief that YOU have any judgement to offer about whether or not I have an argument.

Now that you've served your purpose in life of comic relief, begone.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why do some people on here think it's necessary to call other peoole dumb?

It's called "observation".

Are you that insecure about your argument that you have to resort to insulting those who disagree with you?

No, we're just noticing and pointing out that you're dumb.

And it's always calling someone dumb, stupid, or an idiot like a third grader. Grow up and think of something intelligent to say if your going to claim someone else is "dumb".

If you're going to argue like a third-grader, what else can you expect?

Please don't think this whole "Oh, you said a mean word, I get to ignore your ENTIRE three-paragraph post and focus on just that ONE WORD, and pretend you said nothing else" act has ever worked for anyone else - and your people have all tried it at one time or another; originality is not a leftist hallmark - or will work for you. Butch up and move on, or run crying to the Justin Bieber threads.

I'm sure if you put your mind to it you could come up with an argument that's actually worth reading.

Would that I were as sure about you, but given this post, I wouldn't bet money on it.

Now post something useful and stop sniveling at us about your sandy vagina.

 

[Bfgrn]

Fear, suspicion and hate of the "other" has been human nature since the dawn of time. Are those that hate black people hiding their latent blackness? Are misogynists secretly women pretending to be normal men? Washingtonians who hate the Lummi tribe closeted Native Americans? I just don't see it.

There are probably many homosexuals who struggle with coming to terms with their orientation and do go through a period of vocal anti-gay speech, but that is a homosexual struggling to survive IMO and more akin to sympathisers and collaborators and self-hatred than actual bigotry.

Suspicion, fear and hatred of the "other" is (or was) about survival. Keeping women and children property ensures that your line survives over anothers. Persecuting the odd culture (even wiping them out, which we have been inclined to do) keeps your culture dominant and in power. The strongest survives, the rest perish, from the beginning to today, not just in America but across the globe.

Colonials/Native Americans, Hutu/Tutsi, Canadians/Quebecois, Christians/everyone else, Muslims/everyone else, heterosexual/homosexual. It is the human condition and takes a long time (if it is even possible) to reconcile two groups of "other". It seems to me that assimilation or absorbsion is the only way, but that kills some very interesting cultures. As long as they are "other," it seems they are wrong and that's a shame.

I think we are further along than we were, obviously, but not there. If we ever get there, I bet another "other" appears for us to fear and be suspicious of, therefore hate ... maybe aliens. If so, it will take generations to breed out that fear ... or they can just squash us lol.

You rarely can change a grown person's worldview. His children are less afraid and hate less, and their children begin to see commonalities rather than "other" due to exposure with little to no noticable ill effects. IMO, that is the point that the "other" is no longer a threat or danger. There is a reason that, historically, stranger = enemy. It is one of the reasons we are still here.

Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: of obsessively using that mind to graphically peer into other people's personal lives and bedrooms.

Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: of really holding THEIR latent homosexual tendencies at arms' length.

Hey God, PLEASE explain how this law will be carried out? How will these 'EVIL sinners' be identified?? Will patrons have to show their papers before being served by these righteous business owners???

In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

For those few it actually was a "choice" to become "heterosexual" and deny their attraction for the same sex as themselves. But that "choice" doesn't alter the way they are wired inside. It is more just a denial of the way they were born because it clashes with the religious dogma they were taught.

The link between homophobic actions and repressed latent homosexual tendencies has been scientifically proven. And in all of the studies, participants who reported supportive and accepting parents were more in touch with their implicit sexual orientation, meaning it tended to jibe with their outward sexual orientation. Students who indicated they came from authoritarian homes showed the biggest discrepancy between the two measures of sexual orientation.

"In a predominately heterosexual society, 'know thyself' can be a challenge for many gay individuals," lead author Netta Weinstein, a lecturer at the University of Essex in the United Kingdom,said in a statement. "But in controlling and homophobic homes, embracing a minority sexual orientation can be terrifying."

And fear is the very core of conservatism.

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

 

[dblack]

The First Amendment does a lot more than merely protect religious organizations and people from persecution, or prevent the government from setting up a state religion. What we are addressing right now is the OTHER part of that clause: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". There's simply no way you can say that it's opposite the intent of the First Amendment to protect the right of Christians - or any religion - to exercise their religious beliefs by associating or not associating with other people.

Right, I'm not saying that "it's opposite the intent of the First Amendment to protect the right of Christians - or any religion - to exercise their religious beliefs by associating or not associating with other people."

But this isn't simply a freedom of religion issue, it's a freedom of association issue. And while the freedom of religion established in the first amendment might not protect "any thought anyone happens to pass through their minds at any given moment", the freedom of association does. We should be free to associate with whomever we want (or refuse association with whomever we don't want) for whatever reasons we want - religious, secular, rational, irrational.

The fact that we have somehow concocted the screwy notion that people have a "right" to associate with people who don't want to participate, or have a "right" to not be made to feel bad because they've encountered someone who doesn't approve of them, does not change the wording or the intent of the First Amendment. I simply don't think you can rationally argue that our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with the intention of forcing businesses to attend and service gay weddings against their will.

And I don't. Public accommodations laws are even more heinous than the misinterpretation of the first amendment. But I think addressing them with a religious exemption is bad medicine. It only weakens our case against this kind of government intrusion in matters of conscience.

My point is that freedom of religion isn't, or at least shouldn't be thought of as, a "get out of jail free card". It's not intended to allow religious people to selectively disobey the law for 'religious reasons'.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What God would want their followers to be hateful to anyone?
I find it hard to believe that if there is a god that they would want any of their children to to be intolerant towards each other.

You have REALLY got to get over this need to superimpose your peurile, Crayola-drawing perceptions onto reality, y'know?

First of all, Chuckles, no one's talking about being "hateful" or "intolerant". You just want to see it that way. We are talking about not agreeing with someone else's lifestyle choices and not wanting to be forced to participate in them. If anything, the hatefulness and intolerance here is demonstrated by the gays who've identified someone as not kissing their ass and applauding them and decided to use the law to bludgeon them into silence and destroy their livelihoods. That's what this law is intended to protect against.

Second of all, I get almighty tired of you simplistic flower children wannabes deciding that "tolerance" and "being nice" are somehow the entire point of Christianity. Do you even attend church, Billy Graham? Exactly what are your qualifications for defining what God wants for people?

I have a favorite quote addressing this very issue. It's long, and I know leftist attention spans are no great shakes, but try to soldier through:

According to liberals, the message of Jesus . . . is something along the lines of "be nice to people" (which to them means "raise taxes on the productive").

You don't need a religion like Christianity, which is a rather large and complex endeavor, in order to flag that message. All you need is a moron driving around in a Volvo with a bumper sticker that says "be nice to people." Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity (as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of "kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed"). But to call it the "message" of Jesus requires ... well, the brain of Maureen Dowd.

In fact, Jesus' distinctive message was: People are sinful and need to be redeemed, and this is your lucky day because I'm here to redeem you even though you don't deserve it, and I have to get the crap kicked out of me to do it. That is the reason He is called "Christ the Redeemer" rather than "Christ the Moron Driving Around in a Volvo With a 'Be Nice to People' Bumper Sticker on It." - Ann Coulter

I went to church as a kid and I don't remember them telling me to only be kind to those who shared the same ideas as me.

Funny, I attend church as an adult, on top of being raised in a family with a long tradition of ministers, and I don't remember anyone telling me "kindness" required endorsing behavior I considered wrong and sinful.

Isn't the golden rule to treat others the way you want to be treated?

If you can show me an example of Christians setting out to destroy someone's life via the legal system for disagreeing with them, this might have some relevance. As it happens, most Christians do, in fact, live their entire lives cheek-by-jowl with the idea that people are going to treat them badly for their faith. Goes with the territory.

How did things get so twisted that we're passing laws that encourage intolerance?

The only thing "twisted" here is your half-assed understanding of what freedom is about and what this nation was founded on. Trust me when I tell you it had nothing to do with forcing people to approve of others against their own beliefs.

People that wake up every day thinking of ways to ruin someone else's day should go back to bed.

I'll be sure to tell the militant gays you said so.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The photographer who refused to take the wedding pictures was happy to take studio photographs. What she refused to do was attend the wedding itself. So it was more than just taking a few pictures.

Oh I'm sorry I must have misunderstood. I thought that they just wanted the photographer to take pictures of the wedding. I didn't realize that they were actually expecting the photographer to celebrate with them.
Yeah, if they actually wanted the photographer to take part in the ceremony then I agree, that wouldn't be right.
Sorry, I misunderstood.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

That IS participating in the ceremony, you chucklehead.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How do you figure that? Does the law say people HAVE to discriminate against anyone? I don't think so. Nor is it "endorsing religion", insofar as it is protecting the rights of ALL religions to choose associations, not just one.

It's endorsing religions specifically by selecting which religious beliefs will be exempt from the law - because certainly not any view that someone claims is religious will qualify. It endorses religious views in general by giving them special status above and beyond secular convictions. Why should a religious person be allowed to discriminate against gays because they believe God told them to, but a secular person can't do likewise if they happen to think homosexuality is an affront to evolution?

It. Does. Not. Do. That.

It allows anyone, of any religion, even the one that only exists inside their head, to claim an exemption. A good example of this would be that during WWII the government actually told a Jehovah's Witness that he had to work on tank turrets, and argued that the fact that other people with the same religion were willing to do it was proof that his beliefs were not sincere. If the world worked the ay you thing, he would have lost.

He didn't.

It always amazes me how leftists think the dictates of an individual's conscience are decided by committee vote.

Maybe it's because leftists have no conscience, so they have no frame of reference.

 

[Chaussette]

I'm glad to hear that the gay bashers are willing to openly show their homophobia and hate. Just like Jesus would have wanted them to do. Bravo!

 

[dblack]

I'm glad to hear that the gay bashers are willing to openly show their homophobia and hate. Just like Jesus would have wanted them to do. Bravo!

There's far more subtle stuff going on here, if you pay attention.

 

[Tresha91203]

Opposition to homosexuality does not come from ONLY the 'extreme right', and believing that it does, rather than coming from the mainstream, is where the pro-Gay side of the aisle is underestimating the opposition that lies ahead of it. The Opposition is rubbing its hands with glee at the idea that the 'pro' side is making such a mistake on a broad scale.

I'm not sure. There are those that oppose because they are different, therefore threatening. There are plenty of those and it looks (at least in my area) like that is the largest block of opposition. I am seeing a smaller but growing group that is reacting to perceived rudeness or hostility or in-your-face innapropriateness in public and on airwaves. People who don't fear or hate resent being lumped in with those that do. One can disagree with another and not hate them or hold them down ... Chick fil a and Roberts of Duck Dynasty. One can support gay rights and find aggressive pushing of that agenda to be rude and innapropriate ... public displays of as nude as possible or as sexual as possible. That is the kind I am seeing from the left and moderate right. I don't lump that in the same category and don't consider that to be opposition to homosexuality. That is a pushback to rudeness and a demand for common courtesy. They are just as opposed to overt sexual behavior of heterosexuals in public as of homosexuals. We respect your rights and will generally fight in varying degrees for them ... until your right smacks against my right to not have obnoxious people in my face and angry at me for all of history, or when they feel they can't take their children out in public without someone's hairy ass in a thong ... much like the rudeness and inappropriateness of pants around ones thigh so far I can see asshairs.

Those are different IMO and I hope "the movement" realizes this soon. One is the problem of the hater (opposed to homosexuality). The other is the problem of the other hater (homosexuals who aggressively lash out at the many who do not fear or hate in order to really goad the ones who do). Personally, I've never feared or hated homosexuals. That does not mean I appreciate public groping between homosexuals. Public space is shared by all and requires us to recognize that others have the right to enjoy that space as well. A little courtesy, please. Just like I speak up to innapropriate sexuality in public among young heterosexuals, I reserve the right to speak up to the same from homosexuals. I also speak up when people's children scream/tantrum in public and their parent ignores it without removing them. It is intrusive and rude. That does not make me a bigot or an asshole, just more conservtive than others.

I guess everyone has their lines, but there needs to be an understanding that not everyone is comfortable with everything. Pushing the line of public decency is not going to help the cause IMO. It gets a lot of exposure, and desensitizes to a degree, but people will push back to keep public spaces a place they can enjoy as well. Most of us have no more problem with gay pride parades than mardi gras parades in New Orleans. Both are fun places to enjoy pushing (and even crossing, if you can get away with it) those lines. People who don't want to see nudity or in-your-face sexuality can and do avoid them. People who do want to see and enjoy it go and some bring their children. I've no problem with that. I've no problem with holding hands, mild kissing, arms wrapped around shoulders or waists or anything like that. Other cultures find ALL public displays of affection innapropriate and I can't think of any culture that finds full sexual contact in public appropriate (although I don't know all cultures). There is a line. On one side, the majority of both can live happily. On the other side, you are just pissing off and/or embarassing the majority of both.

 

[Chaussette]

I'm glad to hear that the gay bashers are willing to openly show their homophobia and hate. Just like Jesus would have wanted them to do. Bravo!

There's far more subtle stuff going on here, if you pay attention.

They should just cut to the chase and post a sign in their windows saying something like: "I'm a ******* homophobe and won't serve gays because I spend way too much time worry about not being gay myself". Would that about cover it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm not saying that anyone has the legal right for their whole life to be pleasant or positive. But we as human beings should strive to make this world as fair and just as possible for everyone.

Do you know that when leftist halfwits start throwing around words like "should" and "fair", it gives me a cold chill down my spine? It always means "Brave New World" is right around the corner.

"Fair" is a kindergarten word, with no objective meaning and thrown around by the immature and simpleminded and naive to basically mean "the world the way I want it to be". You don't think it's "fair" that gay people can't be viewed the way they want to be by everyone. Can you understand why other people might think it's not "fair" to have YOU trying to force them to view gay people the way they want to be viewed?
As for "just", how is it just for you to swish in and say, "Your beliefs are wrong, and therefore you have no right to believe them? You must switch over to my beliefs, because they are much better and more moral"?



There goes that cold chill again.

There's a big difference between the pursuit of happiness and the bludgeoning of others into complying with your happiness.



I don't know. Why are you?




Sure you are. What you are NOT entitled to is the right to make me care about your opinion, or share your opinion, or keep my mouth shut and pretend I agree with your opinion.

And common sense should tell you that ALL laws are made in an attempt to benefit society.

Quite true. Now if you could just wrap your brain around the fact that "benefit society" is not defined as "What N8dizzle thinks is best, because he's so damned much smarter and morally superior to everyone else". This isn't an argument about benefitting society (aka conforming to your personal wisdom) and damaging society (aka disagreeing with your personal wisdom). It's an argument between your PERSONAL OPINION about what benefits society and OTHER PEOPLE'S PERSONAL OPINIONS about what benefits society.

Just because you don't think the freedom to exercise beliefs and choose associations is as important as "being nice" doesn't mean that's the one universal truth here.

Why are you stuck on this idea that I'm trying to force my opinion on you?

God, why is it that leftists have to make everything personal? The rest of the world grows up and realizes that it's not all about them, so what's keeping you from doing it?

We're discussing an issue, and sides to the issue, and activist groups on all sides of the issue. This involves many people, not just you.

As it happens, though, YOU are the one currently advocating the forcing of opinions and positions from one group onto another group.

Isn't the whole idea of this to discuss something that we all don't agree on?

Yes, and we are. Are you having some sort of problem with that?

I don't expect you to change your views for me, or to agree with me. I'm just saying what I believe. How is that any different than you talking about your beliefs?

The fact that what you believe is that people you agree with have, and should have, the right to force their beliefs onto others.

So... when you say whatever you want about the subject thats ok, but when I say something I'm trying to force my beliefs on you.

No, Mensa Boy, when you say you believe that people should be forced to act in accordance with your beliefs, you're trying to force your beliefs onto me, and everyone else.

If we're going to be subjected to a long trail of posts where you whine about people reading, understanding, and restating what you believe and you not liking how you sound in the process, just tell me now, and I'll go talk to someone who isn't going to whimper at me like a vaporish girl. If you're going to talk to me, you'd better strap on a pair and be prepared to defend your beliefs, not snivel about how I'm not applauding them.

You seem to think that I'm the only one who disagrees with you. You haven't noticed that this is a highly debated issue? I never claimed that anyone personally owes me an explanation or that my view is more important than other people's.

Really? How do I "seem" that way? Because I'm talking to you? You HAVE noticed that I'm addressing a lot of other repression-fanatic leftists as well, right?

Lose the tunnel vision, sweet cheeks. Not only does the universe not revolve around you, almost none of it even gives a shit about you. Adjust to that fact.

This law doesn't even effect me personally. I don't own a business, and I'm not gay. I think that when a law is passed that is hateful and does nothing but hurt our society, people who realize it should speak up.

What a coincidence. And yet you can't wrap your mind around the fact that I'm not defending this law or these business owners because I personally give shit one about homosexuals and what they do or don't do; I simply believe in the principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of association.

And it doesn't surprise me that the word "fair" gives you chills. If I were as closed minded as you I wouldn't like the words "fair" or "just" either.
I shutter to think of how you feel when you see the word "equality."

They way you use it? Have someone read you the story "Harrison Bergeron", and you'll have a good idea what I think of your version of "equality".

There's a difference between being open-minded and being empty-headed. The more you talk, the more I think the light in your eyes is actually the sunshine coming through the hole in the back of your skull.

You'd probably fall over dead if you read the constitution.

Oh, the Constitution, is it? You think the Constitution supports your position, do you? Well, then, little one, dry your tears and cite me the passage of the Constitution you think requires people to participate in activities they consider a violation of their religious beliefs.

And just for the record, Junior, let me share with you my motto in life: Patience is a virtue . . . and I'm not very virtuous.

This long, blubbering train of "Stop being mean to me! I'm smart and my opinions are important! Waahhh!" has just hit the limit on all the patience I have for simpering this week. From here on, your posts will be about substance and hard fact, rather than your hurt feelings of being misunderstood and unappreciated, or they will be summarily ignored. I'm not your Mommy or your therapist, and I'm under no obligation to pamper your self-esteem.

 

[Bfgrn]

Opposition to homosexuality does not come from ONLY the 'extreme right', and believing that it does, rather than coming from the mainstream, is where the pro-Gay side of the aisle is underestimating the opposition that lies ahead of it. The Opposition is rubbing its hands with glee at the idea that the 'pro' side is making such a mistake on a broad scale.

I'm not sure. There are those that oppose because they are different, therefore threatening. There are plenty of those and it looks (at least in my area) like that is the largest block of opposition. I am seeing a smaller but growing group that is reacting to perceived rudeness or hostility or in-your-face innapropriateness in public and on airwaves. People who don't fear or hate resent being lumped in with those that do. One can disagree with another and not hate them or hold them down ... Chick fil a and Roberts of Duck Dynasty. One can support gay rights and find aggressive pushing of that agenda to be rude and innapropriate ... public displays of as nude as possible or as sexual as possible. That is the kind I am seeing from the left and moderate right. I don't lump that in the same category and don't consider that to be opposition to homosexuality. That is a pushback to rudeness and a demand for common courtesy. They are just as opposed to overt sexual behavior of heterosexuals in public as of homosexuals. We respect your rights and will generally fight in varying degrees for them ... until your right smacks against my right to not have obnoxious people in my face and angry at me for all of history, or when they feel they can't take their children out in public without someone's hairy ass in a thong ... much like the rudeness and inappropriateness of pants around ones thigh so far I can see asshairs.

Those are different IMO and I hope "the movement" realizes this soon. One is the problem of the hater (opposed to homosexuality). The other is the problem of the other hater (homosexuals who aggressively lash out at the many who do not fear or hate in order to really goad the ones who do). Personally, I've never feared or hated homosexuals. That does not mean I appreciate public groping between homosexuals. Public space is shared by all and requires us to recognize that others have the right to enjoy that space as well. A little courtesy, please. Just like I speak up to innapropriate sexuality in public among young heterosexuals, I reserve the right to speak up to the same from homosexuals. I also speak up when people's children scream/tantrum in public and their parent ignores it without removing them. It is intrusive and rude. That does not make me a bigot or an asshole, just more conservtive than others.

I guess everyone has their lines, but there needs to be an understanding that not everyone is comfortable with everything. Pushing the line of public decency is not going to help the cause IMO. It gets a lot of exposure, and desensitizes to a degree, but people will push back to keep public spaces a place they can enjoy as well. Most of us have no more problem with gay pride parades than mardi gras parades in New Orleans. Both are fun places to enjoy pushing (and even crossing, if you can get away with it) those lines. People who don't want to see nudity or in-your-face sexuality can and do avoid them. People who do want to see and enjoy it go and some bring their children. I've no problem with that. I've no problem with holding hands, mild kissing, arms wrapped around shoulders or waists or anything like that. Other cultures find ALL public displays of affection innapropriate and I can't think of any culture that finds full sexual contact in public appropriate (although I don't know all cultures). There is a line. On one side, the majority of both can live happily. On the other side, you are just pissing off and/or embarassing the majority of both.

The growing acceptance boils down to something much more simple. Almost everyone has a family member, friend, co-worker or acquaintance who is gay. Suddenly they are not monsters...an epiphany....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kiddies, your religious suppositions have no standing before the courts.

 

[dblack]

I'm glad to hear that the gay bashers are willing to openly show their homophobia and hate. Just like Jesus would have wanted them to do. Bravo!

There's far more subtle stuff going on here, if you pay attention.

They should just cut to the chase and post a sign in their windows saying something like: "I'm a ******* homophobe and won't serve gays because I spend way too much time worry about not being gay myself". Would that about cover it?

Then again, if you don't ...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gay Marriage is merely the mechanism by which the floodgates are opened.

The legitimizing of homosexuality in all its aspects is where the potential danger lies.

The creation of a licentious, libertine, dissipated, effeminate, emasculated and degenerate state is the risk.

The strength of The Nation is far too important to risk upon such accommodation.

Here's the Biblical/1st Amendment passages of Jude 1 & Romans 1 to clarify exactly what type of sin homosexuality is and more particularly the sin of allowing it to spread unchecked without earnestly contending for the common welfare:

JUDE 1

3. Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

4. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

5. I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not...

..7. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire...

...14. And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

15. To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

16. These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

17. But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

18. How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

19. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

20. But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

21. Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

22. And of some have compassion, making a difference:

23. And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

24. Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy..

ROMANS 1

22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29. Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30. Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31. Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32. Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

So getting more specific about the crime of homosexuality and how much it pisses God off... Jude 1 says that God will condemn those who enable homosexuality to the same pit of fire if they do not "earnestly contend" for the "common salvation".

Romans 1 says at the very end there that not only will the gays go down to the pit, but also those who "have pleasure in them that do". ie: if you smile upon this new LGBT fad and support it with your vote, your on-board assistance, your arguments and smooth speech, you're going to the Pit with those already damned.

That's not an ambiguous decree to christians. Nor is it a diet sin, a venial matter. It's the hard core stuff that is one and the same as completely abandoning your faith. That's where it takes a giant leap into 1st Amendment territory..

Then why do we have so many gay-tolerant Christians in the world?