Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop

[g5000]

If a Christian believes that homosexuality is a sin, they should not participate in homosexuality. If they think it's a sin, they should not be attending same sex weddings. It's that simple. If gays can find a way for the vendors to sell their products or services without having to participate in the activities, let's hear it.

The refused to make a cake. This bullshit about delivering it is just that; bullshit. It's made up.

This was not about attending a gay wedding. I'm sure the fags would have been happy to pick up the cake and take it themselves.

So just put that fantasy down.

 

[g5000]

What have we learned.

We have learned eating pork or lobster is the same as being gay.

We have learned the free market has a way of weeding out businesses which do not serve the interests of the community. We have learned bigots are hypocrites when this principle works to their disadvantage.

We have learned that when a community fights back against haters, the haters are the biggest whiners of all.

In those days, eating pork or lobster could easily be a death sentence so it isn't at all surprising that someone would pass a rule against it.

Eat this lobster, fall over dead. Not that the region was overrun with lobsters. They must have had some kind of shellfish that would cause someone who ate it to stop breathing. How many people do you suppose ate shellfish and died? Or ate pork and got trichinosis and died before someone said "Maybe this isn't something we should be doing".

You are so desperate!

You think beef wasn't dangerous back then? You think only certain meats were susceptible?

You are an idiot. Even today, chicken is the most dangerous meat of all. One in three are poisoned, that's why you have to cook them well. If your bogus premise was true, God would have banned chicken. Chicken would have been at the top of the list.

So this idiotic meme you drank is really stupid.

 

[emilynghiem]

How incredibly obtuse can you be? Slavery during the roman times, just as slavery in our civil war era, most certainly did comprise both indentured servitude and permanent slavery. That you think slaves were all volunteers during Biblical times is laughable.

Don't forget the slaves we have today.
And no, I don't mean people striking if they're not paid 15.00 for fast food jobs.
I mean ppl still working for cents per day. Or children/women forced into sex slavery.

People can protest either the bakery, or ChickFilA or Westboro or this or that.
But if consumers are still buying slave-made products, where are your priorities?

Having luxury to access all this, and with that free time and free speech,
WHAT are you protesting? Really?

================================================

That bakery was not forced to close, they closed because the customers eschewed them. They chose to throw stones at the gays... in response the community at large who used to be their customers... walked away. IMO the bakery owners should have followed the teachings of Jesus and put down their stones.

How is not wanting to serve someone "throwing a stone"?

I think any stone throwing came afterwards, right?

If I provide funeral services to people, but turn down business such as a high publicity death that I personally or for whatever reason don't want to be associated with,
would that have caused people to judge me or my business so personally?

The issue remains, if we want inclusion and respect for pro-gay views
where is the acceptance and understanding for anti-gay views?

I respect both, and believe that is Constitutionally necessary.
Am I the minority in the wrong here?

 

[paperview]

Paul condemns masturbators and gays in the same breath in the New Testament.

So...judge not, lest ye be judged. You'll spend eternity in hell for pulling your pud, surrounded by homos.

 

[g5000]

CDC - General Information on Salmonella

Every year, approximately 42,000 cases of salmonellosis are reported in the United States. Because many milder cases are not diagnosed or reported, the actual number of infections may be twenty-nine or more times greater.

Now let's see...how many cases of trichinellosis are reported each year?


CDC - Trichinellosis - General Information

During 2008–2010, 20 cases were reported per year on average.

 

[g5000]

Many of the dietary and behavorial restrictions or requirements in the Bible were for the purpose of demonstrating one's fealty to the God of Israel.

They were a badge, an outward signal for which faith to which one belonged.

"Oh, those are the Israelities. You can tell because of their wardrobe, and because they don't eat pork and don't smoke poles."

 

[RKMBrown]

If a Christian believes that homosexuality is a sin, they should not participate in homosexuality. If they think it's a sin, they should not be attending same sex weddings. It's that simple. If gays can find a way for the vendors to sell their products or services without having to participate in the activities, let's hear it.

Hire a gay person to do their deliveries?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear FF: It just means you need a big enough PR budget to "turn the other cheek"
like ChickFilA did. And call people nationwide to support their business in the face of opposition. They even served free food to people protesting in the heat. Answered by "speaking the truth with love" and won more support than anything said in anger.

I double dog dare you to answer to your support of discriminating against gays.

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION] I triple dog dare you to answer to your support of discriminating against gays.

I don't and have never supported discriminating against gays.

The marriage laws were written to protect children pure and simple; i.e. being aware of any communicable diseases, age limitations, restrictions on marrying persons too closely related, etc. Most are rules and regs that are entirely unnecessary in a same sex marriage.

Otherwise there would be no need for marriage laws of any kind. But children do require one man and one woman to create same, and while single parents or gay parents can be great parents, children nevertheless benefit from having a loving mother and father, i.e. positive role models from each gender, in the home.

Further, though there are always exceptions, the traditional family is the surest safeguard against child poverty, it helps keep track of the genetic blood lines that might be important to know, it promotes more stable, more affluent, more safe, and more aesthetically pleasing quality of life, and most societies have found it promotes the general welfare to encourage traditional marriage.

Nobody was discriminated against in the marriage laws that existed in all 50 states. You didn't have to be 'in love' to get married. You could be of any race, any ethnicity, any sexual orientation, etc. etc. etc. The requirement was purely that a marriage consisted of one man and one woman who were not married to anybody else, who were at least a certain age, and who were not too closely related. You cannot change the definition of something without making it into something different than it was.

Did that mean that people, straight or gay, who for whatever reason could not or did not want to marry were somewhat disadvantaged over people who could and did marry? Yes it did. Which is why I have long been an active hands on up close and personal advocate for laws that would help other people form family units with the tax and social and economic advantages that married people have enjoyed. That way we get everybody what they need and leave traditional marriage intact.

Does that make me a bigot? Ya'll think you should picket my place of business, threaten me and my friends and family and customers, threaten my suppliers? Destroy me. Wreck me financially? All because most of you do not agree with my views on this?

If you think so, in my opinion you are far more evil and dangerous than a fundamentalist Christian baker will ever be.

And about marriage, whatever your opinions or beliefs are, as long as they differ from other people's beliefs or values they should be kept in private under religious or community organizations that represent you or them or whoever has differences.

that is just constitutional to keep beliefs separate and out from under the state.

the only part the state has any business in is contracts, for shared custody, estates, etc.
not for the personal relationship which is private. both sides are hypocrites for trying to force their beliefs through the state. they should be pulling the other way toward privitazation and make all sides happy, equally included under the same Constitution.

 

[emilynghiem]

Paul condemns masturbators and gays in the same breath in the New Testament.

So...judge not, lest ye be judged. You'll spend eternity in hell for pulling your pud, surrounded by homos.

you both laugh.

but what if all the adulterers, who pointed fingers at others while sinning themselves,
ARE the ones being born homosexual, ostracized and bullied to death the same way?

is this tragic? or funny to you?
to look at the laws of causality or karma this way?

 

[emilynghiem]

If a Christian believes that homosexuality is a sin, they should not participate in homosexuality. If they think it's a sin, they should not be attending same sex weddings. It's that simple. If gays can find a way for the vendors to sell their products or services without having to participate in the activities, let's hear it.

Hire a gay person to do their deliveries?

Now that's the right attitude!
The bakers should have DONATED the cake, so they didn't do business
but just gave charity to whom they considered SICK.

That would make the same statement, but with kindness.
Who would've protested the bakers giving cakes away as gifts to encourage
these people to receive whatever they felt might help those folks get right.

Then they would have to ask for MORE BUSINESS in order to support
this ministry of giving away cakes for people they couldn't do business with.

So their business could have blossomed. With everyone coming in to pray
for whoever shows up to get a free gay cake, just for coming by and getting
free spiritual healing by volunteers in the lobby, in order to qualify for the free gift cake. How wonderful!!!

It would've been a win win situation, and if people didn't want to be prayed over
to get their free gay cake, they wouldn't step foot near this business....

 

[RKMBrown]

How is not wanting to serve someone "throwing a stone"?

I think any stone throwing came afterwards, right?

If I provide funeral services to people, but turn down business such as a high publicity death that I personally or for whatever reason don't want to be associated with,
would that have caused people to judge me or my business so personally?

The issue remains, if we want inclusion and respect for pro-gay views
where is the acceptance and understanding for anti-gay views?

I respect both, and believe that is Constitutionally necessary.
Am I the minority in the wrong here?

>>> How is not wanting to serve someone "throwing a stone"?

Great question. One would have to put one's feet in the shoes of the people in question. That's why I mentioned the refusal to serve black people. Remember "whites" only water fountains? Remember back of the bus?... yeah well this is the same thing only gays... refusing to serve gays is a vicious slap... not physical but a violation of human rights none the less. I'm white, as shown, but I've also been violated in this manner by anti-white male bias to "right the wrongs" of my forefathers. Whether it's being overlooked for a promotion cycle because of the color of ones skin and gender, or some other act of discrimination, being discriminated against in this fashion is a vicious blow.

>>> If I provide funeral services to people, but turn down business such as a high publicity death that I personally or for whatever reason don't want to be associated with,
would that have caused people to judge me or my business so personally?

No. Turning down a high publicity death is different. That is turning down one person because of publicity. Being adverse to publicity is not discrimination based on race, creed, sexual preference or what not.

>>> The issue remains, if we want inclusion and respect for pro-gay views where is the acceptance and understanding for anti-gay views?

That is no different than asking for acceptance of the KKK. Is it permitted to be in the KKK? yes. Does that mean I should call for acceptance and understanding of a group of racists? no probably not...

>>> I respect both, and believe that is Constitutionally necessary.

Respect both... don't think so but respect your right to do so. What is there to respect about gay bashing? Constitutionally necessary? yes... just as with the KKK you are free to be gay basher in this country so long as you don't use violence. As you say this more a necessity of a free society (Constitution). Respect is not quite the word I would pick. accept maybe...

>>> Am I the minority in the wrong here?

Partly, yes. Partly, no

 

[emilynghiem]

How about: keeping all marriage private and out of the hands of the state, period.
And only govern contracts through the state, which can apply to ANY individuals of
any race, religion, gender, orientation, belief whether religious political or secular...

What? What's that?
Recognizing and treating POLITICAL BELIEFS equally protected under the
first and fourteenth amendment as RELIGIOUS BELIEFS??? WHAT? NO!

We can't have consistent standards that respect people the same, regardless of views!
We'd actually get problems SOLVED if political parties were treated as separate churches and decided their own policies, reps, and funding themselves.

We'd actually get our government BACK from political hijackers if we separated
political beliefs from constitutional standards that are independent and universal!

Ya think?

Before you state something as "fact" you should check your facts:

#1 - In the majority of States that recognize Same-sex Civil Marriage the approval of that action was done either be legislative action or through voter approved referendum.

#2 - In no state where there is Same-sex Civil Marriage has it been implemented by court action has it been the result of "one activist judge". In each and every case the initial judges ruling was appealed and approved by the appeals process and ruled on by the State Supreme Court based on the non-discrimination provisions of that States Constitution. In no state has SSCM been implemented through the ruling of one judge.

>>>>

But regardless of the issue--whether same sex marriage or any other issue--the state Supreme Court or the federal Supreme Court is nevertheless a court that is intended to interpret the law, sort out conflicts that exist between two opposing laws or whatever. The Court was never intended to make law at any level.

Therefore, it should be the state legislature, whether on their own initiative or via public referendum, that makes the law the law. And if a state determines, quite rightfully, that existing marriage laws discriminate against nobody--which none of them do--every man, woman, and child is treated exactly the same--then no court should be able to change that law into something different purely because they think the law doesn't go far enough or isn't a good law.

We have a terrible situation in this state right now because activist judges are authorizing same sex marriage outside the juridiction of the state legislature. Regardless of your opinions on same sex marriage, that should never be acceptable.

So your opinion is that the courts should have taken no action to overturn ban's on interracial marriage bans (the first being California in 1948) despite non-discrimination provisions in the State and Federal Constitutions?


That blank people should have just sucked it up?


>>>>

 

[RKMBrown]

we'd actually get our government back from political hijackers if we separated
political beliefs from constitutional standards that are independent and universal!

qft.

 

[emilynghiem]

Not so much. There's maybe one vague reference to marriage being between a man and a woman in the new testament that has nothing to do with gays at all. And the old testament just had one mention to my understanding. The new testament is more than just an augmentation of the old testament. Would you say slavery is not a sin because it's in the bible? Just because there is one reference in the old test. to a Jewish law of antiquity, does not make being gay a sin. Should we be sacrificing goats and stoning sinners in the streets?

Sorry:


Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Do you eat lobster or crab?

Lev. 11:10-11, "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination."

How about pork. Do you eat pork? See Lev. 11:4.

Yes G5000. Shellfish and bottomdwellers as seafood are bad for you. That wisdom is still true. And Pork is bad, even if it is cooked well, there are health issues with it.

So the wisdom in the Bible is true; and Buddhist and Nation of Islam and other spiritual groups are finding this out and following that for better health.

As for homosexuality, adultery in general is bad for the physical mental emotional and relationship health of people. Homosexuality just happens to be one expression of sex between people outside of a committed marital relationship.

Many Buddhists recognize homosexual relations are not natural, and they are not judgmental. The problem is teh karma that goes into people incarnated or manifesting in homosexual relations -- some karma can be that from person, but some of it may not be; so not all cases are the same and that is why it's impossible to judge from the outside.

In the end, the common factor is that it causes suffering. Something is wrong where it causes these conflicts. It is NOT natural. People may be born to live a life this way, but there is something unnatural causing it. Just because we don't judge the person for it, doesn't make it natural. It is still a sign of something out of balance outside the norm.

The Dalai Lama and Homosexuality

At a press conference in 1997 the Dalai Lama said; 'From a Buddhist point of view (lesbian and gay sex)...is generally considered sexual misconduct.' He very soon found that he had stumbled into a pink minefield when some Western Buddhists, a significant number of who are gay, loudly expressed their outrage. Together with promoting the Dhamma, the Dalai Lama's main purpose in touring the West is to win support for his cause, and to this end he defiantly does not want to alienate anyone. As soon as he realized what he had done he immediately back-peddled. He called a meeting with gay and lesbian representatives, during which he expressed the 'willingness to consider the possibility that some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context'.

Dawa Tsering, spokesperson for the Office of Tibet released a suitably politically correct and safe statement; 'His Holiness opposes violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation. He urges respect, tolerance, compassion and the full recognition of human rights for all.' Ruffled feathers were smoothed, gay Western Tibetan Buddhists left convinced that the Dalai Lama approved of their sexual orientation and the Dalai Lama continued believing that homosexuality is wrong - only now making a careful note never to say so again in public.

I was looking for a longer quote taken from this same statement, I believe. This citation of it seems to clarify the Dalai Lama still holds that homosexuality is unnatural; but focused on how it is wrong to discriminate/abuse/oppress anyone to cause suffering on the basis of this or ANY human rights issue. The issue of REACTION to homosexuality is a separate issue, and one we can address globally among ALL people, INCLUDING those with views either for or against homosexuality. The statement was so open ended, even if ppl oppose homosexuality and argue for equal human rights to their beliefs, his statement would still cover not discriminating against those people either!

It still doesn't mean homosexuality is natural, just because you tolerate and don't discriminate against people over this point. Respecting where people are with their beliefs and process of spiritual growth, is part of the universal "human rights" and nature. however ppl interpreted his response is part of their growth. We have to learn on our own that by "tolerating" pro-gay views, guess what, this means "tolerating" anti-gay as well. The Dalai Lama tolerated them by not forcing them to change; but they could not tolerate his response until he changed the way he worded it. So he grew in his tolerance, but what did they learn?

 

[Katzndogz]

If a Christian believes that homosexuality is a sin, they should not participate in homosexuality. If they think it's a sin, they should not be attending same sex weddings. It's that simple. If gays can find a way for the vendors to sell their products or services without having to participate in the activities, let's hear it.

The refused to make a cake. This bullshit about delivering it is just that; bullshit. It's made up.

This was not about attending a gay wedding. I'm sure the fags would have been happy to pick up the cake and take it themselves.

So just put that fantasy down.

These bakers had baked special event cakes for this same couple before. It isn't a matter of picking up a cake. Put the damn cake in a cab.

Wedding cakes are tiered. They require construction so they don't fall over. If it was a sheet cake or a two layer cake, this would never have happened. It would have been like the birthday cake they made before.

 

[RKMBrown]

If a Christian believes that homosexuality is a sin, they should not participate in homosexuality. If they think it's a sin, they should not be attending same sex weddings. It's that simple. If gays can find a way for the vendors to sell their products or services without having to participate in the activities, let's hear it.

The refused to make a cake. This bullshit about delivering it is just that; bullshit. It's made up.

This was not about attending a gay wedding. I'm sure the fags would have been happy to pick up the cake and take it themselves.

So just put that fantasy down.

These bakers had baked special event cakes for this same couple before. It isn't a matter of picking up a cake. Put the damn cake in a cab.

Wedding cakes are tiered. They require construction so they don't fall over. If it was a sheet cake or a two layer cake, this would never have happened. It would have been like the birthday cake they made before.

So was the location they had to assemble the cake a gay assembly area? Or does a piece of land become gay land only some number of hours before and after two gays are getting married? It's ok to create a gay cake if it's not for a gay wedding? Or is the issue assembling a gay cake at a gay wedding location?

 

[Katzndogz]

Sorry:


Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Do you eat lobster or crab?

Lev. 11:10-11, "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination."

How about pork. Do you eat pork? See Lev. 11:4.

Yes G5000. Shellfish and bottomdwellers as seafood are bad for you. That wisdom is still true. And Pork is bad, even if it is cooked well, there are health issues with it.

So the wisdom in the Bible is true; and Buddhist and Nation of Islam and other spiritual groups are finding this out and following that for better health.

As for homosexuality, adultery in general is bad for the physical mental emotional and relationship health of people. Homosexuality just happens to be one expression of sex between people outside of a committed marital relationship.

Many Buddhists recognize homosexual relations are not natural, and they are not judgmental. The problem is teh karma that goes into people incarnated or manifesting in homosexual relations -- some karma can be that from person, but some of it may not be; so not all cases are the same and that is why it's impossible to judge from the outside.

In the end, the common factor is that it causes suffering. Something is wrong where it causes these conflicts. It is NOT natural. People may be born to live a life this way, but there is something unnatural causing it. Just because we don't judge the person for it, doesn't make it natural. It is still a sign of something out of balance outside the norm.

Adultery, fornication, promiscuity cause disease. It's not like they had antibiotics in those days. Better to just make a rule that says "don't".

Examination of Egyptian mummies do show the existence of an AIDS like virus. Egypt at its end normalized homosexuality. It does not take a biblical scholar to figure out that these rules made exceptional sense for the time. Don't allow a menstruating woman in your house at least until kotex is invented. Do not suffer a witch to live because those women who make a living gathering plants and small animals out in the wilderness make poisons that can kill days after the witch has moved on.

They were freaking geniuses to have figured out that much.

 

[Gadawg73]

I had a grandmother on the other side of the family that taught us that God would make us blind if we masturbated.
I wondered if I could do it up and until I needed glasses.
The stupid shit many religious folks believe.

 

[Gadawg73]

Do you eat lobster or crab?

Lev. 11:10-11, "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination."

How about pork. Do you eat pork? See Lev. 11:4.

Yes G5000. Shellfish and bottomdwellers as seafood are bad for you. That wisdom is still true. And Pork is bad, even if it is cooked well, there are health issues with it.

So the wisdom in the Bible is true; and Buddhist and Nation of Islam and other spiritual groups are finding this out and following that for better health.

As for homosexuality, adultery in general is bad for the physical mental emotional and relationship health of people. Homosexuality just happens to be one expression of sex between people outside of a committed marital relationship.

Many Buddhists recognize homosexual relations are not natural, and they are not judgmental. The problem is teh karma that goes into people incarnated or manifesting in homosexual relations -- some karma can be that from person, but some of it may not be; so not all cases are the same and that is why it's impossible to judge from the outside.

In the end, the common factor is that it causes suffering. Something is wrong where it causes these conflicts. It is NOT natural. People may be born to live a life this way, but there is something unnatural causing it. Just because we don't judge the person for it, doesn't make it natural. It is still a sign of something out of balance outside the norm.

Adultery, fornication, promiscuity cause disease. It's not like they had antibiotics in those days. Better to just make a rule that says "don't".

Examination of Egyptian mummies do show the existence of an AIDS like virus. Egypt at its end normalized homosexuality. It does not take a biblical scholar to figure out that these rules made exceptional sense for the time. Don't allow a menstruating woman in your house at least until kotex is invented. Do not suffer a witch to live because those women who make a living gathering plants and small animals out in the wilderness make poisons that can kill days after the witch has moved on.

They were freaking geniuses to have figured out that much.

All dead people can have viruses in them and the viruses that the Egyptian mummies in no way indicated anything whatsoever that they were as a result of the mummies being homosexual or having been involved in homosexual sex.
Your claim is the craziest shit and stretch I have ever heard. Totally false and without any basis in fact whatsoever. Your claim that Egypt at its end normalized is also absurd. Other than a few drawings that some interpreted to be men embracing what evidence do you have to support your absurd claims?

 

[emilynghiem]

How is not wanting to serve someone "throwing a stone"?

I think any stone throwing came afterwards, right?

If I provide funeral services to people, but turn down business such as a high publicity death that I personally or for whatever reason don't want to be associated with,
would that have caused people to judge me or my business so personally?

The issue remains, if we want inclusion and respect for pro-gay views
where is the acceptance and understanding for anti-gay views?

I respect both, and believe that is Constitutionally necessary.
Am I the minority in the wrong here?

>>> How is not wanting to serve someone "throwing a stone"?

Great question. One would have to put one's feet in the shoes of the people in question. That's why I mentioned the refusal to serve black people. Remember "whites" only water fountains? Remember back of the bus?... yeah well this is the same thing only gays... refusing to serve gays is a vicious slap... not physical but a violation of human rights none the less. I'm white, as shown, but I've also been violated in this manner by anti-white male bias to "right the wrongs" of my forefathers. Whether it's being overlooked for a promotion cycle because of the color of ones skin and gender, or some other act of discrimination, being discriminated against in this fashion is a vicious blow.

Thank you for sharing your honest thinking and direct/to the point posts and replies.

1. I happen NOT to compare orientation with race. Because I know of cases where "spiritual healing" changed people's homosexual/transgender orientation that
was either caused by abuse or otherwise unnatural to them, unwanted or hurtful.

I have NEVER heard of someone "changing race" because spiritual healing changed it.
If anything, people become at peace with their natural race because of forgiveness healing them, as people who become at peace with their natural orientation following spiritual healing (whether they make peace with being gay, straight, trans, assexual/abstinent etc.)

So the same way you say 2. is not equivalent, I say 1 is also two different things also!

2. >>> If I provide funeral services to people, but turn down business such as a high publicity death that I personally or for whatever reason don't want to be associated with,
would that have caused people to judge me or my business so personally?

No. Turning down a high publicity death is different. That is turning down one person because of publicity. Being adverse to publicity is not discrimination based on race, creed, sexual preference or what not.

2. I'm saying "for whatever reason" you don't judge people for it. Maybe this is your reasoning, but it shows you don't judge the person for it. So why not respect all reasons?

I happen to be a consent person. If someone has some issue, even if it is wrong, I feel the problem needs to be RESOLVED before asking someone to change it - FREELY by consent.
Or it doesn't solve problems but creates more. (for ex: I am against abortion as most people I know want to avoid it, of course; but am pro-choice because it can't be forced.
No pro-life person I know has to be "forced by law" to have those beliefs. So why not
work things out where all people agree to respect consent by free choice, not by force.)

So if someone has an issue with serving blacks or gays, this or that, this issue/conflict should be addressed BEFORE doing business in any situation REQUIRING it. Why ask for problems to pop up later? why not address them up front? so just forcing people by law is NOT solving the problem. We should be working these things out regardless, just for the good in itself.

3.
>>> The issue remains, if we want inclusion and respect for pro-gay views where is the acceptance and understanding for anti-gay views?

That is no different than asking for acceptance of the KKK. Is it permitted to be in the KKK? yes. Does that mean I should call for acceptance and understanding of a group of racists? no probably not...

3. Actually, yes there are places to work with even extremely biased/intolerant groups
if you can pinpoint what their real focus or issue is they want to achieve.

I had spoken at length by phone with a Grand Dragon of the Klan, about how could we achieve the same goals they want for segregation and preservation of separate races WITHOUT breaking laws or imposing/oppressing unfairly?

One solution I mentioned was organizing communities and govts like university departments, where you HAVE people who specialize in "African American" culture/studies working on solving problems in both Africa and American, and guaranteeing self-representation and self-determination so there IS a recognition and allowance for the Black communities to represent themselves, as with the KKK wanting to represent themselves.

The difference is this affiliation is done FREELY not forced by discrimination or ugliness.

The Asian American interests are organized among those interested in this area.
And so why not the European American cultural interests and history? Everyone can be equally included, protected and cherished as a contributing culture to society worldwide.

So there is a way to work tolerably with groups with strong beliefs in this area.
I know someone whose Black relatives were friends with KKK in the South/Alabama and worked together because there was respect between families as having their own ways.

4.
>>> I respect both, and believe that is Constitutionally necessary.

Respect both... don't think so but respect your right to do so. What is there to respect about gay bashing? Constitutionally necessary? yes... just as with the KKK you are free to be gay basher in this country so long as you don't use violence. As you say this more a necessity of a free society (Constitution). Respect is not quite the word I would pick. accept maybe...

4. best way to stop the bashing is acknowledge it is a mutual problem and don't add to
it while you are trying to calm it down.

I respect their right to free speech and to express grievances, even in anger where it comes out this way. That is part of the grieving and resolution process. the "bashing" comes from pressure of feeling insulted, left out, or wronged in teh face of mutual hypocrisy.

Guess what, that bashing stops when people listen to what is being denied, the right to express beliefs without being bashed either!

so no, I do not say that the abuse of free speech to harass and block due process is correct. but it is the result of other rights being abridged, on both sides, causing the bashing.

So in the meantime I tolerate the mutual bashing, while seeking to redress grievance
causing it to come out that way. When you take care of the conflicts, I find the language
moves toward mutual respect. Once someone is treated with that same respect first.

5.
>>> Am I the minority in the wrong here?

Partly, yes. Partly, no

5. as we all are. thank you for pointing this out.
as we learn how much we stand to gain from each other,
and help each other correct misgivings or biases we ALL have,
then we quit the bashing and fingerpointing.

like the passage in the Bible that we first remove the beam from our
own eyes to help our neighbor with the splinter which we can see from our angle.
We help each other at the same time.
if you substitute the concept of "bias" here it makes sense that we all
have faults and should not be ashamed as we are only human and project this way!
Until we learn, from each other, as we do here on these forums sharing back and forth.

Thank you for joining in. I like your attitude and your intelligent specific replies.
it's good to have that. and I hope your influence inspires the same in others
to talk more civilly and respectfully as you do! Great job and I look forward
to reading more of your posts! We need more friendliness and less ugliness in politics!