Colorado is after this guy.

[JoeB131]

The problem is that your arguments rely on no consistent principles or values other than unassailable authority of government. As long as it's picking on people you don't like.

Naw, man... I'm very consistent.

A Mormon who is refused service by an Evangelical has a right to complain under Public Accomedation Law.

So does a Gay who is refused service by a Mormon or Evangelical.

 

[martybegan]

No, that's all on identity politic twats like you, own it, bitch.

They are nothing of the sort. Unless you are talking about the fundamentalist ones.

No, guy. Mormonism is a cult. It's still a cult. Maybe you need to read up to what Mormons do to people who try to leave their cult.

I say bad things about the Catholics all day, but frankly, when you leave the Catholic Church, they really don't bother you anymore.

People leave mainstream Mormonism all the time. I don't see Mormon hit squads going out to ruin them or bring them back.

 

[dblack]

The problem is that your arguments rely on no consistent principles or values other than unassailable authority of government. As long as it's picking on people you don't like.

Naw, man... I'm very consistent.

A Mormon who is refused service by an Evangelical has a right to complain under Public Accomedation Law.

So does a Gay who is refused service by a Mormon or Evangelical.

Only in a few states that have added sexual orientation to the protected classes list. It looks like, in your world, our rights depend mostly of what lobbyists and legislators.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No, guy. Mormonism is a cult. It's still a cult. Maybe you need to read up to what Mormons do to people who try to leave their cult.

What is it, exactly, that you are claiming we do to those who try to leave our “cult”?

 

[JoeB131]

People leave mainstream Mormonism all the time. I don't see Mormon hit squads going out to ruin them or bring them back.

again, do some research.

Do Mormons Shun? | HuffPost

Former Mormons Ostracized

again, this is how cults operate.

 

[JoeB131]

What is it, exactly, that you are claiming we do to those who try to leave our “cult”?

sorry, buddy, i'm still waiting for you to tell me why gay folks are evil that doesn't depend on the Bible for an argument.

Or you can just look at the posts I gave Marty up above.

Only in a few states that have added sexual orientation to the protected classes list. It looks like, in your world, our rights depend mostly of what lobbyists and legislators.

I agree, we haven't gone far enough to protect gay folks. But Bob the Mormon gets all the protection he wants for being in his sick little cult.

 

[dblack]

What is it, exactly, that you are claiming we do to those who try to leave our “cult”?

sorry, buddy, i'm still waiting for you to tell me why gay folks are evil that doesn't depend on the Bible for an argument.

Or you can just look at the posts I gave Marty up above.

Only in a few states that have added sexual orientation to the protected classes list. It looks like, in your world, our rights depend mostly of what lobbyists and legislators.

I agree, we haven't gone far enough to protect gay folks. But Bob the Mormon gets all the protection he wants for being in his sick little cult.

Right. That's how corporatism works. Using the government to reward your friends and punish your enemies. As long as your side has enough lobbyists, you win!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What is it, exactly, that you are claiming we do to those who try to leave our “cult”?

sorry, buddy, i'm still waiting for you to tell me why gay folks are evil that doesn't depend on the Bible for an argument.

There is little point in trying to argue morals with a willful sociopath. You openly reject any valid source of guidance on right vs. wrong. You openly, willfully choose evil over good. I do not believe there is any argument I could make, based on any valid source, that you wouldn't entirely reject.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I agree, we haven't gone far enough to protect gay folks. But Bob the Mormon gets all the protection he wants for being in his sick little cult.

Religion is explicitly protected under the First Amendment. Sick, evil sexual perversions are not even mentioned or hinted at anywhere in the Constitution, much less affirmed and protected as “rights”.

In any event, that you mention them in the priority that you do only proves what I have been saying about you—that you are someone who willfully chooses evil over good. You condemn religious faith, while promoting and defending immoral sexual deviancies. That is all that anyone needs to know about you.

 

[JoeB131]

Right. That's how corporatism works. Using the government to reward your friends and punish your enemies. As long as your side has enough lobbyists, you win!

More along the lines of what is reasonable and fair. As long as I have to write resumes for Mormons, Hateful Baker has to bake cakes for gays. Seems reasonable to me.

There is little point in trying to argue morals with a willful sociopath. You openly reject any valid source of guidance on right vs. wrong. You openly, willfully choose evil over good. I do not believe there is any argument I could make, based on any valid source, that you wouldn't entirely reject.

Guy, your "valid source" (the Bible) advocates slavery and genocide, and also has Giants and Talking Snakes. It's hardly a valid source.

The bottom line, is that all homophobic arguments against homosexuality boil down to "I think it's icky when it's two dudes" and "the Bible says it's bad". These are not valid enough argument to deny 10% of the population it's civil rights.

Religion is explicitly protected under the First Amendment. Sick, evil sexual perversions are not even mentioned or hinted at anywhere in the Constitution, much less affirmed and protected as “rights”.

The first Amendment ONLY prevents congress from making laws. There's nothing in the First Amendment that says I have to like Mormons. And, heck, I'll go one further... you guys used to practice Polygamy, which the rest of the country considered a sick, evil sexual perversion. And when you were told you couldn't get Utah into the Union until you got rid of it... "God" had a conversation with your Prophet, and what do you know, God told you all to knock off the Polygamy! Isn't that amazing!

Betcha if we pulled the tax exemptions (not promised in the constitution) for all Churches that preach homophobia, God would suddenly tell all the Churches that the rules against homosexuality are like the rules against shellfish.

In any event, that you mention them in the priority that you do only proves what I have been saying about you—that you are someone who willfully chooses evil over good. You condemn religious faith, while promoting and defending immoral sexual deviancies. That is all that anyone needs to know about you.

Religion has given us... Crusades, Inquisitions, Witch Burning, Torture of Heretics, religious wars, molestation of Altar Boys, collaboration with truly evil regimes...

Gay folks throw truly awesome Oscar Parties...

I'm sorry, which one is evil again?

Again, when you explain why Gay folks are evil without quoting a book of superstition, let me know.

 

[dblack]

Right. That's how corporatism works. Using the government to reward your friends and punish your enemies. As long as your side has enough lobbyists, you win!

More along the lines of what is reasonable and fair. As long as I have to write resumes for Mormons, Hateful Baker has to bake cakes for gays. Seems reasonable to me.

Uh-huh. And when is it "reasonable" to force your values on others? That's the question here. Clearly, wedding cakes is where you draw the line!

 

[martybegan]

People leave mainstream Mormonism all the time. I don't see Mormon hit squads going out to ruin them or bring them back.

again, do some research.

Do Mormons Shun? | HuffPost

Former Mormons Ostracized

again, this is how cults operate.

Oooh! shunning! So a person that doesn't want to be part of a Religion in the first place has to now go out on their own and live their life as they want to.

It's not like the fundie mormons that don't prepare their kids for the real work, the mainstream ones go to public school, and can handle themselves.

Wow, shunning is the best you can come up with....

 

[JoeB131]

Uh-huh. And when is it "reasonable" to force your values on others? That's the question here. Clearly, wedding cakes is where you draw the line!

It's reasonable when you put out a sign and said, "I sell wedding cakes". That's when it's reasonable.

If he doesn't want to make cakes for the nasty old gay folks... sell his business and find something else to do for a living.

Oooh! shunning! So a person that doesn't want to be part of a Religion in the first place has to now go out on their own and live their life as they want to.

Um, yeah, when your family is compelled to never talk to you again, that's kind of a big deal.

 

[dblack]

Uh-huh. And when is it "reasonable" to force your values on others? That's the question here. Clearly, wedding cakes is where you draw the line!

It's reasonable when you put out a sign and said, "I sell wedding cakes". That's when it's reasonable.

I'm sure, if it were legal, he'd put up another sign that says "but not for gay weddings", so your sign argument makes no sense. I simply disagree with your premise that operating a business implies some kind of oath of public service.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Um, yeah, when your family is compelled to never talk to you again, that's kind of a big deal.

Is it your intent to claim that the Mormon church does that? If so, then certainly, you know that it is a flat-out lie, like almost everything else that you have said about the church.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm sure, if it were legal, he'd put up another sign that says "but not for gay weddings", so your sign argument makes no sense. I simply disagree with your premise that operating a business implies some kind of oath of public service.

Well, yeah, actually, it does. They are called Public Accommodation Laws. If the guy put up a sign that says, 'but not for interracial weddings", we wouldn't be having an argument here.

Is it your intent to claim that the Mormon church does that? If so, then certainly, you know that it is a flat-out lie, like almost everything else that you have said about the church.

Yeah, I know, you like to pretend Joseph Smith didn't have 34 wives, either.

Hey, still waiting for you to explain why the gay stuff is evil without quoting the bible.

 

[dblack]

I'm sure, if it were legal, he'd put up another sign that says "but not for gay weddings", so your sign argument makes no sense. I simply disagree with your premise that operating a business implies some kind of oath of public service.

Well, yeah, actually, it does. They are called Public Accommodation Laws. If the guy put up a sign that says, 'but not for interracial weddings", we wouldn't be having an argument here.

Oh, I understand that's the way the law works. I'm saying it's wrong. It's a violation of free speech, free association, and pretty much any semblance of individual freedom. People aren't servants of the state. It's supposed to be the other way around.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Uh-huh. And when is it "reasonable" to force your values on others? That's the question here. Clearly, wedding cakes is where you draw the line!

It's reasonable when you put out a sign and said, "I sell wedding cakes". That's when it's reasonable.

I'm sure, if it were legal, he'd put up another sign that says "but not for gay weddings", so your sign argument makes no sense. I simply disagree with your premise that operating a business implies some kind of oath of public service.

Actually, I doubt he'd have been inclined to put up that sign before this all started. By now, if he doesn't want 3-foot neon letters spelling it out on his roof, he's a better person than I am. I would have been out of patience long ago in his place.

Ironic how the left's attempts to make people think and believe what they want are more likely to drive people the opposite direction, no?

 

[dblack]

Uh-huh. And when is it "reasonable" to force your values on others? That's the question here. Clearly, wedding cakes is where you draw the line!

It's reasonable when you put out a sign and said, "I sell wedding cakes". That's when it's reasonable.

I'm sure, if it were legal, he'd put up another sign that says "but not for gay weddings", so your sign argument makes no sense. I simply disagree with your premise that operating a business implies some kind of oath of public service.

Actually, I doubt he'd have been inclined to put up that sign before this all started.

The point is, starting a business is not a oath to serve government interests. It's not a sign saying "I treat everyone equally", despite the claims of the jack-boot crowd.

Ironic how the left's attempts to make people think and believe what they want are more likely to drive people the opposite direction, no?

It's pretty predictable, really. And they can't get it through their heads. They piss and whine about the "basket of deplorables" without conceding that those deplorable people vote - and if they think they can push them around with repercussions, they're kidding themselves.

 

[martybegan]

Uh-huh. And when is it "reasonable" to force your values on others? That's the question here. Clearly, wedding cakes is where you draw the line!

It's reasonable when you put out a sign and said, "I sell wedding cakes". That's when it's reasonable.

If he doesn't want to make cakes for the nasty old gay folks... sell his business and find something else to do for a living.

Oooh! shunning! So a person that doesn't want to be part of a Religion in the first place has to now go out on their own and live their life as they want to.

Um, yeah, when your family is compelled to never talk to you again, that's kind of a big deal.

Considering the person is turning away from the families beliefs, methinks there are other issues that would lead to them not really talking or getting along anyway.

And do you have concrete examples of shunning being required by mainstream Mormons?

Mainstream, not the fundie multi-wife types.