CDZ I want to know why it is acceptable to exclude homosexuals

[JoeMoma]

The use of infrastructure has nothing to do with it.

Of course it does.

Dont bite the hand that feeds you, meaning if youre going to use me, my fiat (us dollars) and the jointly provided infrastructure to feed you, youre going to follow my anti discrimination laws.

But also - feel free! Free! Freedom! To not engage in public commerce for a profit, and then feel free to discriminate against people all you want to.

At your own peril because it makes for a less moral person to do so, but thats ok. We are not all saints, amen!

Bullshit!

Thats the cognitive dissonance when logic cant back your bigotry. Just say bullshit and act like it ends the discussion

The use of public infrastructure does not negate individual rights and freedoms. Otherwise, the government should have the power to take over and run every aspect of privately owned businesses.

I didnt say the use of public infrastructure does.

You forgot the rest.

Thats more cognitive dissonance. Cuz i know I wrote the rest. I can look at it right now.

Yes, you are trying to tie the use of public infrastructure to owning an operating a business. Your logic fails because the government does not "own" the business because of the public infrastructure any more than it "owns" your home because you use public infrastructure. What's public is public and what is private is private.

 

[G.T.]

Of course it does.

Dont bite the hand that feeds you, meaning if youre going to use me, my fiat (us dollars) and the jointly provided infrastructure to feed you, youre going to follow my anti discrimination laws.

But also - feel free! Free! Freedom! To not engage in public commerce for a profit, and then feel free to discriminate against people all you want to.

At your own peril because it makes for a less moral person to do so, but thats ok. We are not all saints, amen!

Bullshit!

Thats the cognitive dissonance when logic cant back your bigotry. Just say bullshit and act like it ends the discussion

The use of public infrastructure does not negate individual rights and freedoms. Otherwise, the government should have the power to take over and run every aspect of privately owned businesses.

I didnt say the use of public infrastructure does.

You forgot the rest.

Thats more cognitive dissonance. Cuz i know I wrote the rest. I can look at it right now.

Yes, you are trying to tie the use of public infrastructure to owning an operating a business. Your logic fails because the government does not "own" the business because of the public infrastructure any more than it "owns" your home because you use public infrastructure. What's public is public and what is private is private.

No, you forgot the other parts of my logic which tie it together.

Why ya doin that?

You need to, thats why.

 

[JoeMoma]

Bullshit!

Thats the cognitive dissonance when logic cant back your bigotry. Just say bullshit and act like it ends the discussion

The use of public infrastructure does not negate individual rights and freedoms. Otherwise, the government should have the power to take over and run every aspect of privately owned businesses.

I didnt say the use of public infrastructure does.

You forgot the rest.

Thats more cognitive dissonance. Cuz i know I wrote the rest. I can look at it right now.

Yes, you are trying to tie the use of public infrastructure to owning an operating a business. Your logic fails because the government does not "own" the business because of the public infrastructure any more than it "owns" your home because you use public infrastructure. What's public is public and what is private is private.

No, you forgot the other parts of my logic which tie it together.

Why ya doin that?

You need to, thats why.

No I didn't because the other parts of your "logic" are irrelevant.

 

[G.T.]

Thats the cognitive dissonance when logic cant back your bigotry. Just say bullshit and act like it ends the discussion

The use of public infrastructure does not negate individual rights and freedoms. Otherwise, the government should have the power to take over and run every aspect of privately owned businesses.

I didnt say the use of public infrastructure does.

You forgot the rest.

Thats more cognitive dissonance. Cuz i know I wrote the rest. I can look at it right now.

Yes, you are trying to tie the use of public infrastructure to owning an operating a business. Your logic fails because the government does not "own" the business because of the public infrastructure any more than it "owns" your home because you use public infrastructure. What's public is public and what is private is private.

No, you forgot the other parts of my logic which tie it together.

Why ya doin that?

You need to, thats why.

No I didn't because the other parts of your logic are irrelevant.

No, theyre completely relevant.

In fact, heres how they were refuted:

 

[JoeMoma]

The use of public infrastructure does not negate individual rights and freedoms. Otherwise, the government should have the power to take over and run every aspect of privately owned businesses.

I didnt say the use of public infrastructure does.

You forgot the rest.

Thats more cognitive dissonance. Cuz i know I wrote the rest. I can look at it right now.

Yes, you are trying to tie the use of public infrastructure to owning an operating a business. Your logic fails because the government does not "own" the business because of the public infrastructure any more than it "owns" your home because you use public infrastructure. What's public is public and what is private is private.

No, you forgot the other parts of my logic which tie it together.

Why ya doin that?

You need to, thats why.

No I didn't because the other parts of your logic are irrelevant.

No, theyre completely relevant.

In fact, heres how they were refuted:

And nothing follows the "here's how they were refuted:"

 

[G.T.]

I didnt say the use of public infrastructure does.

You forgot the rest.

Thats more cognitive dissonance. Cuz i know I wrote the rest. I can look at it right now.

Yes, you are trying to tie the use of public infrastructure to owning an operating a business. Your logic fails because the government does not "own" the business because of the public infrastructure any more than it "owns" your home because you use public infrastructure. What's public is public and what is private is private.

No, you forgot the other parts of my logic which tie it together.

Why ya doin that?

You need to, thats why.

No I didn't because the other parts of your logic are irrelevant.

No, theyre completely relevant.

In fact, heres how they were refuted:

And nothing follows the "here's how they were refuted:"

Eureka!

 

[JoeMoma]

Yes, you are trying to tie the use of public infrastructure to owning an operating a business. Your logic fails because the government does not "own" the business because of the public infrastructure any more than it "owns" your home because you use public infrastructure. What's public is public and what is private is private.

No, you forgot the other parts of my logic which tie it together.

Why ya doin that?

You need to, thats why.

No I didn't because the other parts of your logic are irrelevant.

No, theyre completely relevant.

In fact, heres how they were refuted:

And nothing follows the "here's how they were refuted:"

Eureka!

Post #141 is how they were refuted.

 

[G.T.]

No, you forgot the other parts of my logic which tie it together.

Why ya doin that?

You need to, thats why.

No I didn't because the other parts of your logic are irrelevant.

No, theyre completely relevant.

In fact, heres how they were refuted:

And nothing follows the "here's how they were refuted:"

Eureka!

Post #141 is how they were refuted.

Well, post numbers dont show up on phones.

BUT, ive read each post, and each time you attempted to counterpoint my logic, you left points out which were crucial to my logic, to.begin with.

Therefore, my complete thought has not been logically refuted.

 

[Mertex]

Having said that, in every religion homosexuality is not your "everyday" sin. It is a "high sin" if you will.

Well, that is not true. In Christianity, sin is sin. There are not levels of sin, so you're wrong.

you aren't christian if you posted this! sorry charlie. You lose.

You aren't christian if you think some sins are okay with God and some aren't.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.

Romans 6:23 The wages of sin is death (applies to all sin, in thought, word or deed).

In the OT, God applied different penalties to the different sins.

In the NT, Jesus paid the price for "all" our sins, no matter how big or small.

And for those that believe homosexuality is a sin, they shouldn't practice it. Being humane to someone that is homosexual does not cause you to sin. Being hateful and discriminatory to a homosexual goes against Jesus' word "to love your neighbor as yourself".

 

[Mertex]

Then you should gladly buy their surrounding infrastructure with your own f****** money

huh?

The Government regulates commerce, per the Constitution. Yes?

Business' are patroned by customers utilizing the surrounding taxpayer funded infrastructure. And they're also trading in U.S. dollars, for their goods.

They voluntarily enter this agreement to use the Government, as the Government uses them. Yes?

The Government should not be in the business of sanctioning discrimination. If you feel a person voluntarily entering into this agreement is somehow being infringed upon, you are not thinking clearly and considering the entire set of information before you.

If it is within a person's set of morals to discriminate, then Government regulated commerce is not the place for them.

those have always been around and didn't have any bearing coming through history until there were liberals. huh?

Any movement in a positive direction is progression.

Discrimination decreases progressively looking at all of human history

Why?

We're smarter and more empathetic. Thats why. Old curmudgeon reasoning that doesnt pass a logical smell test is being phased out by wiser and more moral human beings.

says you, I don't get an opinion on that? I see only if it lines up with yours. right, get bent.

Oh and why women are so loved in the arab world eh? Because progress has reached so far in history right? BTW, how long has that been like that. hmmm about thousands years longer than we've been the United States?

You don't make much sense. Liberalism is what keeps women in the United States from becoming like the women in the ME. Republican/conservatives want to keep women under control, like they do in the ME......doesn't seem appealing to me, since I'm a woman, but maybe for you it is. Don't understand why conservative women are okay with men deciding what is good for their bodies. Most countries in the ME are not liberal, FYI.

 

[Mertex]

So a reasonable person should accede to the whims of another anc accept second class status.


The tyranny of the minority.

Either side can can make that argument.

Or we could just give each other a little space.

.

No. One side seeks to demean and discriminate, the other seeks equality.

You think it's okay to force someone to provide a service against their will.

I don't.

If they're bigots, you're making them worse bigots.

.

Then you should gladly buy their surrounding infrastructure with your own f****** money

Everyone already gets to use the surrounding infrastructure. Should you have to let anyone come into your house because of the surrounding infrastructure?

Your home is private....you don't have to let anyone come into your house that you don't want to. Unless you were to turn your house into a sort of "public accomodation" where you rent rooms or provide other services, it remains private. If you have a public business, which means it is open to all, then you can't discriminate based on race, religion, age, etc.. Private social organizations as long as they don't pereform any significant public function (they don't operate in a business sense) can limit membership, but each state has rules that they also must comply with.

Public businesses have to follow certain laws for the protection of the public, like for example, install fire hydrants, if that is what the state requires. If the owner doesn't want to, for whatever reason, they are not given a license to operate a business. To not discriminate based on sex, race, age, or sexual orientation, if it is the law, businesses must comply or not operate a business.

 

[Mertex]

People discriminate just about every time they make a decision. I was discriminated against often when I first graduated from college. Most of the people at the businesses I applyed to for employment discriminated against me by not offering me a position.

Unless they didn't hire you because of your race, age, or sexual orientation, they didn't discriminate. Maybe they hired someone with better qualifications.

 

[JoeMoma]

People discriminate just about every time they make a decision. I was discriminated against often when I first graduated from college. Most of the people at the businesses I applyed to for employment discriminated against me by not offering me a position.

Unless they didn't hire you because of your race, age, or sexual orientation, they didn't discriminate. Maybe they hired someone with better qualifications.

They discriminated based on qualifications. I'm okay with that.

 

[G.T.]

Either side can can make that argument.

Or we could just give each other a little space.

.

No. One side seeks to demean and discriminate, the other seeks equality.

You think it's okay to force someone to provide a service against their will.

I don't.

If they're bigots, you're making them worse bigots.

.

Then you should gladly buy their surrounding infrastructure with your own f****** money

Everyone already gets to use the surrounding infrastructure. Should you have to let anyone come into your house because of the surrounding infrastructure?

Your home is private....you don't have to let anyone come into your house that you don't want to. Unless you were to turn your house into a sort of "public accomodation" where you rent rooms or provide other services, it remains private. If you have a public business, which means it is open to all, then you can't discriminate based on race, religion, age, etc.. Private social organizations as long as they don't pereform any significant public function (they don't operate in a business sense) can limit membership, but each state has rules that they also must comply with.

Public businesses have to follow certain laws for the protection of the public, like for example, install fire hydrants, if that is what the state requires. If the owner doesn't want to, for whatever reason, they are not given a license to operate a business. To not discriminate based on sex, race, age, or sexual orientation, if it is the law, businesses must comply or not operate a business.

Eggsackleigh

 

[JoeMoma]

Either side can can make that argument.

Or we could just give each other a little space.

.

No. One side seeks to demean and discriminate, the other seeks equality.

You think it's okay to force someone to provide a service against their will.

I don't.

If they're bigots, you're making them worse bigots.

.

Then you should gladly buy their surrounding infrastructure with your own f****** money

Everyone already gets to use the surrounding infrastructure. Should you have to let anyone come into your house because of the surrounding infrastructure?

Your home is private....you don't have to let anyone come into your house that you don't want to. Unless you were to turn your house into a sort of "public accomodation" where you rent rooms or provide other services, it remains private. If you have a public business, which means it is open to all, then you can't discriminate based on race, religion, age, etc.. Private social organizations as long as they don't pereform any significant public function (they don't operate in a business sense) can limit membership, but each state has rules that they also must comply with.

Public businesses have to follow certain laws for the protection of the public, like for example, install fire hydrants, if that is what the state requires. If the owner doesn't want to, for whatever reason, they are not given a license to operate a business. To not discriminate based on sex, race, age, or sexual orientation, if it is the law, businesses must comply or not operate a business.

The thing is that the businesses are not discriminating against the person based on sexual orientation. The businesses are discriminating based on the product or the service. If the straight father of the groom were to try to hire a very religious photographer to take pictures as his son's same sex wedding, the photographer declines because he objects to same sex weddings. However, a gay man may hire the same photographer to take pictures at a traditional wedding that may have many gays in attendance. Gays have the exact same access to the business as everyone else. Whether the client is straight of gay, there are some things the business owner objects to doing which is his right.

 

[G.T.]

No. One side seeks to demean and discriminate, the other seeks equality.

You think it's okay to force someone to provide a service against their will.

I don't.

If they're bigots, you're making them worse bigots.

.

Then you should gladly buy their surrounding infrastructure with your own f****** money

Everyone already gets to use the surrounding infrastructure. Should you have to let anyone come into your house because of the surrounding infrastructure?

Your home is private....you don't have to let anyone come into your house that you don't want to. Unless you were to turn your house into a sort of "public accomodation" where you rent rooms or provide other services, it remains private. If you have a public business, which means it is open to all, then you can't discriminate based on race, religion, age, etc.. Private social organizations as long as they don't pereform any significant public function (they don't operate in a business sense) can limit membership, but each state has rules that they also must comply with.

Public businesses have to follow certain laws for the protection of the public, like for example, install fire hydrants, if that is what the state requires. If the owner doesn't want to, for whatever reason, they are not given a license to operate a business. To not discriminate based on sex, race, age, or sexual orientation, if it is the law, businesses must comply or not operate a business.

The thing is that the businesses are not discriminating against the person based on sexual orientation. The businesses are discriminating based on the product or the service. If the straight father of the groom were to try to hire a very religious photographer to take pictures as his son's same sex wedding, the photographer declines because he objects to same sex weddings. However, a gay man may hire the same photographer to take pictures at a traditional wedding that may have many gays in attendance. Gays have the exact same access to the business as everyone else. Whether the client is straight of gay, there are some things the business owner objects to doing which is his right.

You start your post saying he isnt descriminating and then end it by saying discriminating is his right.

Bigots are not right man. At all.

 

[JoeMoma]

You think it's okay to force someone to provide a service against their will.

I don't.

If they're bigots, you're making them worse bigots.

.

Then you should gladly buy their surrounding infrastructure with your own f****** money

Everyone already gets to use the surrounding infrastructure. Should you have to let anyone come into your house because of the surrounding infrastructure?

Your home is private....you don't have to let anyone come into your house that you don't want to. Unless you were to turn your house into a sort of "public accomodation" where you rent rooms or provide other services, it remains private. If you have a public business, which means it is open to all, then you can't discriminate based on race, religion, age, etc.. Private social organizations as long as they don't pereform any significant public function (they don't operate in a business sense) can limit membership, but each state has rules that they also must comply with.

Public businesses have to follow certain laws for the protection of the public, like for example, install fire hydrants, if that is what the state requires. If the owner doesn't want to, for whatever reason, they are not given a license to operate a business. To not discriminate based on sex, race, age, or sexual orientation, if it is the law, businesses must comply or not operate a business.

The thing is that the businesses are not discriminating against the person based on sexual orientation. The businesses are discriminating based on the product or the service. If the straight father of the groom were to try to hire a very religious photographer to take pictures as his son's same sex wedding, the photographer declines because he objects to same sex weddings. However, a gay man may hire the same photographer to take pictures at a traditional wedding that may have many gays in attendance. Gays have the exact same access to the business as everyone else. Whether the client is straight of gay, there are some things the business owner objects to doing which is his right.

You start your post saying he isnt descriminating and then end it by saying discriminating is his right.

Bigots are not right man. At all.

I start the post by saying that he isn't discriminating against a person based on that person's sexual orientation. He is discriminating based on the product or service. If you can't understand the difference..........

And I guess people that have religious convictions are now bigots ( in your opinion)! In that case, people have a 1st ammendment right to be bigots.

 

[Mertex]

No. One side seeks to demean and discriminate, the other seeks equality.

You think it's okay to force someone to provide a service against their will.

I don't.

If they're bigots, you're making them worse bigots.

.

Then you should gladly buy their surrounding infrastructure with your own f****** money

Everyone already gets to use the surrounding infrastructure. Should you have to let anyone come into your house because of the surrounding infrastructure?

Your home is private....you don't have to let anyone come into your house that you don't want to. Unless you were to turn your house into a sort of "public accomodation" where you rent rooms or provide other services, it remains private. If you have a public business, which means it is open to all, then you can't discriminate based on race, religion, age, etc.. Private social organizations as long as they don't pereform any significant public function (they don't operate in a business sense) can limit membership, but each state has rules that they also must comply with.

Public businesses have to follow certain laws for the protection of the public, like for example, install fire hydrants, if that is what the state requires. If the owner doesn't want to, for whatever reason, they are not given a license to operate a business. To not discriminate based on sex, race, age, or sexual orientation, if it is the law, businesses must comply or not operate a business.

The thing is that the businesses are not discriminating against the person based on sexual orientation.

But they are. If they are refusing a service they do for others and won't do for a gay couple, they are discriminating against the person's sexual orientation.

The businesses are discriminating based on the product or the service. If the straight father of the groom were to try to hire a very religious photographer to take pictures as his son's same sex wedding, the photographer declines because he objects to same sex weddings.

You seem to have a problem understanding what was explained to you. If you are in a business to serve the public, you can't refuse to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. That is the law. You need to get out of the business.

However, a gay man may hire the same photographer to take pictures at a traditional wedding that may have many gays in attendance. Gays have the exact same access to the business as everyone else. Whether the client is straight of gay, there are some things the business owner objects to doing which is his right.

The business owner can refuse to do things that are not against the law for him to refuse. If the law says he must have a ramp for handicap people, and he doesn't want to because he doesn't like handicap people coming to his restaurant, then he can't have a license. Discriminating is against the law, if you are going to discriminate, the people you discriminate against have the right to sue you and you will lose if they are able to prove it. It's that simple.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"I want to know why it is acceptable to exclude homosexuals"

It should come as no surprise, of course, that no one has been able to provide a rational, objective, documented, factual, and legal reason to exclude gay Americans from the law or from public accommodations, where the courts have consistently invalidated laws seeking to disadvantage gay Americans, and upheld laws prohibiting discrimination of gay Americans with regard to public accommodations.

 

[Politico]

Here's why you're wrong. Government should have say in one's personal life. That includes marriage between two consenting adults.

Government should have no say in someone's personal life you socialist.

oops I meant to say not. sorry about that.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.