If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Pop23]

What about marriage cowboy? Should they be allowed to marry? Are the children entitle to have married parents, each of which is their legal guardian, with all of the economic benefits , legal security and social status that it entails? YES or NO?

Gay people should be allowed to marry, but not because of the children.

Two different issues.

The Government should not be in the Marriage business in the first place.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

The government shouldn't be telling us who we can't discriminate against, anyway. Nobody has a right to be liked, and nobody has a right to be served, and it's not the government's, or anyone else's, place to change that.

That wouldn't apply to race or gender. But it absolutely applies to behavior and lifestyles.

Except it DOES apply to race and gender, nobody has a right to be liked or served. Enforcing that requires government force, and even if forcing business owners or people in general to like and serve specific people because the government so desires was somehow okay, it means that we're okay with the government infringing further on our rights which would pertain to those things, immediately coming to mind would be the freedom of speech.

The government doesn't need to arbitrate this, businesses would naturally serve anyone and everyone, and if they don't, they're giving up business, the consumers they don't want would gladly be taken by their competitors. Businesses who don't operate optimally are risking losing.

In terms of individuals, people who aren't hurting anyone should be allowed to dislike whoever they want. Attempting to arbitrate that, even if it were somehow moral, would only result on infringement of rights, and convoluted and needless laws.

 

[jillian]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

and what are there more of? and who has the power structure?

insane.

and so?

It’s beyond your Ken. Don’t worry your ignorant little heed about it.

 

[jillian]

The government shouldn't be telling us who we can't discriminate against, anyway. Nobody has a right to be liked, and nobody has a right to be served, and it's not the government's, or anyone else's, place to change that.

That wouldn't apply to race or gender. But it absolutely applies to behavior and lifestyles.

Except it DOES apply to race and gender, nobody has a right to be liked or served. Enforcing that requires government force, and even if forcing business owners or people in general to like and serve specific people because the government so desires was somehow okay, it means that we're okay with the government infringing further on our rights which would pertain to those things, immediately coming to mind would be the freedom of speech.

The government doesn't need to arbitrate this, businesses would naturally serve anyone and everyone, and if they don't, they're giving up business, the consumers they don't want would gladly be taken by their competitors. Businesses who don't operate optimally are risking losing.

In terms of individuals, people who aren't hurting anyone should be allowed to dislike whoever they want. Attempting to arbitrate that, even if it were somehow moral, would only result on infringement of rights, and convoluted and needless laws.

No one has a right to be served? Public accommodation laws say otherwise.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Id like to know where this discrimination exists. What you call discrimination, others call exercising their religious liberties. Christians don't hate gay people, they may not like the lifestyle, but nobody has ever proven that they hate the people themselves.

Why don't we stop trying to turn the situation into something it is not, and call it like it really is.

MY God! What alt-reality do you reside in? LGBT people do not have any legal protection in the areas of housing, employment or public accommodation in many states and at the Federal level.

The Trump shit hole administration is trying to get the rulings of three circuit courts - that ruled that LGBT is cover under the 1964 Civil rights act -overturned

There are many documented cases of discrimination in those areas. And, discrimination in the name of religion is still discrimination. It is discrimination perpetrated by holly roller bigots who think that God talks to then , and who presume to know what God wants. They may be in for a rude surprise on judgement day.

They use religion as a weapon to advance their hateful political agenda just like the segregationists did.

You might want to look at this:

Two meanings of religious freedom/liberty:1. Freedom of belief, speech, practice. 2. Freedom to restrict services, hate, denigrate, or oppress others.

1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:

This term relates to the personal freedom:
•Of religious belief,
•Of religious speech,
•Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
•Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
•To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.

The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship.

2

. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:

In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.

Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:

•The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
•The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
•The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.

One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6.

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm

So, you made a link, that apparently only leads to a small portion of what you quoted, but the rest must be a part of other websites, as the link you provided doesn't reflect all of what you listed. Please post the other links so we can get a clear context of what is being said.

Also, for the link provided, it is clear that, that organization has no credibility as far as religious beliefs are concerned. They are merely just another opinion group. Their panel is made up of christians, atheists, agnostics, wiccans, Zen bhuddists, and some others. In my opinion, not an organization that I would say is an authority on religion, or at least Christianity.

Having said that, again, what you call discrimination, others call religious freedom. None of which demonstrates "hate", which, in my opinion, must be present, or at least a malicious intent, to prove discrimination. One person, who holds a sincere belief that homosexuality is a sin, does not mean they hate the person, and in no way proves discrimination. Just as if one guy is a raging alcoholic, and his friends disapprove of his behavior, but are still friends with him non the less, or they may avoid him because of his behavior.

If anything, it is the "tolerance" crowd that is trying to stigmatize religion and are actually the oppressors, because they are trying to force everyone else to comply with their own beliefs.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

The government shouldn't be telling us who we can't discriminate against, anyway. Nobody has a right to be liked, and nobody has a right to be served, and it's not the government's, or anyone else's, place to change that.

That wouldn't apply to race or gender. But it absolutely applies to behavior and lifestyles.

Except it DOES apply to race and gender, nobody has a right to be liked or served. Enforcing that requires government force, and even if forcing business owners or people in general to like and serve specific people because the government so desires was somehow okay, it means that we're okay with the government infringing further on our rights which would pertain to those things, immediately coming to mind would be the freedom of speech.

The government doesn't need to arbitrate this, businesses would naturally serve anyone and everyone, and if they don't, they're giving up business, the consumers they don't want would gladly be taken by their competitors. Businesses who don't operate optimally are risking losing.

In terms of individuals, people who aren't hurting anyone should be allowed to dislike whoever they want. Attempting to arbitrate that, even if it were somehow moral, would only result on infringement of rights, and convoluted and needless laws.

No one has a right to be served? Public accommodation laws say otherwise.

Government arbitration doesn't make something a right, it simply means the government uses violence and coercion to force us to do that specific thing, or to prevent us from doing that specific thing. Rights are given to ourselves as we own ourselves, and are anything that we can do without infringing on the rights of other people through violence, force, or coercion. Our rights are not granted by the government, the Bill of Rights is only to show that the government recognizes those rights that we already had. Not that they acknowledge those anyway.

In other words, the government only restricts or acknowledges the rights we already have, it does not grant us rights. Of course, what you said does go along with the typical leftist view that the government is some blameless, omnipotent, benevolent entity... but only when a leftist is in charge.

 

[buttercup]

Exactly. We don't need thought police.

Apparently that is exactly what some woefully indoctrinated people around here want.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Exactly. We don't need thought police.

Apparently that is exactly what some woefully indoctrinated people around here want.

It's the darndest thing, isn't it?

 

[buttercup]

Exactly. We don't need thought police.

Apparently that is exactly what some woefully indoctrinated people around here want.

It's the darndest thing, isn't it?

Yep. Orwell was right.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Exactly. We don't need thought police.

Apparently that is exactly what some woefully indoctrinated people around here want.

It's the darndest thing, isn't it?

Yep. Orwell was right.

People who participate in coercion understand very little of its funtion. And even less about its detriment to themselves when there's nobody left to speak for them.

It's this world that turns killers into heroes and good men bad in the eyes of the lost.

But I digress. That's a whole different conversation.

 

[Seawytch]

What is your heterosexuality lifestyle purpose?

Let us assume for a moment that you are sterile as an old mule- just for arguments sake- tell me all about how your lifestyle is defined by who you choose to have sex with- let alone who you are sexually attracted to.

You don't know what a heterosexuality lifestyle purpose is? Why am I not surprised?

Anyway, the heterosexuality of my Wife and I created Life, and much of our lives have been spent providing for the offspring created by our interaction between each other. Can a Gay couple claim as much? Nope, that would be impossible. (I am ready for the pretzel twisting to begin). Then it is to mentor them through the raising of their children.

Am I sterile? I don't think so, but maybe, but no, I am not interested in you regardless.

Yes they can. My wife and I are a gay couple who, with a little help from a friend, created Life, and much of our lives has been spent providing for the offspring created by our interaction between each other.

Your Homosexuality did not create the child. It can't.

Only the coupling between one male and one woman can create a child. Even in the case of your child (AND THE BEST TO HIM OR HER. HOPE IT IS HAPPY AND HEALTHY), that is the case.

So? What does procreation have to do with child rearing? If my wife and I weren’t together, they would not have been born.

Perhaps.

No, not "perhaps", for sure. And no "heterosexual coupling" was required for our children. There were no heterosexuals involved at all...until they were born.

 

[Seawytch]

Too many boys, male children, of homo's dress up like homo's for me to believe they are not being psychologically harmed by allowing gay parents to adopt.
I have a 1/2 sister daughter to a Lesbian whom my father says thinks she's a lesbian too. Coincidence? I think children of gays, adopted of course, are more likely to be gay than children of heterosexuals.

I find it disturbing to see boys pretending to be girls and girls pretending to be boys before they have even reached puberty. We didn't used to have this problem.

That you find it disturbing is also irrelevant.

The question is whether it is detrimental to the child?

There is a sound argument that children of same-sex couples may tend to suffer from gender dysphoria, which is clearly a psychological disorder. So, that is a legitimate argument, but I am not certain that anyone has proved it. Your anecdotal example is not evidence on a whole.

Really? You have any data to support this allegedly "sound argument"? All the data from reputable sources say that children raised by gay parents are no different than those raised by straight parents.

 

[Sahba]

Strictly by the numerical stats from 2008 - 2016, refugee status, by all the metrics, ... were X-ians discriminated more or less than Muslims in application and acceptance to the US?

 

[FA_Q2]

I am surprised to see you start this thread dblack.

The results do not really surprise me though - it would be pretty obvious that this is a 2 way street. As it should be.

 

[Sahba]

Too many boys, male children, of homo's dress up like homo's for me to believe they are not being psychologically harmed by allowing gay parents to adopt.
I have a 1/2 sister daughter to a Lesbian whom my father says thinks she's a lesbian too. Coincidence? I think children of gays, adopted of course, are more likely to be gay than children of heterosexuals.

I find it disturbing to see boys pretending to be girls and girls pretending to be boys before they have even reached puberty. We didn't used to have this problem.

That you find it disturbing is also irrelevant.

The question is whether it is detrimental to the child?

There is a sound argument that children of same-sex couples may tend to suffer from gender dysphoria, which is clearly a psychological disorder. So, that is a legitimate argument, but I am not certain that anyone has proved it. Your anecdotal example is not evidence on a whole.

Really? You have any data to support this allegedly "sound argument"? All the data from reputable sources say that children raised by gay parents are no different than those raised by straight parents.

Just wondering... does your little rendering of BDSM (fem-dom) extend to these forums...? Does the lack of veracity in your assertions set you up for the verbal masochism that you (undoubtedly - knowingly) set yourself up for... Or are you just a sick pup who happens to be progressive... hmm, lol ... whatever dude just my musings...

 

[Seawytch]

Too many boys, male children, of homo's dress up like homo's for me to believe they are not being psychologically harmed by allowing gay parents to adopt.
I have a 1/2 sister daughter to a Lesbian whom my father says thinks she's a lesbian too. Coincidence? I think children of gays, adopted of course, are more likely to be gay than children of heterosexuals.

I find it disturbing to see boys pretending to be girls and girls pretending to be boys before they have even reached puberty. We didn't used to have this problem.

That you find it disturbing is also irrelevant.

The question is whether it is detrimental to the child?

There is a sound argument that children of same-sex couples may tend to suffer from gender dysphoria, which is clearly a psychological disorder. So, that is a legitimate argument, but I am not certain that anyone has proved it. Your anecdotal example is not evidence on a whole.

Really? You have any data to support this allegedly "sound argument"? All the data from reputable sources say that children raised by gay parents are no different than those raised by straight parents.

Just wondering... does your little rendering of BDSM (fem-dom) extend to these forums...? Does the lack of veracity in your assertions set you up for the verbal masochism that you (undoubtedly - knowingly) set yourself up for... Or are you just a sick pup who happens to be progressive... hmm, lol ... whatever dude just my musings...

Was a sponge left in your head after brain surgery?

 

[night_son]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

Neither? Both? Can't we share the playground?

With respect, the premise of your poll seems constructed to further divide an already widely divided citizenry with little care for an already absolutely molten hot topic. That said, I believe the individual should embody all his own values and beliefs--not unlike any star orbited by a given number of planets. Why not recognize the sovereignty of the individual to freely act according to his own beliefs in accordance of course with the legal--not emotional--rights of his fellow citizens, rather than hand off that responsibility to the state? Why drag more government into your life than the act of being born already has?

Someone objected on religious grounds to crafting someone else a wedding cake. Religion ought not have had to been invoked in the first place to justify the objection. Perhaps someday I request a cake decoration exquisite and grisly in its depiction of Custer's rived body. Perhaps the shop owner refuses simply because he abhors violence or the sight of blood or whatever. His personal choice, his sovereign embodiment of personal values ought to alone permit his refusing me service. In response, I shop around until I find someone who will decorate my cake with Custer's demise.

The thing is this: gay marriage is nationally legal. That battle is won. For some Americans, marriage remains a sacred institution between a man and a woman. For them legalized gay marriage is an affront to their values. So people who remain opposed to these unions are entitled to their belief. You know what? Their beliefs do not in any way trump the supreme court ruling or prevent gays from marrying.

So if someone's deeply held personal belief cannot legally stop a gay couple from marrying--cake or no cake, why should a gay person's sovereign belief system be treated any differently? You don't want to decorate some Christian's cake because some idolatry in frosting offends you? Then politely refuse. No law was broken. Feelings may be hurt but hey, that's part of being a grown up. I'd hardly call it discrimination.

 

[JoeB131]

There's a difference between being 'ok', or 'not ok', with something and making it illegal. The concept might not even occur to you, but it's possible to express our values in society without throwing people in jail.

Nobody's been thrown in jail for being a homophobe.

And, yes, i really do want laws that govern the conduct of business.

 

[JoeB131]

UNTRUE. Heterosexuality is normal biology.

Homosexuality is abnormal BEHAVIOR.

You do realize there is homosexuality in the animal kingdom. The animals just don't consider it a big deal.

Do Animals Exhibit Homosexuality?

On the other hand, Humans are the only creatures that believe in Intolerant Sky Fairies.

 

[JoeB131]

1. There is no such thing as "homophobic bigot"

2. The 1% were the contributors to Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Only because they are smart enough to realize what a dangerous loon Trump is.