Should AZ Force Gay People To Promote Christian Ideals Against Homosexuality?

[Silhouette]

Is it fair that someone cannot refuse to do business with someone because he is a Jew- but can refuse to do business with someone because he is fat?

The question of this thread is: "Is it fair to refuse to do business with someone whose belief system doesn't square with yours." ie: is it fair for a gay graphic designer to refuse to print a billboard for a Christian customer that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"?

And your answer is?

 

[Syriusly]

Is it fair that someone cannot refuse to do business with someone because he is a Jew- but can refuse to do business with someone because he is fat?

The question of this thread is: "Is it fair to refuse to do business with someone whose belief system doesn't square with yours." ie: is it fair for a gay graphic designer to refuse to print a billboard for a Christian customer that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"?

And your answer is?

It isn't fair to deny someone equal rights- which is what you want to deny gay couples- and continue to try to deny gay couples.

What isn't fair is that in all 50 states that a business cannot refuse to do business with a customer because the customer whose belief system happens to be Christian- while in the majority of the states- a business can refuse to do business with a customer because the customer happens to be gay.

 

[Syriusly]

Syriusly is spamming again..

Pot meet Kettle- her name is Silhouette.

 

[Silhouette]

Is it fair that someone cannot refuse to do business with someone because he is a Jew- but can refuse to do business with someone because he is fat?

The question of this thread is: "Is it fair to refuse to do business with someone whose belief system doesn't square with yours." ie: is it fair for a gay graphic designer to refuse to print a billboard for a Christian customer that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"?

And your answer is?

Syriusly, please answer the question DIRECTLY with a "yes" or "no". You can provide an explanation after your answer. "SHOULD A GAY GRAPHIC DESIGNER BE FORCED BY PA LAWS TO PRINT A BILLBOARD FOR A CHRISTIAN CUSTOMER THAT READS: "HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN UNTO GOD"?

YES OR NO?

 

[Silhouette]

Answer the question from a legal standpoint. In the interest of fairness/equality. Yes or no?

 

[danielpalos]

I offer the legal precedent here: Court: Phoenix wedding invitation designers must serve LGBT customers

Given: Gay is behavioral. Google "Anne Heche" for details.. Or for more extensive arguments (with over 300 peer-reviewed corroborating studies referenced at the end) this: "Conditioning and Sexual BEHAVIOR, a Review"
James G. Pfaus,Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montreal, Quebec, H3G 1M8 Canada
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.322.9763&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Now, should the State of Arizona which so recently announced Christians must promote the behaviors of homosexuals, also force homosexuals to promote the behaviors of Christians? The question is one of fairness. Is it fair to force a Christian to abandon their 1st Amendment rights, while in the same state allowing gays to pick and choose when to promote values in direct opposition to their own?

Should for instance, a gay graphic designer be forced against his will and beliefs to print a billboard for a busy highway that reads: "Homosexuality is a sin unto God!" for Christian customers. ? If he provides a service to the general public? Yes or no. Vote in the poll.

Because, Christians could not obey, Ten simple Commandments; see how that works.

 

[Silhouette]

Answer the question in post 364

 

[danielpalos]

Is it fair that someone cannot refuse to do business with someone because he is a Jew- but can refuse to do business with someone because he is fat?

The question of this thread is: "Is it fair to refuse to do business with someone whose belief system doesn't square with yours." ie: is it fair for a gay graphic designer to refuse to print a billboard for a Christian customer that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"?

And your answer is?

Syriusly, please answer the question DIRECTLY with a "yes" or "no". You can provide an explanation after your answer. "SHOULD A GAY GRAPHIC DESIGNER BE FORCED BY PA LAWS TO PRINT A BILLBOARD FOR A CHRISTIAN CUSTOMER THAT READS: "HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN UNTO GOD"?

YES OR NO?

The Answer is, not on a for-the-profit-of-lucre-over-morals.

Not for profit is the business model for Persons of morals.

 

[Silhouette]

So you're assisting Syriusly in not answering the question by not answering the question also and introducing gibberish as a strawman. Time to report you again.

 

[mdk]

Should anyone be forced to do business with one another? The answer is no.

 

[Silhouette]

Should anyone be forced to do business with one another? The answer is no.

So you are against the law in AZ that forces the print shop to make "gay wedding" invitations against their beliefs? Why haven't you spoken out more vocally about that?

 

[mdk]

Should anyone be forced to do business with one another? The answer is no.

So you are against the law in AZ that forces the print shop to make "gay wedding" invitations against their beliefs? Why haven't you spoken out more vocally about that?

I've been against public accommodation laws for many years now. We've had this discussion on numerous occasions in the past. Hell, I said as much on the first page of this thread. Do you oppose PA laws? Or only when they cover fags?

 

[Silhouette]

Should anyone be forced to do business with one another? The answer is no.

So you are against the law in AZ that forces the print shop to make "gay wedding" invitations against their beliefs? Why haven't you spoken out more vocally about that?

I've been against public accommodation laws for many years now. We've had this discussion on numerous occasions in the past. Hell, I said as much on the first page of this thread. Do you oppose PA laws? Or only when they cover fags?

Not sure exactly. I think they apply when they violate ACTUAL, REAL constitutional protections such as race, religion or country of origin, or gender (not what one does with one's private parts, but the actual private parts & DNA denoting "male" or "female"). I don't think it should be legal to say "I'm not serving you because you are black, or a woman, or from Lithuania originally or you're a Christian". If you're open to the public, you serve protected people. But deviant sex behaviors-as-identities are NOT protected Constitutionally. I don't give a rat's ass how many activist judges say they are, there is NO LANGUAGE that even vaguely implies protection for such behaviors calling themselves "an identity". Otherwise we'd have protections for bulimic-Americans and cleoptomaniac-Americans and drug-addict-Americans....etc. etc. in the interest of fairness.

If a compulsive addictive behavior gets to call itself "an identity" and get special protections from the Constitution (without that being actually legally done: ie legislated), then ALL compulsive addictive behaviors can have that umbrella without having to apply. We cannot express a discriminatory preference for one set of majority-rejected deviant behaviors to the disadvantage of any other majority-rejected deviant behaviors. Equality. And you know I can cite precedent on equality.

If people doing deviant sex want specific protection for themselves as a waffling, vauge, amorphic "identity" (a new class) they need to petition their representatives to LEGISLATE new protection under the Constitution for that brand spanking new class. Otherwise the judges are doing nothing but a power grab from the Legislature which is a violation of the separation of powers.

The founding fathers went to great pains to be specific in written law precisely to keep this type of bullshit from happening. They meant what they said when they wanted separation of powers. Judicial activism stealing power from the legislature is nothing but sedition. The fact that it's being done to forward a deviant sex cult's agenda on decent people who object to those values is a chunk of rock salt in that wound. That this agenda (for the first time in human history) legally separates children from either a father or mother for life as a new (illegal) institution is monstrosity beyond the pale.

 

[bodecea]

Should anyone be forced to do business with one another? The answer is no.

So you are against the law in AZ that forces the print shop to make "gay wedding" invitations against their beliefs? Why haven't you spoken out more vocally about that?

I've been against public accommodation laws for many years now. We've had this discussion on numerous occasions in the past. Hell, I said as much on the first page of this thread. Do you oppose PA laws? Or only when they cover fags?

Not sure exactly. I think they apply when they violate ACTUAL, REAL constitutional protections such as race, religion or country of origin, or gender (not what one does with one's private parts, but the actual private parts & DNA denoting "male" or "female"). I don't think it should be legal to say "I'm not serving you because you are black, or a woman, or from Lithuania originally or you're a Christian". If you're open to the public, you serve protected people. But deviant sex behaviors-as-identities are NOT protected Constitutionally. I don't give a rat's ass how many activist judges say they are, there is NO LANGUAGE that even vaguely implies protection for such behaviors calling themselves "an identity". Otherwise we'd have protections for bulimic-Americans and cleoptomaniac-Americans and drug-addict-Americans....etc. etc. in the interest of fairness.

If a compulsive addictive behavior gets to call itself "an identity" and get special protections from the Constitution (without that being actually legally done: ie legislated), then ALL compulsive addictive behaviors can have that umbrella without having to apply. We cannot express a discriminatory preference for one set of majority-rejected deviant behaviors to the disadvantage of any other majority-rejected deviant behaviors. Equality. And you know I can cite precedent on equality.

If people doing deviant sex want specific protection for themselves as a waffling, vauge, amorphic "identity" (a new class) they need to petition their representatives to LEGISLATE new protection under the Constitution for that brand spanking new class. Otherwise the judges are doing nothing but a power grab from the Legislature which is a violation of the separation of powers.

So, you want special privileges based on your religion.

 

[danielpalos]

So you're assisting Syriusly in not answering the question by not answering the question also and introducing gibberish as a strawman. Time to report you again.

The Answer is, not on a for-the-profit-of-lucre-over-morals.

Not for profit is the business model for Persons of morals.

 

[mdk]

Should anyone be forced to do business with one another? The answer is no.

So you are against the law in AZ that forces the print shop to make "gay wedding" invitations against their beliefs? Why haven't you spoken out more vocally about that?

I've been against public accommodation laws for many years now. We've had this discussion on numerous occasions in the past. Hell, I said as much on the first page of this thread. Do you oppose PA laws? Or only when they cover fags?

Not sure exactly. I think they apply when they violate ACTUAL, REAL constitutional protections such as race, religion or country of origin, or gender (not what one does with one's private parts, but the actual private parts & DNA denoting "male" or "female"). I don't think it should be legal to say "I'm not serving you because you are black, or a woman, or from Lithuania originally or you're a Christian". If you're open to the public, you serve protected people. But deviant sex behaviors-as-identities are NOT protected Constitutionally. I don't give a rat's ass how many activist judges say they are, there is NO LANGUAGE that even vaguely implies protection for such behaviors calling themselves "an identity". Otherwise we'd have protections for bulimic-Americans and cleoptomaniac-Americans and drug-addict-Americans....etc. etc. in the interest of fairness.

If a compulsive addictive behavior gets to call itself "an identity" and get special protections from the Constitution (without that being actually legally done: ie legislated), then ALL compulsive addictive behaviors can have that umbrella without having to apply. We cannot express a discriminatory preference for one set of majority-rejected deviant behaviors to the disadvantage of any other majority-rejected deviant behaviors. Equality. And you know I can cite precedent on equality.

If people doing deviant sex want specific protection for themselves as a waffling, vauge, amorphic "identity" (a new class) they need to petition their representatives to LEGISLATE new protection under the Constitution for that brand spanking new class. Otherwise the judges are doing nothing but a power grab from the Legislature which is a violation of the separation of powers.

A simple: "Yes, I support public accommodation laws, but not for gays." would have been sufficient. You want to have it both ways and that is another glaring example of your hypocrisy.

 

[Silhouette]

You asked a question that wasn't simple. So I answered it thoroughly. I'm sure you didn't want/expect such a comprehensive argument in reply...

So, you want special privileges based on your religion.

**** you. Re read my post.

 

[danielpalos]

You asked a question that wasn't simple. So I answered it thoroughly. I'm sure you didn't want/expect such a comprehensive argument in reply...

So, you want special privileges based on your religion.

**** you. Re read my post.

dear, you really just need a full body massage with happy ending and g-spot focus work.

then, you really will be, a honey bunches of O's.

Why should Persons of morals, advance their morals on a for-profit basis, if they cannot purchase a "stairway to Heaven"?

 

[mdk]

You asked a question that wasn't simple. So I answered it thoroughly. I'm sure you didn't want/expect such a comprehensive argument in reply...

So, you want special privileges based on your religion.

**** you. Re read my post.

You support the government forcing people to do business with people against their wishes, unless they are gay. "Bake the ******* cake already, unless you're gay!" Hypocritical ****!

 

[Silhouette]

I answered your question.