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

[Silhouette]

There is no evidence to support the assertion that sexual orientation is an "adopted" behavior, and more evidence to the contrary. While the subset of Christians who are so against having to interact with LGBTs have chosen to adhere to certain dogma/beliefs, that being an actual choice on their part, it cannot be said that LGBTs claim any set of dogma/beliefs, they are just being who they are. The two cannot be compared.

Hmmm...have you read the over 300 peer-reviewed corroborating citations at the end of the paper linked in the OP. That review being named "Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review", done at the university in Montreal Canada?

 

[Silhouette]

"sexual fluidity" and "behavioral editcs" are for the courts. The Hobby Lobby argument will be laughed out of court.

Well it wasn't laughed out of the courts when they decided it. You've heard of legal precedent I presume? Yes, of course you have.. And as to sexual fluidity, have you read the over 300 peer-reviewed corroborated citations from the "Conditioning and Sexual Behavior" link in the OP? Scroll the PDF to its end and read the citation list. Pretty damned impressive to be "laughed out of court".. You know the question of behavior is coming up. Best be prepared when it does.

 

[sakinago]

False a priori premise, so OP fails.

Based on what? And no the question doesn’t fail, if a gay Baker was asked to make a cake for defense of marriage activist group, should they be forced to make that cake? Should a pro-choice baker be forced to make a cake depicting abortion is murder?

Of course it is fail. The law controls the answer to those questions, sak, no your feewings.

What a terribly weak position, and huge deflection. So if the law is the sole determinant of morality, then in your own words, we should be deporting any and all illegal Aliens as quickly as possible, because we should just defer to the law. That’s the law. It was at one point right to have slavery, as well as Jim Crow, and DOMA, just because the law says so

 

[Silhouette]

What a terribly weak position, and huge deflection. So if the law is the sole determinant of morality, then in your own words, we should be deporting any and all illegal Aliens as quickly as possible, because we should just defer to the law. That’s the law. It was at one point right to have slavery, as well as Jim Crow, and DOMA, just because the law says so

Well put sir And , no law may promote one set of behavioral edicts over another because that would be a State formally recognizing one religion over another. Yes, you noticed Jake's glaringly weak legal position and penchant for deflection when he knows he's losing an argument. In fact, I often use it as a litmus test to determine how well I'm doing landing my points. Directly proportional is the abuse and deflection to how threatened he feels.

 

[sakinago]

False a priori premise, so OP fails.

Based on what? And no the question doesn’t fail, if a gay Baker was asked to make a cake for defense of marriage activist group, should they be forced to make that cake? Should a pro-choice baker be forced to make a cake depicting abortion is murder?

Of course it is fail. The law controls the answer to those questions, sak, no your feewings.

Can Palestinians deny customized service/products customized specifically for a Zionist function?

 

[JakeStarkey]

False a priori premise, so OP fails.

Based on what? And no the question doesn’t fail, if a gay Baker was asked to make a cake for defense of marriage activist group, should they be forced to make that cake? Should a pro-choice baker be forced to make a cake depicting abortion is murder?

Of course it is fail. The law controls the answer to those questions, sak, no your feewings.

What a terribly weak position, and huge deflection. So if the law is the sole determinant of morality, then in your own words, we should be deporting any and all illegal Aliens as quickly as possible, because we should just defer to the law. That’s the law. It was at one point right to have slavery, as well as Jim Crow, and DOMA, just because the law says so

Not in the slightest. You want your feelings to dominate the law, which won't happen.

 

[Silhouette]

Can a male victim of child molestation be forced to bake a cake for a NAMBLA event?

Not in the slightest. You want your feelings to dominate the law, which won't happen.

Actually it's the exact opposite. You FEEL you want me to back off making the point about no State may make laws promoting one set of edicts over another. Meanwhile the Constitution says that can't happen at all. Should a male victim of child molestation be forced "legally" to bake a cake for a NAMBLA event that says "Man/boy love" on the icing? Yes or no?

 

[JakeStarkey]

False a priori premise, so OP fails.

Based on what? And no the question doesn’t fail, if a gay Baker was asked to make a cake for defense of marriage activist group, should they be forced to make that cake? Should a pro-choice baker be forced to make a cake depicting abortion is murder?

Of course it is fail. The law controls the answer to those questions, sak, no your feewings.

Can Palestinians deny customized service/products customized specifically for a Zionist function?

Depends on how the law is written, sak. Advice: don't rely on Sil's understanding of the issue.

 

[Silhouette]

Depends on how the law is written, sak. Advice: don't rely on Sil's understanding of the issue.

You forgot to add "...please!...please don't listen to Sil!!... *fingers crossed* ..." The man is making excellent points. And your willfully-vague reply "depends on how the law is written" is a dodge. Answer him directly and reference the law you're defending and its specific language when you do. Just like in court how you have to. No feelings, just the facts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, you have embarrassed yourself for yours on the Board with this topic.

Please continue.

 

[Silhouette]

Not in the slightest. You want your feelings to dominate the law, which won't happen.

Should a male victim of child molestation be forced "legally" to bake a cake for a NAMBLA event that says "Man/boy love" on the icing? Yes or no?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not in the slightest. You want your feelings to dominate the law, which won't happen.

Should a male victim of child molestation be forced "legally" to bake a cake for a NAMBLA event that says "Man/boy love" on the icing? Yes or no?

Consult the law, Sil, not your feelings.

 

[Silhouette]

Not in the slightest. You want your feelings to dominate the law, which won't happen.

Should a male victim of child molestation be forced "legally" to bake a cake for a NAMBLA event that says "Man/boy love" on the icing? Yes or no?

Consult the law, Sil, not your feelings.

Answer the question and reference the law. Stop dodging. You are here defending the AZ law so reference it and answer the questions about it or admit defeat in this debate.

 

[sakinago]

False a priori premise, so OP fails.

Based on what? And no the question doesn’t fail, if a gay Baker was asked to make a cake for defense of marriage activist group, should they be forced to make that cake? Should a pro-choice baker be forced to make a cake depicting abortion is murder?

If a gay baker who makes cakes for a living is asked by a religious group to make a cake.....yes. Because religion is listed in PA laws. Is that "Defense of Marriage" activist group a political group? Then they don't have to because political leaning isn't protected under PA laws anywhere. Get to know your PA laws in your state if you want to start a business and get a business license.

I’m not talking about what the current law is, I can name you probably 50 laws off the top of my head, I’m arguing about what the laws should be. Slavery was never right just because it was legal. That’s a stupid stance to take. What’s the point of electing people if laws are the be all end all? What’s the point of this discussion?

 

[sakinago]

False a priori premise, so OP fails.

Based on what? And no the question doesn’t fail, if a gay Baker was asked to make a cake for defense of marriage activist group, should they be forced to make that cake? Should a pro-choice baker be forced to make a cake depicting abortion is murder?

Of course it is fail. The law controls the answer to those questions, sak, no your feewings.

What a terribly weak position, and huge deflection. So if the law is the sole determinant of morality, then in your own words, we should be deporting any and all illegal Aliens as quickly as possible, because we should just defer to the law. That’s the law. It was at one point right to have slavery, as well as Jim Crow, and DOMA, just because the law says so

Not in the slightest. You want your feelings to dominate the law, which won't happen.

No that’s what you wish, and need to tell yourself, because you don’t have a consistent point. I don’t want anybody’s feelings to determine law, Which they clearly have and do it now. It wasn’t a constitutionally legal decision to install Doma, And either it was wrong to repeal Delmar on the fact that it should be states rights, or it was wrong to say that states have no say in the matter two years later. Clearly there’s definite feelings coming into play there if the Supreme Court is going against its own decision two years after the fact.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not in the slightest. You want your feelings to dominate the law, which won't happen.

Should a male victim of child molestation be forced "legally" to bake a cake for a NAMBLA event that says "Man/boy love" on the icing? Yes or no?

Consult the law, Sil, not your feelings.

Answer the question and reference the law. Stop dodging. You are here defending the AZ law so reference it and answer the questions about it or admit defeat in this debate.

I don't have to. You asked a question, and I told you to consult the law. That you may not like the law means nothing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

False a priori premise, so OP fails.

Based on what? And no the question doesn’t fail, if a gay Baker was asked to make a cake for defense of marriage activist group, should they be forced to make that cake? Should a pro-choice baker be forced to make a cake depicting abortion is murder?

Of course it is fail. The law controls the answer to those questions, sak, no your feewings.

What a terribly weak position, and huge deflection. So if the law is the sole determinant of morality, then in your own words, we should be deporting any and all illegal Aliens as quickly as possible, because we should just defer to the law. That’s the law. It was at one point right to have slavery, as well as Jim Crow, and DOMA, just because the law says so

Not in the slightest. You want your feelings to dominate the law, which won't happen.

No that’s what you wish, and need to tell yourself, because you don’t have a consistent point. I don’t want anybody’s feelings to determine law, Which they clearly have and do it now. It wasn’t a constitutionally legal decision to install Doma, And either it was wrong to repeal Delmar on the fact that it should be states rights, or it was wrong to say that states have no say in the matter two years later. Clearly there’s definite feelings coming into play there if the Supreme Court is going against its own decision two years after the fact.

You are not a Judge, sak, not in the least. DOMA is the law of the land, and you are going to have to live with it.

 

[Silhouette]

No that’s what you wish, and need to tell yourself, because you don’t have a consistent point. I don’t want anybody’s feelings to determine law, Which they clearly have and do it now. It wasn’t a constitutionally legal decision to install Doma, And either it was wrong to repeal Delmar on the fact that it should be states rights, or it was wrong to say that states have no say in the matter two years later. Clearly there’s definite feelings coming into play there if the Supreme Court is going against its own decision two years after the fact.

I brought up that little snag before. They repealed DOMA 2013 in Windsor based on it being state's rights and then said states have no say in the marriage definition as you say, just two years later 2015 in Obergefell. That is complete bullshit and in fact the fed telling states how their moral structure should be tailored. That is the fed defining a set of moral edicts for the governed; which is completely disallowed in the Constitution. This is about behaviors that people find either supported or objectionable. That decision rests with the many, not five drippingly-in-the-pocket-of-LGBT Justices in DC. The CA Constitution in fact still says that marriage is between a man and a woman only. That is because in order to repeal that, the legislators there need the permission of their constituents WHICH THEY STILL DO NOT HAVE.

Here's what it says, acknowledging the decision was made not legally according to CA state law, but instead judicially:

Article I, Sec. 7.5: Codes Display Text

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

(Sec. 7.5 added Nov. 4, 2008, by Prop. 8. Initiative measure. Note: Ruled unconstitutional per Perry v. Schwarzenegger (N.D.Cal. 2010) 704 F.Supp.2d 921.)

Prop 8 defines marriage in CA. Period, according to Windsor 2013. And if not, then Windsor is de facto overturned.

 

[Silhouette]

Which they did in Windsor..^^

 

[Silhouette]

1. No, the court did not repeat Winsdor on that basis. That's a lie.

2. Obergefell two years later cleared up the misconceptions of the Sils and Saks of the world.

SCOTUS has every right to tell their states to comport with constitutional law.

And they did, in Windsor. Read this OP for direct quotes about who defines state marriage laws: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Here's what the CA Constitution says to this very minute, acknowledging the decision was made not legally according to CA state law, but instead judicially:

Article I, Sec. 7.5: Codes Display Text

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

(Sec. 7.5 added Nov. 4, 2008, by Prop. 8. Initiative measure. Note: Ruled unconstitutional per Perry v. Schwarzenegger (N.D.Cal. 2010) 704 F.Supp.2d 921.)

Prop 8 defines marriage in CA. Period, according to Windsor 2013. And if not, then Windsor is de facto overturned.