Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As I already stated, the law and protected classes are irrelevant in this philosophical debate
Then why did you ask me to comment on the legal issues involved?
Quote:
about whether people ought to have to participate in an event that offends, morally, religiously, or otherwise.
No one is being forced to participate in any such event in this case, though, so it doesn't seem on topic for this thread.
Quote:
There has to be a balance. People have religious Rights as well. So where's the balance?
Religious people get to worship any god they want, go to whatever tax-exempt church they want, talk about their religion all the time, and so on.
What religious people don't get is a blank check to ignore the law by appealing to their religious beliefs. Seems pretty straightforward.
Quote:
We have no idea if those bakers would have made them a birthday cake, even though they are gay. It wasn't the orientation of the customer, it was the event.
You're just guessing here. What we do know for a fact, though, is that the baker refused to serve them as soon as he found out the customer was gay. Legal issues like this are settled on the facts, not on what people such as you - people unfamiliar with either the case or the people involved - guess might or might not have happened in an unrelated hypothetical.
So because I also can make good use of all those services, I also, as a person, must belong to the public..... right? If when I file my tax returns and file for deductions an tax credits, that means I belong to the public? The public owns me?
Nice rant, but I never said anything about people being owned by the public so I have no idea why you wrote it as a reply to my post.
Please define a, "healthy and well rounded relationship". What do you mean by that specifically? You keep saying it over and over.
"Get outside more"?! I'm at my club right now. Is that "outside" enough?
My friends think I'm kinda strange to be posting to a "Religion & Spirituality" forum from my stripclub. LOL! I agree with them. But I like it...so I do it. It contributes to my being "well rounded" you see.
I cannot define it for you. That is the point.
However your descriptions of other peoples sexual fetishes, and your need to address what they do in a thread having nothing to do with them is interesting. What is your gain other than physical, and vicarious?
You say you are inside in a strip club. You believe it is an important piece of information for me to know. Why is that?
You can also be in your parents basement in your SpongeBob jammies, smoking a blunt.
I am am sitting on my couch, with my feet on the coffee table watching BBNet, speak about Iran. I just put on my glasses , and noticed I look like a Hobbit, and should shave my toes. I tell you this, because it is a very important piece of information.
Questions to those bringing up STD stats into the discussion
1) do you think SSM will result in increases in numbers of sexual partners among gay men
2) do you think making SSM legal will increase homosexual activity
3) do you think making SSM illegal will end or diminish homosexuality
If you answered yes to these questions what is it you would like the law to do then , outlaw homosexual acts?
The other question I guess has not been answered is since lesbians are the least likely to contact HIV is there any health reasons for the baker to not bake the cake?
So was said about the African American..if only they would accept the status quo and STOP rocking the boat, life for them would be so much easier if the just realized their place in society...
No...they would be in the first category of "born that way". Unless, of course you think their skin color is chosen? I mean...that would just be weird.
Given that the vast majority of married people are heterosexual, this sounds like an argument against straight marriage. Not sure what it is doing here on a thread about discriminatory business practices.
The poster I was responding to was suggesting that STD rates would go down among homosexuals if we just pretended 2 men were married....under the assumption that a ring on their finger would prevent them from being able to have extramarital sex.
The poster I was responding to was suggesting that STD rates would go down among homosexuals if we just pretended 2 men were married....under the assumption that a ring on their finger would prevent them from being able to have extramarital sex.
No...they would be in the first category of "born that way". Unless, of course you think their skin color is chosen? I mean...that would just be weird.
I was responding to the weird comment --
Of course, 1 of those groups were discriminated against based on skin color, the other group just wanted things their way.
in that many said the African Americans just want things their way(you see, I remember HISTORY and what it was like for Blacks in this country at one time, and even what it is like today)--That being FREEDOM, EQUALITY, JUSTICE and RESPECT--guess that is kind of wierd to think about huh?
LGBTQ people having rights just like you? Who'd a thunk it possible? Surely NOT the evangelical fundie, that's for sure..
All one has to do is look at Africa to see that Homosexuality has nothing to do with STD rates
Africa probably has the least percentage of homosexuals, and the HIGHEST (by far) rates of STD's including HIV/AIDS of anywhere on the planet
So your argument holds zero water
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.