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.
Anyone who has a business has a sign that says.... "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". How come photographers cannot have the same privilege? I don't get that.
20yrsinBranson
Those signs are not legal if it's a place of public accommodation. Restaurants cannot, by law, refuse service to anyone they want.
If you feel any attraction to the same-sex and the opposite-sex, you are by scientific definition bisexual. You're welcome to identify yourself as heterosexual, since you are in a heterosexual relationship, but your innate orientation is bisexual if you're also attracted to women.
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. When I was attracted to a particular woman and relationship concept, I also happened to be going through what can best be described as a very wild and confused (and dazed and confused) time in my life. I can't even relate to the person I was then, in fact. I made a lot of bad decisions in that time - but deciding not to get involved in a lesbian relationship was one of the few GOOD decisions I made during those years.
I got a lot of counseling and worked through a lot of issues I had and I'm no longer the hurting, tortured soul I was during that dark time in my life. And...I'm definitely heterosexual. However, that experience did teach me a lot about myself and human nature. For one, it taught me that when I am confused, hurt, betrayed, alienated, etc and in that whole mess I begin compromising my values...bad shyit happens to me and in my life. When I'm in a better place - I make better decisions and choices which have more healthy ramifications in my life.
Quote:
You're underestimating the biological and psychological complexity of this issue.
I refuse to go sub in high crime schools.
I don't say why though when they call me but I refuse.
And most other subs do as well for the same reason.
Well that's different.
If you say you don't want to be a substitute teacher in a school with high crime, you could make the argument that you don't feel safe in that situation, you're afraid you might be victimized by crime while subbing there. At that point, its a personal safety issue.
I don't think there's any threat to personal safety for a photographer to photograph a gay wedding, so if they refuse to provide their services for that reason there's no making that argument.
Your constant disgusting attack on gays and calling them "mutants" is uncalled for. You can not hire an openly gay person all you want. And if you're in a state where gays are protected, you can be rightfully sued.
So not hiring a gay caterer or a gay painter or a gay DJ for a party should open me up to a lawsuit? Maybe in your land of unicorns and glitter, but not in the real world. I'm willing to live with a lower level of fabulous at my soirees, all in the name of preserving my little corner of morality and sanity in the world, who's to say otherwise?
From a physiological and anatomical standpoint, human beings' butts did not evolve to be a two-way chute; It exists solely for expelling excrement. Indeed, from an evolutionary perspective, homosexual behavior is an abomination; It does not propagate the species. It is indeed unnatural.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunar Delta
This is not "homosexual behavior". In fact, heterosexual couples actually engage in this behavior more often than homosexual couples. Also, just what does the evolutionary purpose of a specific body part have to do with how two consenting adults use those parts? I'll help you. NOTHING. It is none of your business. As for being natural, of course it is. It arose naturally and continues to do so through natural processes. Whether or not it directly propagates the species is irrelevant. If it was so harmful that it was negatively affecting population numbers it would have been selected out of the population eons ago. Seriously, do you even have any idea how evolution and natural selection actually work, or what the words even mean or entail?
For argument that such behavior is natural is a fallacy. Indeed, homosexuality is dead-end from an evolutionary standpoint. It is an abomonation; a freak of nature with no evolutionary purpose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattOTAlex
As to the 'seen in nature' fallacy:
Incest has also been seen in nature (animals). Incest among humans is regarded as abhorrent. Thus an argument that deems a behavior okay among humans, just because it's "natural," is fallacious and not credible.
Cannibalism has also been seen in nature (animals). Cannibalism among humans is regarded as abhorrent. Thus an argument that deems a behavior okay among humans, just because it's "natural," is fallacious and not credible.
Infanticide has also been seen in nature (animals). Infanticide among humans is regarded as abhorrent. Thus an argument that deems a behavior okay among humans, just because it's "natural," is fallacious and not credible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunar Delta
False equivalence is also a logical fallacy, for the record. I'll leave it up to you to figure out how homosexuality is not equivalent to incest, cannibalism, or infanticide. (Or pedophilia, or bestiality, or all of the other things you people seem to enjoy spending your time thinking about.)
As what was originally asserted by another poster, False equivalence is asserting that because homosexual acts are observed in 'nature,' homosexuality is thus natural for humans. That is a False Equivalence Fallacy in of itself. The analogy proffered stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattOTAlex
As to the morality of the behavior, it has been immoral and an abhorrent practice from day one in the United States. And just because a certain deviant segment of society decides that it's okay doesn't make it any less immoral or abhorrent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunar Delta
I'm not sure what rock you've been hiding under, but a majority of Americans are now supportive of homosexuals and same-sex marriage, and the gap is growing faster and faster all the time. And even if most people believe it is immoral, that is meaningless. You don't make law and policy based off of religious teachings, period. Also, if you could kindly explain to me exactly what makes it immoral and abhorrent (without reference to any specific religious belief, naturalistic fallacies, or false equivalence fallacies) I would appreciate that.
28 states explicitly via state constitution ban same-sex marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattOTAlex
From the spiritual perspective, there isn't a monotheistic religion in the world that tacitly advocates such behavior. Some Christian churches may look away, or not directly acknowledge such behavior, but in all such religions the practice is taboo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunar Delta
Again, irrelevant. People's religious feelings have no bearing whatsoever on these kinds of civil issues.
Not irrelevant at all, as it forms the basis for Religious objections, and the Establishment Clause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunar Delta
Owning a business is a privilege, not a right. In order to own and operate a business one must follow the laws of doing business, both state and federal. In New Mexico it is illegal to refuse business to people based on their sexual orientation. If they don't like that, they shouldn't have agreed to follow the laws of business in that state.
I don't know what clown college law school you went to, but owning a business is a right. See SCOTUS Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 Cf. Hoopeston Canning Co. v. Cullen, 318 U.S. 313 , 316, 318, 319, 604, 605, 606, 145 A.L.R. 1113.
Most succinctly, ADAMSON V. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA , 332 U.S. 46 (1947): "the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the liberty of all persons under 'natural law' to engage in their chosen business or vocation."
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattOTAlex
Heh, OK. I'll be waiting for that.
Whatever toots your horn, bubba.
Last edited by MattOTAlex; 08-24-2013 at 03:26 PM..
Perhaps this has already been said here but I'm not going to read 16 pages of posts to find out.
In the matter of an independent photographer, baker, craftsman or anyone else being forced by law to serve another against their will, I'm pretty sure that involuntary servitude became outlawed by the same 13th Amendment that abolished slavery.
What? That makes no sense at all. How do you come to your out of wedlock claim?
Just one common sense example:
95% of African Americans are Democratic and voted for Obama.
73% of African Americans are born out of Wedlock.
Democrats favor gay marriage.
How can anyone respect marriage if they were born out of it? The sanctity of marriage is unknown to many Democrats and African Americans. So, they're like...Sure! Why not! Let the fickle gays get marriage rights.
Little do they realize the impact that will have on all impressionable children in our state funded schools. Once it is legal in a state then teachers (gay ones for example) can freely speak about gays and gay sex without fear of repercussions.
Google:
"Gay teacher Gay sex Massachusetts"
You will get real tangible proof of homosexuals tainting impressionable youth due to gay right laws in school classrooms that you pay for.
95% of African Americans are Democratic and voted for Obama.
73% of African Americans are born out of Wedlock.
Democrats favor gay marriage.
How can anyone respect marriage if they were born out of it? The sanctity of marriage is unknown to many Democrats and African Americans. So, they're like...Sure! Why not! Let the fickle gays get marriage rights.
Little do they realize the impact that will have on all impressionable children in our state funded schools. Once it is legal in a state then teachers (gay ones for example) can freely speak about gays and gay sex without fear of repercussions.
Google:
"Gay teacher Gay sex" Massachusetts"
You will get real tangible proof of homosexuals tainting impressionable youth due to gay right laws.
Well that would be the natural occurrence that gay sex be taught in Health just like hetero sex.
But we're not there yet.
Why would a gay couple hire a homophobic a**hole to work at their wedding? Hire someone else. Am I missing something?
Your not but they are. That much is obvious unless of course your a democrat member of the gay army who makes a huge issue out of everything they can.
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.
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.
