Originally Posted by Guest

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. - See more at: First Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

It also does not state that there should be a falling all over the majority to provide for unearned benefits of special interest or minority groups.

Originally Posted by Guest

It also does not state that there should be a falling all over the majority to provide for unearned benefits of special interest or minority groups.

Not sure what you mean about UNEARNED BENEFITS of Special Interest groups or Minority groups.

Could you explain?

Originally Posted by Guest

They lie, and then won't talk about it because WE'RE being "uncivil".

This is what I said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Yes and all of them have struck down but the Supreme Court. Perhaps you missed this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

This is the definition of Sodomy....

Sodomy typically includes anal sex, oral sex and bestiality.

So the bottom line is if your wife and yourself ever engaged in oral sex you broke these laws as well!

This is what you said

I never claimed I did. Only YOU said you "tried your best to obey the state laws", is that close to what you said? You're a liar. You did what YOU wanted to do, the hell with the law.

This what I said:


Originally Posted by Guest View Post

My point has been made heterosexuals engage in sodomy.

This is what you said

But ONLY you claimed to "follow all the laws". You didn't. You're a liar. It's a disturbing trait among those who feel persecuted.

You wouldn't know this but my home state struck down sodomy laws in 1971....15 years in advance of when I would have been breaking them.

You called me a liar multiple times....that was uncivil. I only respond to you this time because of the post that identified you.

Originally Posted by Guest

Not sure what you mean about UNEARNED BENEFITS of Special Interest groups or Minority groups.

Could you explain?

Of course you jest!

Originally Posted by Guest

Not sure what you mean about UNEARNED BENEFITS of Special Interest groups or Minority groups.

Could you explain?

I realize that you are not replying to me, but I thought I would inject an answer that should be an automatic response....."affirmative action." That is an UNEARNED BENEFIT.

Originally Posted by Guest

Of course you jest!

Seriously I don't....what unearned benefits?

Originally Posted by Guest

I realize that you are not replying to me, but I thought I would inject an answer that should be an automatic response....."affirmative action." That is an UNEARNED BENEFIT.

I am not sure how affirmative action would apply to gays...

Originally Posted by Guest

I am not sure how affirmative action would apply to gays...

I believe the dolt means that gays are now guaranteed equal rights afforded to all groups - and he doesn't like equality for all.

He obviously thinks that equality for all applies only if you are white, straight, male, middle class or higher, Christian (not Jewish), and conservative.

Originally Posted by Guest

I believe the dolt means that gays are now guaranteed equal rights afforded to all groups - and he doesn't like equality for all.

He obviously thinks that equality for all applies only if you are white, straight, male, middle class or higher, Christian (not Jewish), and conservative.

OK I got it now...to obtuse for me.

Originally Posted by Guest

I think this thread has gotten off topic.....

So to return the Gov of North Carolina is trying amend the bill and the Gov of Louisiana is rescinding Bobby Jindal's Religious Freedom Law.

Gov. John Bel Edwards to Rescind Bobby Jindal's Horrific Anti-Gay 'Religious Freedom' Order - The New Civil Rights Movement

I really don't think supporters of these bill understand the concept of public accommodation. If you don't want to bake a cake for a gay couple open a private bakery.

This " group " LGBT are comprised of several subgroups and most often in day to day life they are not really supportive of one another just ask them .
That said these groups comprise a very small % of the US population but they have been taking all of the attention in the public square for some time now and no matter how many victories they score they are relentless at taking up the public square . It`s never enough and in the meantime our entire country is falling apart and we have become a weak nation internationally .
But hey lest get all worked up over a baker in Iowa who does not want to bake a cake for a couple of girls !

Originally Posted by Guest

This " group " LGBT are comprised of several subgroups and most often in day to day life they are not really supportive of one another just ask them .
That said these groups comprise a very small % of the US population but they have been taking all of the attention in the public square for some time now and no matter how many victories they score they are relentless at taking up the public square . It`s never enough and in the meantime our entire country is falling apart and we have become a weak nation internationally .
But hey lest get all worked up over a baker in Iowa who does not want to bake a cake for a couple of girls !

Wrong again.....

Oregon bakery owners pay more than $135G in damages over refusal to make cake for gay wedding | Fox News

The Iowa case was about a wedding venue and the couple were men...

Iowa Wedding Venue Which Rejected Gay Couple Files Lawsuit Against State's Civil Rights Commission

Both of these business were, at the time, open to the public. Therefore, under the ADA rules and Civil Rights law the owners had to provide public accommodation.

Posters here seem not to understand the law although it has been explained several times here.

Originally Posted by Guest

Both of these business were, at the time, open to the public. Therefore, under the ADA rules and Civil Rights law the owners had to provide public accommodation.

Posters here seem not to understand the law although it has been explained several times here.

We understand but don't agree with it. If I were in the jury, I'd fight for nullification, it's an unjust law to FORCE anyone to do business with anyone they don't want to do business with. You shouldn't become a public slave because you decided to sell your cakes for a living. Do ALL businesses have to register as "private clubs" to avoid these intrusive, unjust, "laws"?

You can't always get what you want.

Originally Posted by Guest

We understand but don't agree with it. If I were in the jury, I'd fight for nullification, it's an unjust law to FORCE anyone to do business with anyone they don't want to do business with. You shouldn't become a public slave because you decided to sell your cakes for a living. Do ALL businesses have to register as "private clubs" to avoid these intrusive, unjust, "laws"?

You can't always get what you want.

Originally Posted by Guest

I am not sure how affirmative action would apply to gays...

The response was generalized, not specific to the "gay" issue. It was in response to post #107 "Not sure what you mean about UNEARNED BENEFITS of Special Interest groups or Minority groups." If that makes me a "dolt" for entering the conversation, then you do have a gay issue problem.

Perceived inequities in equal rights by gays are fictitious and not related to civil rights. Gays have always enjoyed the same equal rights as normal folks. The only issue that has been distorted is over gay marriage. And marriage should never have been a gov issue, when marriage has ALWAYS been religious in nature. And I do not know of any religion that supports gay marriage in it's doctrine. I do not know all the religions, but most American supported religious faiths tolerate but do not condone or support gay marriage. Most Americans do NOT condone homosexual deviancy but tolerate it, unless forced to have it shoved into their faces, an example being that ridiculous gay pride parade comedy which makes homosexuals look like clowns and not to be taken seriously.

Gays DO receive special consideration, when in truth their practice is deviant in nature and morality. One example of special consideration is the "hate crime" laws. A person can be assaulted, but if he is either gay or black, it's considered to be a "hate crime." Assault is an assault and motive does not make it more of an assault or less of an assault. For normals it's just an assault, but a minority or gay it's considered a special case deeming a special dispensation.

The majority of America tolerates gay behavior as an unwelcome psychological flaw that is harmless if kept between two of like mind and kept private, like ALL sexuality should be. Religious faiths do NOT condone homosexuality and do not appreciate forced acceptance to legitimatize what they consider a sinful nature. But, most faiths also take the approach of "hate the sin, but love the sinner." Do not confuse tolerance with acceptance, because most states have voted against gay marriage in the past. Many have allowed civil unions though.

Libertarians believe that private business owners should be allowed the freedom to serve those of their choosing. Libertarians may not believe in discrimination but they also believe that it is an individual's right discriminate if they wish in their own privately owned business. Justifying it only in that it is privately owned and not a gov entity.

Personally, I believe that if I open a business to the public then if they ask for a product that I am selling, I should sell it to them. But, if they ask me to provide a service that is against my faith or belief, I should have the prerogative to decline. Example: If I sell cakes then I should sell to anyone entering my establishment. If I provide a catering service, then I should be able to decline service if it encompasses a perceived condoning of something adverse to my faith. If I am requested to provide a cake that indicates something that I deem despicable or deviant in nature, then I should be able to civilly decline. I see no problem with that. By catering to a gay wedding, then that could lead to the perception of condoning what Christians consider a sinful practice. Gays wish for acceptance, but they do not accept those of Christian faith. It appears that there is a one way track on acceptance. Forced compliance is not going to gain acceptance.

In my opinion, forcing acceptance on the moral majority is like pulling the tail of a sleeping tiger. It's best to leave it alone and move on.

Originally Posted by Guest

Gays wish for acceptance, but they do not accept those of Christian faith. It appears that there is a one way track on acceptance. Forced compliance is not going to gain acceptance.

In my opinion, forcing acceptance on the moral majority is like pulling the tail of a sleeping tiger. It's best to leave it alone and move on.

They've had the kids brainwashed, they just need to wait for us older folks to die off and they'll have free reign. There is no sleeping tiger.