Executing homosexuals

[xAvarice]

Wow, two huge lies in a tiny 14 word sentence. Well done. That may be a record.

Do tell, what is fanatical about my adhering to what has been believed about homosexuality for thousands of years? Because that's all I am doing here.

Way to answer your own question.

 

[xAvarice]

This is a violation of Religious Conscience which we are all supposed to have a Constitutional right to:

Court Holds That Wedding Photographer Cannot Refuse Service To Gay Couples
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/co...grapher-cannot-refuse-service-to-gay-couples/

Marking what is likely the end of a legal battle that has lasted for the past seven years, the New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that an Albuquerque wedding photographer can be held liable under the state’s anti-discrimination laws for refusing to provide service to a same-sex couple.........<SNIP>
​

Okay Silent Hunter, there is "one" example. I could give one hundred examples, but you asked for one and there it is. The courts are forcing this man to violate his religious beliefs.

Like Granite said, you people need to climb out of your ignorance and pay attention to the news.

And if they're a private company, they can! I'm with you, if they try to force companies to not discriminate unless it's so widespread that their victims can't shop anywhere, I'm with you!

But your credibility is 0.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Wow, two huge lies in a tiny 14 word sentence. Well done. That may be a record.

Do tell, what is fanatical about my adhering to what has been believed about homosexuality for thousands of years? Because that's all I am doing here.

Way to answer your own question.

Its more like, way for you to NOT answer MY question.

I ask again: What is fanatical about my adhering to what has been believed about homosexuality for thousands of years?

 

[Silent Hunter]

This is a violation of Religious Conscience which we are all supposed to have a Constitutional right to:

Court Holds That Wedding Photographer Cannot Refuse Service To Gay Couples
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/co...grapher-cannot-refuse-service-to-gay-couples/

Marking what is likely the end of a legal battle that has lasted for the past seven years, the New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that an Albuquerque wedding photographer can be held liable under the state’s anti-discrimination laws for refusing to provide service to a same-sex couple.........<SNIP>
​

Okay Silent Hunter, there is "one" example. I could give one hundred examples, but you asked for one and there it is. The courts are forcing this man to violate his religious beliefs.

Like Granite said, you people need to climb out of your ignorance and pay attention to the news.

Your religious views become meaningless the minute you decide to engage the public in business.

No one is asking the photographer/cake maker to condone same sex marriage. They are required to perform a service without regard to age, sex, religion, and sexual orientation.

How would you feel if the photographer/cake maker is/was a fundamentalist christian and they refused service to a you because you are catholic?

 

[Balerion the Black]

Don't you watch the news man? There are multiple stories of peoples' religious consciences being persecuted; bakers who won't bake a cake for a gay "wedding" because it violates their personal religious views being fined by courts, photagraphers being sued for not taking pictures at a gay "wedding" because it violates their personal religious views, and tons more similar stories.

Should a business be allowed to refuse to serve an interracial couple because it goes against their religious views? Should a business be allowed to refuse to serve black customers because doing so would go against some religious view they might have? Should they be allowed to refuse to serve atheists, Pagans, Hindus or some other religious group because it goes against their beliefs in some way? That said one should only be able to sue for discrimination in these cases if actual harm was done. If a photographer declines to photograph for a gay wedding but instead refers the couple to another photographer who is more than happy to work at their wedding, then no real harm was done and they shouldn't have any cause to sue.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

No one is asking the photographer/cake maker to condone same sex marriage. They are required to perform a service without regard to age, sex, religion, and sexual orientation..........

Not if that service promotes what they are against. If the homosexual comes in to buy a hamburger or a pair of shoes or to get a haircut, that's one thing; the business owner who is against gay marriage is not promoting gay marriage by doing any of those things.

But to ask the business owner to perform a service which in effect condones and legitimizes gay marriage, that is a violation of his religious conscience. Surely you can see the difference.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Not if that service promotes what they are against.

This is a case of that's just too bad CC. By providing a public service they tacitly agree to provide service to any and everyone.

If the homosexual comes in to buy a hamburger or a pair of shoes or to get a haircut, that's one thing; the business owner who is against gay marriage is not promoting gay marriage by doing any of those things.

Neither is the "business owner" promoting anything by taking pictures or making a cake. They are providing a service and are required to provide that service . . . period.

But to ask the business owner to perform a service which in effect condones and legitimizes gay marriage, that is a violation of his religious conscience. Surely you can see the difference.

Back at you . . . since I see you conveniently "forgot" to answer the question posed . . .

How would you feel if the photographer/cake maker is/was a fundamentalist christian and they refused service to a you because you are catholic thus violating their "religious conscious"?

 

[Balerion the Black]

Not if that service promotes what they are against. If the homosexual comes in to buy a hamburger or a pair of shoes or to get a haircut, that's one thing; the business owner who is against gay marriage is not promoting gay marriage by doing any of those things.

But to ask the business owner to perform a service which in effect condones and legitimizes gay marriage, that is a violation of his religious conscience. Surely you can see the difference.

And what if said business owner had some crazy religious beliefs that certain types of people shouldn't be allowed to eat a hamburger or wear shoes, and that by providing such items to such people it was going against his religion? Freedom of religion does not give one the right to infringe upon the rights of others.

 

[Doormat]

Once again, adultery cannot be committed unless one of the people is a married (or bethrothed) woman.

I agree, and I've been implicitly arguing that. Why else would a man be in a woman's bed unless he was her husband?

And with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed; it is an abomination."

You have made it plain that you don't understand the conditions for adultery is in the Bible ...

Your comment doesn't reflect what I've been arguing.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

......How would you feel if the photographer/cake maker is/was a fundamentalist christian and they refused service to a you because you are catholic thus violating their "religious conscious"?

Feelings. Great. Now we are basing rights on feelings.

How I would feel is irrelevant. If it violated his conscience then I would respect his religious liberties. You see, I am not one of these crybaby sissys like liberals are. My brother was killed by a gun when I was a little kid, but I don't use that as an excuse to go on an anti-gun crusade and infringe upon peoples right. The Gay agenda is totally infringing on peoples' rights.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Feelings. Great. Now we are basing rights on feelings.

LOL, no, not at all.

How I would feel is irrelevant.

How the photographer and the cake maker "feel" about homosexuality is also irrelevant.

If it violated his conscience then I would respect his religious liberties.

Certainly you can but you are not bound by the same contract as the photographer and cake maker.

You see, I am not one of these crybaby sissys like liberals are.

So, you're totally without feelings then?

My brother was killed by a gun when I was a little kid, but I don't use that as an excuse to go on an anti-gun crusade and infringe upon peoples right.

If you were a photographer or a cake maker in the public sector you have an obligation to provide a service to any and everyone otherwise you are infringing upon people's rights.

The Gay agenda is totally infringing on peoples' rights.

No it doesn't . . . all these people are seeking is to be treated the same as everyone else.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

For the record, while I believe religious liberties are extremely important and are under attack these days, I usually do not bring religion into the gay marriage argument. I usually argue psychology and law.

 

[xAvarice]

I usually do not bring religion into the gay marriage argument. I usually argue psychology and law.

:rotfl: You're a riot.

 

[Silent Hunter]

For the record, while I believe religious liberties are extremely important and are under attack these days, I usually do not bring religion into the gay marriage argument.

. . . and with good reason . . . it is totally irrelevant.

I usually argue psychology and law.

You'd do better to stick with psychology instead of law. But if you argue psychology the way you argue law perhaps you should refrain from . . . both.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

For the record, while I believe religious liberties are extremely important and are under attack these days, I usually do not bring religion into the gay marriage argument. I usually argue psychology and law.

:rotfl: You're a riot.

LEGAL: The precedent of standing law is not to be taken lightly. The law in a America, and even in civilization as a whole, has been that same-sex marriage is not valid. To make it legal now is to overturn centuries of law.

Not too long ago Obama said it would violate jurisprudence to overturn Roe v Wade since it has now been law for close to 50 years. Really? A whole 50 years? That marriage has been between a man and a women has been law since the country began, and the law of civilization in general for thousands of years. How does jurisprudence fit into that!


MEDICAL: Same-sex attraction is a mental disorder. I posted the following a while back in another thread:

Same sex attraction is a disorder according to the American Psychological Association (APA) for most of its history, until recently.

For some folks though, this disorder is now the "non-disorder formerly known as disorder." It was a disorder in the DSM I and II published by the APA. But in the last publication, DSM IV, it was removed as a disorder. Why?

Protests by gay rights activists against the APA began in 1970 when the organization held its convention in San Francisco. The activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, gay rights activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you." To put is bluntly, the American Psychological Association buckled and caved to protesters, and therefore have no legitimacy now.

So the APA can be, and is, wrong. The current APA thinks that they were "wrong back then," and "right now." But certainly, the opposite can be true, that is was right back then and wrong now. I think that they were right before and wrong now because they now fear liberal retaliation and political correctness that did not exist before.

Let me add one other thing to that post: The APA is actually a lobbying group, and less than half the psychiatrists in America belong to it. They lobby on Capitol Hill and therefore engage in political correctness to garner support. Their removal of homosexuality from the list of disorders was purely a political move, and had no basis in science.

. . .You'd do better to stick with psychology instead of law. But if you argue psychology the way you argue law perhaps you should refrain from . . . both.

Its better to do the right thing badly than to do the wrong thing well.

 

[xAvarice]

Same sex attraction is a disorder according to the American Psychological Association (APA) for most of its history, until recently.

:rotfl:

 

[Silent Hunter]

My brother was killed by a gun when I was a little kid, but I don't use that as an excuse to go on an anti-gun crusade and infringe upon peoples right.

For someone who wouldn't go on an "anti-gun crusade and infringe upon people's rights" you show little compunction to go on an anti-gay crusade and infringe upon people's rights.

Sorry about your brother btw.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

For someone who wouldn't go on an "anti-gun crusade and infringe upon people's rights" you show little compunction to go on an anti-gay crusade and infringe upon people's rights............

Well, thats just a bald faced lie. Everyone has the same rights and nobody's rights should be supressed. I would never support supressing anyone's rights.

But same-sex marriage has never been a right. In fact, its a non-sequitur. I am okay with same-sex unions with all the rights and privaleges as a couple, but just don't call it "marriage" because it isn't. Thats like calling a pizza a hamburger. "I have the right to call my pizza a hamburger!". Sure you do, but its still a pizza and a pizza can never be a hamburger no matter if the court says so or not. Likewise you can call a gay marriage a marriage but it still is not marriage.

 

[zoo22]

LEGAL: The precedent of standing law is not to be taken lightly. The law in a America, and even in civilization as a whole, has been that same-sex marriage is not valid. To make it legal now is to overturn centuries of law.

Not too long ago Obama said it would violate jurisprudence to overturn Roe v Wade since it has now been law for close to 50 years. Really? A whole 50 years? That marriage has been between a man and a women has been law since the country began, and the law of civilization in general for thousands of years. How does jurisprudence fit into that!


MEDICAL: Same-sex attraction is a mental disorder. I posted the following a while back in another thread:

Same sex attraction is a disorder according to the American Psychological Association (APA) for most of its history, until recently.

For some folks though, this disorder is now the "non-disorder formerly known as disorder." It was a disorder in the DSM I and II published by the APA. But in the last publication, DSM IV, it was removed as a disorder. Why?

Protests by gay rights activists against the APA began in 1970 when the organization held its convention in San Francisco. The activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, gay rights activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you." To put is bluntly, the American Psychological Association buckled and caved to protesters, and therefore have no legitimacy now.

So the APA can be, and is, wrong. The current APA thinks that they were "wrong back then," and "right now." But certainly, the opposite can be true, that is was right back then and wrong now. I think that they were right before and wrong now because they now fear liberal retaliation and political correctness that did not exist before.

Let me add one other thing to that post: The APA is actually a lobbying group, and less than half the psychiatrists in America belong to it. They lobby on Capitol Hill and therefore engage in political correctness to garner support. Their removal of homosexuality from the list of disorders was purely a political move, and had no basis in science.



Its better to do the right thing badly than to do the wrong thing well.

Anyway. What's the plan for executing homosexuals?

 

[Granite]

Anyway. What's the plan for executing homosexuals?

Either they haven't thought it through yet, or they don't have the stomach to imagine it, or they're too squeamish to spell it out, or they realize how asinine this whole fantasy of theirs really is.