The Gay Agenda Continues

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

David Mullins and Charlie Craig, for instance. The gay Colorado couple have filed a discrimination complaint against the owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop, who declined for religious reasons to make them a wedding cake. The Colorado attorney generalâ??s office has taken their side. So, regrettably, has the ACLU.

No agenda? Many of us saw this sort of ‘retaliatory-oppression’ coming back when homosexuals were petitioning to have the HIV travel ban lifted.

Of particular interest or puzzlement:
It will remain absurd to suggest gay people are trying to turn straight people gay. Changing other peopleâ??s sexual orientation has always been a conservative project, not a liberal one.

This, to me, seems like (more) irritating and subversive b.s. Conservatives will label the classes organized by churches as ‘Sexual orientation conversion therapy’ or ‘Deviant behavior atonement’. While homosexuals and liberals will petition to compel heterosexuals to take part in gay pride parades. But conservatives are the bad guys because it’s associated with religion and is overtly labelled and it is therefore easier to demonize.

IMO, the repeal of DOMA and the striking down of prop. 8 represents the tipping point between ‘requests for tolerance’ and ‘demands for approval’. It’s about enforcing an idea of equality akin to the ‘convert by the sword’ ideology of centuries before. The difference being, from the Civil War to the Great Leap Forward, this ideology is far more deadly than any religious zealotry.

2

[quote]lucasa wrote:

David Mullins and Charlie Craig, for instance. The gay Colorado couple have filed a discrimination complaint against the owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop, who declined for religious reasons to make them a wedding cake. The Colorado attorney general�¢??s office has taken their side. So, regrettably, has the ACLU.

No agenda? Many of us saw this sort of ‘retaliatory-oppression’ coming back when homosexuals were petitioning to have the HIV travel ban lifted.

Of particular interest or puzzlement:
It will remain absurd to suggest gay people are trying to turn straight people gay. Changing other people�¢??s sexual orientation has always been a conservative project, not a liberal one.

This, to me, seems like (more) irritating and subversive b.s. Conservatives will label the classes organized by churches as ‘Sexual orientation conversion therapy’ or ‘Deviant behavior atonement’. While homosexuals and liberals will petition to compel heterosexuals to take part in gay pride parades. But conservatives are the bad guys because it’s associated with religion and is overtly labelled and it is therefore easier to demonize.

IMO, the repeal of DOMA and the striking down of prop. 8 represents the tipping point between ‘requests for tolerance’ and ‘demands for approval’. It’s about enforcing an idea of equality akin to the ‘convert by the sword’ ideology of centuries before. The difference being, from the Civil War to the Great Leap Forward, this ideology is far more deadly than any religious zealotry.[/quote]

Sexual liberty is the penultimate liberty now. Everything else will be fitted around it, including religious liberty. That was always going to happen with gay marriage. Did nobody see the analogies to black and white marriages? Refusing to supply the cake to a gay marriage will be be like refusing to serve it at an interracial marriage. Refusing to hire gays for your religious institutions (things like schools) will be like refusing to hire blacks. If we’re lucky they might let us still practice our faith consistently as long it’s directly in the church. But for how long, 50 years?

Freedom of religion? Yeah, in your home. Or, directly under the roofs of our churches. But not our related institutions. Nor, especially, our businesses.

3

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Refusing to supply the cake to a gay marriage will be be like refusing to serve it at an interracial marriage. Refusing to hire gays for your religious institutions (things like schools) will be like refusing to hire blacks.

. . .

Freedom of religion? Yeah, in your home. Or, directly under the roofs of our churches. But not our related institutions. Nor, especially, our businesses.
[/quote]

For the most part I agree with this assessment. But I don’t think organized religions should be allowed to operate businesses on terms preferential to other businesses, including having a tax free exemptions or exemptions from discrimination laws because it gives them an unfair advantage. If anti-discrimination laws impose an unnecessary burden on business in general, then that needs to be addressed for all businesses not just religious ones. If the catholic church wants to run a school or a diner or a bookstore, it shouldn’t be given special treatment merely because its run by a church. It should be treated just like any other business, imo.

4

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Refusing to supply the cake to a gay marriage will be be like refusing to serve it at an interracial marriage. Refusing to hire gays for your religious institutions (things like schools) will be like refusing to hire blacks.

. . .

Freedom of religion? Yeah, in your home. Or, directly under the roofs of our churches. But not our related institutions. Nor, especially, our businesses.
[/quote]

For the most part I agree with this assessment. But I don’t think organized religions should be allowed to operate businesses on terms preferential to other businesses, including having a tax free exemptions or exemptions from discrimination laws because it gives them an unfair advantage. If anti-discrimination laws impose an unnecessary burden on business in general, then that needs to be addressed for all businesses not just religious ones. If the catholic church wants to run a school or a diner or a bookstore, it shouldn’t be given special treatment merely because its run by a church. It should be treated just like any other business, imo. [/quote]

Well, not necessarily just “organized” religions operating businesses.

Let’s keep it more direct for a moment. As in my business is in Christian materials. However, I’m not a Church or faith. Just a Christian businessman. So, I have a private and independent business that produces, I don’t know, study guides to the Bible. Or, I run a Christian dating site. Or children’s books that are Christian child friendly. You get the idea. Employment and benefits issues based on sexual orientation.

Now I provide a more general service. I plan weddings. Now a gay couple wants me to plan theirs. “I’m sorry,” I say, “but to me marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman. I absolutely can not have any participation. However, there’s two other planners nearby.” They ask if I’m refusing, and I say yes. Denial of service based on sexual orientation.

You already touched upon Catholic schools. They shouldn’t be able to actually operate like they mean that “stuff.”

Sure, they can say those pretty prayers and bow their heads. But to live it? Only in the home or directly under the roof of the actual church building.

Freedom of orifice selection.

Then;

Freedom of religion…in the home and the Church building.
Freedom of association.
Freedom of speech.

5

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Refusing to supply the cake to a gay marriage will be be like refusing to serve it at an interracial marriage. Refusing to hire gays for your religious institutions (things like schools) will be like refusing to hire blacks.

. . .

Freedom of religion? Yeah, in your home. Or, directly under the roofs of our churches. But not our related institutions. Nor, especially, our businesses.
[/quote]

For the most part I agree with this assessment. But I don’t think organized religions should be allowed to operate businesses on terms preferential to other businesses, including having a tax free exemptions or exemptions from discrimination laws because it gives them an unfair advantage. If anti-discrimination laws impose an unnecessary burden on business in general, then that needs to be addressed for all businesses not just religious ones. If the catholic church wants to run a school or a diner or a bookstore, it shouldn’t be given special treatment merely because its run by a church. It should be treated just like any other business, imo. [/quote]

I don’t know about schools run by churches, but a Diner and a Bookstore run by a religious organization still has to collect Sales Tax. The only item in a Bookstore that is not taxed is a Bible, but that goes for all bookstores that sell Bibles. I will presume a Quaran, or the Torah also get this type of treatment.

6

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Refusing to supply the cake to a gay marriage will be be like refusing to serve it at an interracial marriage. Refusing to hire gays for your religious institutions (things like schools) will be like refusing to hire blacks.

. . .

Freedom of religion? Yeah, in your home. Or, directly under the roofs of our churches. But not our related institutions. Nor, especially, our businesses.
[/quote]

For the most part I agree with this assessment. But I don’t think organized religions should be allowed to operate businesses on terms preferential to other businesses, including having a tax free exemptions or exemptions from discrimination laws because it gives them an unfair advantage. If anti-discrimination laws impose an unnecessary burden on business in general, then that needs to be addressed for all businesses not just religious ones. If the catholic church wants to run a school or a diner or a bookstore, it shouldn’t be given special treatment merely because its run by a church. It should be treated just like any other business, imo. [/quote]

Well, not necessarily just “organized” religions operating businesses.

Let’s keep it more direct for a moment. As in my business is in Christian materials. However, I’m not a Church or faith. Just a Christian businessman. So, I have a private and independent business that produces, I don’t know, study guides to the Bible. Or, I run a Christian dating site. Or children’s books that are Christian child friendly. You get the idea. Employment and benefits issues based on sexual orientation.

Now I provide a more general service. I plan weddings. Now a gay couple wants me to plan theirs. “I’m sorry,” I say, “but to me marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman. I absolutely can not have any participation. However, there’s two other planners nearby.” They ask if I’m refusing, and I say yes. Denial of service based on sexual orientation.

You already touched upon Catholic schools. They shouldn’t be able to actually operate like they mean that “stuff.”

Sure, they can say those pretty prayers and bow their heads. But to live it? Only in the home or directly under the roof of the actual church building.

Freedom of orifice selection.

Then;

Freedom of religion…in the home and the Church building.
Freedom of association.
Freedom of speech.

[/quote]

I’ve not only thought but argued in federal court on behalf of employers that anti-discrimination laws have first amendment problems “as applied” in many cases as an unreasonable restriction on speech and expression without even touching the religious component of your concerns. Your concerns can apply to every business, not just religious businesses.

7

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
If anti-discrimination laws impose an unnecessary burden on business in general, then that needs to be addressed for all businesses not just religious ones. If the catholic church wants to run a school or a diner or a bookstore, it shouldn’t be given special treatment merely because its run by a church. It should be treated just like any other business, imo. [/quote]

I have a hard time understanding this kind of approach from someone who thinks there might be a problem with anti-discrimination laws in general.

Freedom of religion has long been seen as a sacred inheritance in this nation. Not just to believe some “stuff” in your head. Or, to only practice it in your home, or under the roof of a Church. But put that aside for a moment.

If one truly has a problem with anti-discrimination laws in general, one raises up all businesses to the desired standard. Not stamp out the last avenues of religious, economic, and associative freedom. One does not aid or support the grasp of the regulatory fist, if the above was truly a concern. One would try to pry loose what is already in the leviathan’s grasp.

8

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/31/economic-terrorism-bakery-that-refused-to-make-gay-couples-wedding-cake-gets-threats-could-close-down/

9

Just wait for them to sue a religious institution - church, synagogue, etc. for refusing to marry them.

Also, aren’t private business allowed to turn anyone away for any reason? Isn’t that a right?

Only public institutions/busnisses were bound by law not to “discriminate.”

In my opinion, if that cake shop owner didn’t want the business, they don’t have to take it, for whatever reason. Special snowflake syndrome that continues to get worse. Big surprise here.

10

[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
Just wait for them to sue a religious institution - church, synagogue, etc. for refusing to marry them.

Also, aren’t private business allowed to turn anyone away for any reason? Isn’t that a right?

Only public institutions/busnisses were bound by law not to “discriminate.”

In my opinion, if that cake shop owner didn’t want the business, they don’t have to take it, for whatever reason. Special snowflake syndrome that continues to get worse. Big surprise here.[/quote]

You can refuse for any reason other than a protected class. As of right not Homosexuals are not a protected class.

11

I read the article from theBlaze… that is really sad what they are doing to those poor people.

Are folks truly that driven by their agenda that they will throw folks under the bus? How difficult is it to just be upset and go somewhere else? Normal people - yes I said normal, would be pissed, leave, complain to family/friends, and move on. Its deplorable, I’m sorry, but it is.

I think the cake owners should also sue the paper, one for feeding the propaganda, and two for falsifying information. I find it entertaining they mentioned another cake shop also turned down the gay couple, but it was brushed over. I’m tempted to buy a cake from them just to support their business - purely because they are standing by their beliefs.

12

[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
I read the article from theBlaze… that is really sad what they are doing to those poor people.

Are folks truly that driven by their agenda that they will throw folks under the bus? How difficult is it to just be upset and go somewhere else? Normal people - yes I said normal, would be pissed, leave, complain to family/friends, and move on. Its deplorable, I’m sorry, but it is.

I think the cake owners should also sue the paper, one for feeding the propaganda, and two for falsifying information. I find it entertaining they mentioned another cake shop also turned down the gay couple, but it was brushed over. I’m tempted to buy a cake from them just to support their business - purely because they are standing by their beliefs.[/quote]

Buy a cake from them, and tell them to go throw it at the front door of the Paper.

13

Lol… but that’s a perfectly good cake! They said they won’t put bad words on it, but I wonder if they’d style it up like the old WWII bombers, you know where they’d write messages on the bombs that they were planning to drop? Its a projectile after all!

How can some people be free to make their choices, but someone else bound to agree by law - seems an unfair representation of Constitutional Rights.

14

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
I read the article from theBlaze… that is really sad what they are doing to those poor people.

Are folks truly that driven by their agenda that they will throw folks under the bus? How difficult is it to just be upset and go somewhere else? Normal people - yes I said normal, would be pissed, leave, complain to family/friends, and move on. Its deplorable, I’m sorry, but it is.

I think the cake owners should also sue the paper, one for feeding the propaganda, and two for falsifying information. I find it entertaining they mentioned another cake shop also turned down the gay couple, but it was brushed over. I’m tempted to buy a cake from them just to support their business - purely because they are standing by their beliefs.[/quote]

Buy a cake from them, and tell them to go throw it at the front door of the Paper.
[/quote]

buy 2 cakes, write a short letter in icing on them, deliver them to the editor and author of the article. i think i have me a plan.

15

I think a couple of people have alluded to it already that things have moved beyond not accepting hateful actions towards groups of people to now demanding approval of every lifestyle. This is a very significant distinction. Unfortunately, while I think most people still have the common sense to recognize the logical fallacy of this, there is a large number of very loud special interest lobbies and their apologists ready to shout down any opposition to their points of view.

The knee jerk reaction of the media and politicians is that any dissent to the politically correct opinion is automatically bigoted. It always seems that when the pendulum swings from one extreme, it rarely stops where it should in the middle. It usually overshoots all the way to the other extreme. It will take some time and some courage for people to understand that minority rights groups can be just as bigoted and reactionary as well as any other group can be.

16

[quote]lucasa wrote:

David Mullins and Charlie Craig, for instance. The gay Colorado couple have filed a discrimination complaint against the owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop, who declined for religious reasons to make them a wedding cake. The Colorado attorney generalâ??s office has taken their side. So, regrettably, has the ACLU.

No agenda? Many of us saw this sort of ‘retaliatory-oppression’ coming back when homosexuals were petitioning to have the HIV travel ban lifted.

Of particular interest or puzzlement:
It will remain absurd to suggest gay people are trying to turn straight people gay. Changing other peopleâ??s sexual orientation has always been a conservative project, not a liberal one.

This, to me, seems like (more) irritating and subversive b.s. Conservatives will label the classes organized by churches as ‘Sexual orientation conversion therapy’ or ‘Deviant behavior atonement’. While homosexuals and liberals will petition to compel heterosexuals to take part in gay pride parades. But conservatives are the bad guys because it’s associated with religion and is overtly labelled and it is therefore easier to demonize.

IMO, the repeal of DOMA and the striking down of prop. 8 represents the tipping point between ‘requests for tolerance’ and ‘demands for approval’. It’s about enforcing an idea of equality akin to the ‘convert by the sword’ ideology of centuries before. The difference being, from the Civil War to the Great Leap Forward, this ideology is far more deadly than any religious zealotry.[/quote]

Gay people are so fucking whiny. You know what? Liking ass fucking does not entitle you to shit. If you want to fuck an asshole, go nuts but quit ramming it down my throat that I have to accept that or you because you do that you deserve special shit. Fuck you.

17

Straight Up

18

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

It should be treated just like any other business, imo. [/quote]

Maybe surprisingly, I’m not overtly religious. IMO, the overtly religious are a lightning rod for and/or bellwether in this case. From an atheist or agnostic perspective, the reason why the cake-maker is refusing to make the cake is immaterial. The fact that they even think they can sue someone into making a cake and that the community at large thinks it’s acceptable or a good idea is a sad state of affairs. And evidence suggests no signs of improving.

19

[quote]CMdad wrote:
I think a couple of people have alluded to it already that things have moved beyond not accepting hateful actions towards groups of people to now demanding approval of every lifestyle. This is a very significant distinction. Unfortunately, while I think most people still have the common sense to recognize the logical fallacy of this, there is a large number of very loud special interest lobbies and their apologists ready to shout down any opposition to their points of view.

The knee jerk reaction of the media and politicians is that any dissent to the politically correct opinion is automatically bigoted. It always seems that when the pendulum swings from one extreme, it rarely stops where it should in the middle. It usually overshoots all the way to the other extreme. It will take some time and some courage for people to understand that minority rights groups can be just as bigoted and reactionary as well as any other group can be. [/quote]

x2

Thank you kind Sir, that saved a lot of time.

20

[quote]pat wrote:

Liking ass fucking does not entitle you to shit[/quote]

But in a way, it does.

Budum-tch.

The regret that I feel at having spent any of my few precious minutes of web connectivity on the making of such a tasteless joke is, as I expected, intense. But for PWI, I am willing to make sacrifices.

Hope all are well!