Reply With Quote
when did the right to be mean to gays become a core tenet of religious belief?
Well, if someone is born gay then the comparison is rather valid.
when did the right to be mean to gays become a core tenet of religious belief?
Late 1800s iirc
Jesus hated gays, said it all the time.
Why would a gay couple want someone (say a photographer) who doesn't agree with their lifestyle at their wedding? A wedding day should be a celebration, a day of well wishes, joyous, etc. Why force someone whose religious beliefs conflict with the occasion to be there? Aren't there other photographers (with no objections) who would be happy for the job?
can you be more specific? there's some stuff in the Old Testament for sure...
"Why would a gay couple want someone (say a photographer) who doesn't agree with their lifestyle at their wedding?"
the gays can pick up the cake, or a anybody can deliver it. Who said gays want Bible-humping phobes at their wedding?
Again, that's extremely tone-deaf. You aren't born with an active gay phenotype. A doctor isn't going to pull a baby out of a mother's womb and know the sexual orientation. A gay person doesn't have to live knowing their difference is hereditary. No one's talking about a one-drop gay rule.
And since it's a behavioral phenotype, it's possible to hide, and even was easy. Guys like Raymond Burr and Richard Chamberlain had successful careers hiding or denying their orientation (and yes, it's no one's business, PC folks). Where are the black people having successful careers pretending their white? Patsy Cline, maybe? Closest you're going to get are guys like Ritchie Valens, but that's a much more complex topic concerning race vs culture.
How would a photographer NOT be present at the wedding and reception?
If the photographer was just taking pics, and not trashing s, why would the same-sex couple GAF if the photog was a phobe?
But is saying "I'd rather not do this job for you guys, because it goes against my personal beliefs" your definition of trashing gay people? Because if it is, then this country is losing its ability to have legitimate discourse.
You'd want someone at your wedding who doesn't want to be there, who's being forced to be there for fear of harming their business? There's no shortage of photographers around - why shove it down their throat?
Pick a lane. Are people born gay or not?
The cake maker will know a person is gay if he/she tells them. The "being able to tell" is irrelevant.
Then Jesus indirectly calls for gays to die
Don't be one of those psuedo-intellectual guys. You're the one with the inconsistent argument. The entire point of prejudice is "being able to tell" something is different. If black people looked exactly the same as white people, there'd be no discrimination based on skin color. Like duh.
As far as I know, the law in question is saying that artists can refuse to depict thing they don't want to depict. Like putting two brides on a wedding cake or taking photos of two grooms. It's not like these people need awesome gaydars in this case. If you want to assert that people shouldn't be able to use religion as an excuse to discriminate, that fine. I even sympathize with you. But don't trying to create a logical loophole where there isn't one.
Yeah. I have a few really great gay friends.
You're being presumptuous.
I know for a fact that either they were born that way or/and at an early age environmentally/socially influenced to have the preference for the same sex. I don't dispute that. I don't know many people who do.
However, what some people do believe--and I'm not one of them--is that it's not the mere preference--which again they have no control of--but the sexual lust & acts themselves, which they do in fact have control of, which goes against their religion. A person born with a genetic propensity for a certain behavior still has to make the choice to act on it.
Now FTR, I don't consider sexuality immoral. I don't share these people's belief. But I think the people who have it are sincere in it, and should have it protected.
Pick a lane or clarify it "not being a choice".
Simple stuff.
Again, you're trying to dig a loophole into solid ground.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype
If you can't tell if a kid is gay when they're born, they aren't expressing the sexual phenotype yet. That doesn't make it a choice any more than handedness is.
how so, and where?
Unfortunately, at least this is what some of the liberals on this board have come to. Whether it's God, Religion, Abortion, sexuality, if you're not on their side on any of these (and other) issues, then they can't seem to respectfully disagree. You're patronized.
I'm just saying, try that satanist comparison on one of your gay friends and see what they have to say.
As I've stated, the comparison isn't something I morally agree with in the sense that I think sexuality = Satanism. But, to the socially conservative & religious crowd, who view sexual behavior as an hetical to their belief systems, it would be an apt comparison. It's also an apt comparison, to me personally, since they are both partaken of due to choice. Whereas that is not the case with race.
That's all that was. I think you're PC barometer needs to be turned way down, seriously. It's just sounding off at anything.
seriously? The couple calls a photographer they have seen on the internet or better yet was recommended by a close friend. They call up the photographer and maybe even get as far as meeting in person. The photographer decides they are not going to accept your business because of your sexuality. That's straight up discrimination. Of course the couple has most likely changed their minds about hiring said photographer as well. Doesn't change the discrimination.
Do your gay friends agree that they chose to be gay? I'm anything but PC. Maybe you're just not great at metaphors. Whether you believe people are "born gay" or not, it's not something you just pick like a religion or a car.
And even if it was, these hyper-religious blowhards will congregate in church to talk about how anyone who is not a very specific denomination of the Baptist church is going to , but you can bet they'd make a cake for a wedding occurring in any of those other churches. Even, God forbid, a Catholic wedding. They'll bake a cake for a heterosexual couple who is on their fourth marriage each. By discriminating on gay weddings, they've arbitrarily decided which weddings they refuse to offer a product for.
And there's a difference between designing a product that says something you disagree with, and designing a product for people whose race or sexual orientation is outside of your comfort zone. Nobody's asking these people to make a cake with two guys ing. They're being asked to offer the same product they offer to everyone else to a couple who are the same gender.
it's yes or no. You're trying to walk the fence.
If it's not a choice for some, then it stops right there and the rest of your post is irrelevant. You're then discriminating against someone who has no choice to be who they are. Like skin color.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions