AA group sent packing or church would be forced to host homosexual events

Every line you posted is garbage.

 

As it should be.

 

You cant disprove a single line of it.

 

Christian church will take in murderers and rapists and just bad people but they apparently draw the line at homosexual weddings!

Yeah (*)(*)(*)(*) your church

 

You can fire a homosexual for the same reason as a hetero. You just can't fire him/her for being gay.

You can refuse service, but you can't refuse service just because a person is gay.

The last two don't even deserve a comment. They are plain and simple lies.

You post "If I own a business...". I sure hope you don't.

 

That's absurd. It's nothing more than an excuse to attempt to deflect blame.

 

Somebody shows up to work cross-dressed and you fire them because their appearance is disruptive and does not adhere to standard office decorum, liberals cry gay bashing and sue.

Somebody comes to your place of business and asks for a service that goes against your religious beliefs so you decline, liberals cry gay bashing and sue.

And of course you wont comment on the reality that liberals pervert the LGBT agenda because you know its right.

Its not ordinary gay people running around whining and crying that everybody is just out to get them ...its liberals trying to make homosexuals feel that way.

Its the same scam liberals run on Blacks.

 

The murderers and rapists are repentant and acknowledge what they are doing is wrong. Homosexuals not only refuse to acknowledge what they're doing is wrong but they go so far as expect others to accept their Mod edit,,flounderbehavior.

 

Carrying on any sort of conversation on equal treatment under the law is like talking to a five year old. No matter how many times one tries to explain the concept to you, you completely fail to grasp the concept.

 

Equal protection under the law?

Ok, tomorrow I'll go to work in my underwear because my underwear is a statement of my lifestyle choice.

Now when I get fired I expect you to organize a protest for me and find some liberal do-gooders group to cover my legal fees as I file a law suit against my former employer who had who the audacity to tell me I couldn't represent his place of business in my damn underwear.

 

First of all almost none of the survey's trying to figure out sexual orientation are public survey's. They're almost exclusively anonymous. But second, you can multiply the number of GBT males by 10x (that's TEN times) and they're STILL over-represented in regards to male on male child molestation.

Don't worry, this little insignificant political correct movement will end and when it does we'll be there to pick up the pieces.

So explain to me why I should believe a group who "accidentally" declares pedophilia a sexual orientation and an organization in which some of the members attended a symposium by B4U-Act about how we should normalize minor-attracted persons.

At least my interpretation is dependent upon reality and not denial.

That's not true. It has all of that information. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/saycrle.pdf

 

Funny how gays are fighting for the constitutionally protected fundamental right of marriage and you keep trying to paint that as greedily seeking "special" rights.

 

That was my point, I was being sarcastic. They were forced to do it...by themselves.

 

I'm sorry, who do homosexuals hurt? Oh wait, no one.

 

there is nothing in the Constitution which discusses how one engages in sex; namely, the only difference between hetero and homosexual

there is no "born homosexual" gene (if there is prove it plz) so it's nothing more than a sexual lifestyle CHOICE. No different than joining a bowling league

 

Yes you can you just can't fire them because they are gay

yes you can you just cant refuse service because they are gay.

actually there are a lot of protected classes. Race, religion, sex, age, national origin, disability, and marital status. Where is you outrage over those? I have an idea that you do not understand what equality actually is.

this I have never heard of, but I have an idea. It is like the rich conservatives paying rich people on fox news to get middle class people to blame poor people for the atrocities of the rich conservatives.

 

Yet you can't manage to refute my point in anyway. You simply seek to distract from it by running in circles.

Marriage is a constitutionally protected right, and has been enshrined in numerous supreme court cases as a fundamental human right, the most basic of human rights, the right to establish meaningful bonds with another person, to create a family and have it legally recognized and protected.

You can keep trying to avoid reality, but that's exactly why gay marriage keeps winning in court again and again and again. Plugging your ears and talking meaninglessly in circles is not going to change or stop that.

So keep trying, you will keep losing and we will keep on winning.

 

If marriage is a constitutionally protected right then why do we deny closely related adult incestuous couples from marriage?

 

Because of the actual legitimate state interest of preventing debilitating birth defects, preventing child sexual abuse as most of these relationships are forced by the older family member or coerced either by force of through mental abuse.

The difference being there is a legitimate state interest in prohibiting incestual marriage. There is not for prohibiting gay marriage.

 

So your argument is that procreation in marriage DOES matter. That's interesting, because I'd be willing to bet if we were having a discussion on homosexual marriage you would be arguing to the hilt that procreation has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with marriage. Are you going to state that procreation DOES have something to do with marriage?

I'm going to defend incestuous couples with the EXACT same defenses that homosexuals use. You claim that its because of procreation and birth defects. First of all, procreation has nothing to do with marriage. You are not stopping those incestuous couples from having children by denying them marriage. They can still have children without your legal acceptance of their marriage. All you are denying those incestuous couples who love each other is the ability to show love to their partner like every other loving couple is allowed to do and denying them equality under the law. You are simply denying their equal rights under the law and you are not stopping the behavior that you claim to want to stop in birth defects as they don't need your legal acceptance to produce children.

Furthermore, how dare you use such bigotry to assert that incestuous couples want to molest their children. An incestuous couple would argue that they love their partner and would NEVER do anything to hurt them... and they assert they love their partner even more than you do because they love them not only as a lover but also as blood. How dare you assert that a incestuous participant would be a child molester. In fact, just like you folks have claimed with homosexuals, if they molest a child it's not incest they're engaging in... it's pedophilia and as such you can't blame incest for that action (sound familiar?).

You wouldn't be arguing that some incestuous couples who are NOT coercing their partners should have their rights restricted because of the actions of OTHER people who fall under the same category... would you? You wouldn't be arguing that a high POSSIBILITY of child molestation justifies discrimination against that group... would you?

But according to your argument against incestuous marriage there is plenty of legitimate state interest in prohibiting homosexual marriage. Your argument is that procreation IS relevant in regards to marriage... which would disqualify homosexuals from marriage benefits in and of itself.

But, since you've made the argument that some people should have their rights restricted because of the actions of others and you justified that with higher possibility of child molestation or coercion, the same argument holds true with homosexuals. LGBT represents ~5% of the total population. Yet male on male child molestation occurs at a rate of ~27%. So according to your argument, the EXCEEDINGLY high level of male on male child molestation within the LGBT community would preclude them from getting married which would give them the right to adopt/have children.

(and this is just one of the reasons, there's plenty more... but for the sake of this conversation I'll stop here)

 

Define "open your facility to the general public "

At what point do you do that?

If I have a barn in the back and I "rent" it to a friend now and then for a party or other occasion I then legally have to rent it to anyone who comes along?

A AA groups ask a church if the can use one of theirs rooms for weekly meetings for a nominal sum to cover utilities and clean up and now they have to rent to anyone who ask?

 

The reason our society promotes, encourages and sanctions heterosexual marriage is not to prohibit something but to promote it and encourage it because their is a MAJOR societal interest on doing so. There is not for homosexuality.

 

I think the term "general public" is pretty self-explanatory.

I rarely deal in "ifs". They tend to lead to absurd arguments. If he's your friend, you don't rent. You offer for free. But if you're running a business or offering services to groups in the public sector, be prepared to offer those services to ALL groups. Pretty simple.

 

That is exactly how they expect it to go down. If your church rents it's chapel to a couple for a wedding and they're not in your congregation then they expect that church to rent that same facility to a homosexual couple. If your church rents its facility on a Tuesday for a smaller church who can't afford their own facility... then the homosexuals will expect you to rent to them as well.

See the smart liberals aren't touching this thread because they know that while it may not have come to pass yet... this is something that the homosexual agenda is driving for hard and will certainly be a main point of contention in the years to come. They want this because they know it will hurt a lot of churches and Christians.

 

Because our society and species has a vested and vital interest in encouraging, supporting and an sanctioning heterosexuality. We have no such vested and vital interest in homosexuality.