The gay attack on religion is dangerous

Yeah I'm going to simply assume that you don't see the irony in this.

Would it help if I told you that one of my favorite memories from high school was listening to the christian songs they sang at Christmas? Or the Pope has a twitter account? Or the fact that we say "Jesus" whenever something annoying happens? We have plenty of religion in our life already. And we do get to practice it freely. I see plenty of people wearing crosses. The problem is preaching. We don't want people to preach religion to other people against their will is because it violates their freedoms.

As for why businesses aren't supposed to preach religion, the answer is simple. Friedman. A business is not supposed to dictate morals to society because they're just in it for the money.

- - - Updated - - -

And that wouldn't make them any less of a minority.

 

Bad analogy. A better analogy would be if you walked into a bar wearing a Garth Brooks shirt and the bartender refused to serve you because he only likes Led Zeppelin.

 

No one has rights to have a father and mother, and if you think having same-sex parents is damaging to children, read this scientific study: https://www.nllfs.org/images/uploads/pdf/adolescent-parent-relationship-quality.pdf.

From study:

 

Its ironic but not unusual for the oppressed to become the oppressor.

LOL, that isn't religion. Many would say that saying "Jesus" when something annoying happens is taking His name in vain and is a sin. And your examples just show that to you "religion" is fine as long as it does not inconvenience you or hurt your feelings.

There is no freedom from annoyance, no right to not hear things that you don't like.

There is a right to the free exercise of religion, its explicitly stated in the First Amendment.

And the is a right to speak freely, also in the First Amendment.

What you really want is the removal of religion from the public square. You are making the sectarian secular argument that a person should leave their morals and principles in the closet when those principles (any principle, not just religious) are not approved by a powerful secular group.

 

Kinda makes your arguments harder to believe though. If you do something hypocritical, it's hard to make sense of what you're arguing.

The fact that we say "Jesus" instead of someone else is still a testament to the power of religion in the US. If anything, the US is considered one of the most religious developed countries in the world, if not the most religious. My examples show you the power of what religion in the US is. It doesn't bother people because they're used to it, it's common everyday occurences.

but you do have the right of respect and expression. You have the right to be respected for your beliefs, and the right to express those beliefs how you want to.

And the derived right of Freedom of Expression.

What I'm arguing and what I want are two different things. I don't care if religion is in a public square, so long as all beliefs have an equal opportunity, then that's fine by me. That being said it's mostly for good laughs for when the satanists get involved.

 

I'm still waiting for someone to release a version of the bible that doesn't say marriage is between a man and a woman, or a Qur'an or Talmud or Confucian-Taoist or mystic Buddhist or Hindu written body that accepts homosexuality. No one who actually understands a religion believes what you're insinuating.

 

That's a shallow argument.

People are generally tolerant and follow a live-and-let-live approach and do not pry into strangers lives. Think of it as a "don't ask don't tell" approach. Few customers come into a shop and proclaim their "sins" and ask for service. People don't go to a Christian baker and say "I am getting married but I'm also having an affair with another woman, will you make my wedding cake?" I'm sure if a customer had done so to the Christian baker, florist, or photographer, the adulterer would have been turned away.

And you have it backwards, the problem is not that the Christian business was prying into customers lives and making judgements about service. The problem is that a customer came into the business, knew it was a faithful Christian they were dealing with, proclaimed their sin, and then demanded the Christian serve their sin.

 

What you want is your freedom of expression to be respected, and the religious persons to be closeted.

 

I said that I'm okay with religious groups on public property, just so long as any group can do it. How does that mean I want "religious persons to be closeted."?

 

No, I'm posting observations. I'm pointing out that you are a member of a majority group and don't seem to be aware of what other people go through, and I feel that this lack of experience has largely caused the kind of viewpoint you're arguing here.

 

I'm saying their lifestyle choice is a perversion of human biology and abomination to my God. That does not mean they are inferior people. All humans sin/make bad choices. Theirs is, by far, not the worse choice humans make. I would have far more distain for someone I know who is cheating on a spouse or lusting after children.

I'm sick and tired of being accused of hating gays when I do not. I just do not recognize their lifestyle choice as natural human behavior. I would have no problem with playing golf, going to lunch or building a gay person furniture. But, I do have a problem with participating with them in a ceremony that is an abomination to my God. Does not mean I want them to be denied normal services. It is hyperbole to believe society is out to get them.

On the other hand, their insane pursuit to force their lifestyle choice on society as natural human behavior and attempt to force others to recognize and indulge them against our wills is becoming extremely aggravating. This is no different to me than having black leaders continue to claim whites are racist.

 

So has incest, adultery and pedaphila. But, we do not accept them as healthy normal human behavior. The fact that homosexuality is not nearly as bad as these does not mean it is no less a perversion of humanity and abomination of my God.

We are both entitled to liberty, our religious beliefs and our own opinions.

 

I don't ask anything that is not my business. Your assertion is another childish attack. It is not bigotry to adhere to ones religious beliefs. Again, I knowingly have gay clients. I like a few gay people I know. I prayed for a gay client who lost his "life partner" that he would be consoled. I DO NOT HATE GAYS, I just refuse to recognize or participate in their sin/perversion.

 

Buying food and water is an exchange, which means there is a counter-party who must CONSENT to sell them to you.

 

They can't seem to understand this. One has no right to force a counter party into a transaction.

 

Incorrect. A private business is part of the private sector. Only government entities are public sector. This would include private business under contract to the government; i.e., Halliburton, Raytheon, etc.

 

The very fact that you refer to sexual orientation betrays ignorance and hatred. If you think that gender and sexuality minorities should just go back in the closet and go back to being considered abnormal and unnatural, you're a hateful bigot. That's not something any human being should wish on anyone and you're unaware of how miserable living like that is.

Actually, you don't even sound actively hateful, just completely unaware of how sexual orientation works and what it's like to be queer. I can no more hold that against you than I can blame uncontacted tribes for lacking internet access.

 

the courts have ruled that businesses such as stores, restaurants, bars, etc...are part of the public sector and cannot discriminate.

 

I take my faith seriously. The bible is clear on homosexuality. It would make no sense for God to create homosexuals and then rebuke them. IMO, homosexuality is a choice no different than any other poor choice. You might as we'll support pedaphila and claim that offenders are born to be that way.

The truth is that males are naturally sexually aggressive. Heterosexuals have a natural desire to hump every beautiful women they see, but to be godly we have to restrain ourselves to a monogamous relationship. My guess is that the vast majority of homosexuals are secularist or lack sufficient faith to remain godly concerning sex.

Sex can be like any other addiction. Once someone indulges it, they may find it hard to stop it. Imo, those who claim they have no choice are just addicted and do not really wish to fight the addiction.

I can't imagine why you lack the ability to understand the difference between rejecting behaviors while caring for the person. It is very simpleton to assume rejecting homosexuality as a hatred of the person. It is not.

 

Bull (*)(*)(*)(*)ing (*)(*)(*)(*), why doesn't it? If only a minority of people do something then their doing it qualifies them as a minority indeed. If the thing they do doesn't harm anyone else then it's NONE OF YOUR ****** BUSINESS is it? and THAT is the essence of pluralism, MIND YOUR OWN ****** BUSINESS.
That is, IMO, one of the most liberating statements in all of human history, and I guess it's just the nature of the beast that conservatives don't believe in it. (except if someone is sick or old, then they're on their own.)

 

so you believe that you chose to be heterosexual?

when did you make this choice?

 

Nobody has the right to buy anything.

To buy anything is to engage in trade which is mutual cooperation between two or more.

Implying a right to buy something means that cooperation is gone and replaced with force which is just theft.

- - - Updated - - -

They are a minority.

Minorities are not defined strictly by race, color, or ethnicity.

A minority is simply less than half of the population.

 

Because girls have boobies. Seriously, I did not fight the natural attraction to the opposite sex. Come to find out they are pretty cool to snuggle with.

 

The LGBT activist are no different than the Taliban or ISIS.

“You know, this used to be a helluva good country.” It surely was.

 

>>>MOD EDIT Quoted Post Deleted<<<

This has been argued out before, back in 1964. As long as I'm not doing anything that hurts you, you CANNOT refuse to do business with me if I'm a legitimate member of the public and you are in business to serve the public. Otherwise we can have Jim Crow and one group oppressing another, which is exactly what you conservatives want as all of you realize you can't really compete as long as you have to play fair.

This is, I think, the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. One, the liberal, believes in fair play, Conservatives do not.