Arizona Passes Bill Allowing Business Owners to Refuse Service to Gays Based on Relig

But all this chart shows is affiliation. The bigots have not been separated out. I sincerely doubt that even the majority of Christians are bigots. Nor do I think there are NO bigots among the non-Christians.

 

This is about a law that allows businesses to refuse to serve gay people, because they are gay.
That's not demanding to be validated.....
What do you call "tolerance"? Not assaulting people?
A public accommodation has to serve the public.
And what religion teaches that it's a sin to sell cake to people? Is that in the Bible?

Did Jesus say "Blessed are the poor, for they shall inherit the earth,
Cursed are those who sell baked goods to the swishy types,
Thou knowest to whomst I refereth......."

 

Well we can each believe what we wish I guess Flint, but the very makeup and function of the human bodies points to a constant that was hard wired into all of us. Your point about gods and beliefs is interesting thought though, perhaps thats some of it...who knows.

 

Leek if we aren't programed to be heterosexual how do you explain the only way our species can naturally procreate is through heterosexual sex?

This dance ought to be good.

 

im aware what the thread is about. im sure you have the ability to scroll back and see just how each offshoot of a discussion gets started...but thanks for thinking you were helping I guess.

Tolerance is accepting people into society as who they are without penalty or harsh treatment. Changing the definitions of Marriage for example is not tolerance, it's validation. Thats where I draw the line.

Couldn't tell you goober. I dont read the Bible, and not a religious guy.

 

Oddly, some of us choose to decide our beliefs based upon concepts such as logic, evidence and science. But I suppose that isn't for everyone.

 

Their war on basic science continues.

They can't explain why natural procreation can only be attained through heterosexual sex nor can they explain why homosexual bodies prepare for heterosexual sex with sexually stimulated just like the rest of us humans.

Its so pathetic but they keep trying to deny the obvious.

- - - Updated - - -

That's true. We rely on factual science and you guys rely on emotional arguments and theories.

Come back when you can explain why natural procreation can only be attained through heterosexual sex and explain why homosexual bodies prepare for heterosexual sex with sexually stimulated just like the rest of us humans.

 

Or why only Heterosexual sex can be accomplished without plastic penises and man made lubricants lol....

 

Homosexual behavior has been exhibited in mammals other than humans. How can that be since animals don't have the capacity to make choices?

 

LOL True. Its the basic rational questions they can't answer.

- - - Updated - - -

So is cannibalism, rape and incest.

Are you claiming those are genetic as well and not choices?

 

The urge is the side effect and developed through nature to make sure we did procreate, with the sexual satisfaction most people would find the act a time consuming chore and not something they would want to do on a constant basis thus threatening the survival of our species.

There is no best evidence because it is all based on unproven conjecture.

 

With the advent of epigenetics, we're finding that genes and behavior are a two way street. Dynamic factors that determine gene expression are as important as the information that the genes encode. If that weren't the case we couldn't adapt to a changing environment and pass on that adaptation to progeny except via mutation which is statistically a rather unfriendly mechanism for healthy adaptation. If our DNA sequences ruled supreme, the fertilized zygote would remain a dividing ball of identical, totipotent stem cells that would soon die for lack of necessary functional specificity. The fact is, our environment as well as the effects of our behavior can and do affect gene expression. And that change in gene expression can be passed along to our progeny. That is a game changer for the nurture vs, nature debate. Both are genetically relevant. Genes influence who we are and our behavioral choices, to varying degrees, influence our genes.

 

Of course they are genetic. Animals usually are not conscious, they simply act out their biological programming, and don't concern themselves with human concepts like consent, or taboos against cannibalism or incest.

Have you ever read a science article... Ever?

 

Listening to the Michael Medved show and makes an interesting point. The woman florist in the lawsuit serves gay people, yep she sells them flowers, she even regularly sells flowers to one of the women in the gay couple that was party to the lawsuit. It was when the gay woman came to her and ask her to handle the flowers and arraignments for her homosexual wedding ceremony that she told her that no that would go against her religious and moral beliefs that she was sued. So why couldn't the gay woman simple go to another florist who had no such moral objections and not sue this woman to try and force her to go against hers?

 

Year or so ago there was another case just like this but I couldn't find it.
Gay customer, for years, was refused flowers for his wedding.

The LBGT gang, of course, jumped on this florist calling him a bigot, and a gay hater.

Which makes no sense because for years, he sold flowers to this gay man that he welcomed into his shop. Often.

Some people can't distinguish the disapproval of a ceremony from the people themselves.

 

I would say what evolved is the drive.

Sigh. There is no such thing as "proof" in the empirical world. There are literally hundreds of studies, however, and these consistently indicate that sexual orientation is established during development. The current focus of study is on what role prenatal environment plays, what role genetics play, what role epigenetics might play, etc.

I understand that the current best evidence will probably never be sufficient for your purposes, since it continues to point more and more strongly in each study to something in developmental biology. It's like an obese person insisting that gravity is an unproven conjecture, so they don't "really" weigh so much.

 

First, KKK is a despicable, racist organization, who is the symbol of hatred and discrimination. Gay individuals are NOT. . .THEY do not discriminate!

And still, I would NOT support a law that would allow anyone to post a sign or refuse services to anyone without an IMMEDIATE dire reason, such as being a danger to the community or doing something criminal.

 

Probably even moreso, yes.

No less unfriendly than epigenetics, really. It's all a trial and error process, and the better suited any organism is to its environment, the less likely any change is to be helpful.

I think this is probably going to be borne out more and more with each new discovery. Piaget's work started people understanding that certain things can be learned only at certain ages, up through at least early childhood. Now researchers are realizing that there are "critical windows" at every moment of development. It's like a giant orchestra all playing the same piece, where every note by every instrument has a specified pitch, timing, loudness, timbre, duration, attack/sustain/decay/release, and so on.

Sexual orientation is a little contrapuntal melody running through this grand opus whose entire production results in a person. It's a symphony that took 4 billion years of development to write and orchestrate, and it's not something we should meddle with lightly.

 

I don't think that's exactly relevant. If someone is offering a product or service to the public, then they should provide it.

Danger can be hard to assess. I remember the last time the KKK applied for a permit to march through a black neighborhood. Clearly they were doing this to be provocative, in the hopes of building public support by goading the blacks into intemperate behavior. But it's perfectly legal to march, and the KKK was granted the permit, and the cops showed up expecting a possible riot -- and nobody cared! A few of the blacks came out to smile and wave, but mostly the march got ignored. Seems the sort of bigotry the KKK was trying to animate isn't viable anymore.

I think it won't be long before trying to drum up business with highly publicized bigotry against wedding ceremonies won't work anymore. The very fact that mere homosexuality is no longer sufficient in and of itself, and they have to appeal to religion, shows that they're running out of ammunition.

 

Nothing! That is why I don't see anything wrong with EITHER a gay couple nor a heterosexual couple holding hands over the table while sharing a nice meal or having a glass of wine.

Do you? Or are those signs of affection reserved for heterosexual couples, legitimate or not?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm glad you noticed that, in the second part of my comment, I agreed with you re: a business offering a service to the public!

 

There are many forms of discrimination, and "race" is not the only reason bigots have found as an excuse to discriminate! But again, you seem to have trouble understanding even the most simple concept!

And. . .why would you think that heterosexuality is not a "choice" but homosexuality is a "choice?
Either they both are choices, or neither are!

Duh!

 

Oh I agree but evolved none the less in order to get us to procreate more.

Actually there are not hundreds and there is only speculation and some attempts at correlations.

Might play being the operative clause. There are ample studies which show no genetic correlations and that in fact environmental factors are the determinate factors. In fact the most recent study, which I cited earlier, using the entire human genome could not find any genetic determination of homosexuality.

"Genes
Twin Studies:

These very complex comparisons of identical twins and non-identical twins definitively rule out genetic determinism. Identical twins with identical genes are about 11-14% concordant for SSA. If homosexuality were “genetic,” identical co-twins of homosexual men and women would also be homosexual 100% of the time. In classic twin studies the genetic fraction is less than 23% for men and 37% for women and may be as low as 10%. Twin studies continue to find steadily lower genetic fractions for homosexuality as methodology improves and samples become larger. Everyone has at least a 10% genetic factor influence in his or her thinking and behavior—simply because without genes there can be no human activity or behavior of any kind. Twin studies show that individualistic reactions to chance events (in which one identical twin reacts differently from the other) are by far the strongest contributors to homosexuality. In other words, randomness is a strong factor.

Other:

A scan of the whole genome has not found any homosexual genes, unlike the case for schizophrenia (which has still only identified 4 genes linked to 3%of schizophrenia.)

From an understanding of gene structure and function there are no plausible means by which genes could dictate SSA (or other behaviors) in a person.

So far, genetically dictated behaviors of the “one-gene-one-trait” variety have been found only in very simple organisms. Generally, geneticists agree that many genes (from at least five to many hundreds) contribute to any particular human behavior.
Any genetic influence is believed to be weak and indirect.

No genetically determined human behavior has yet been found. The most closely genetically-related behavior yet discovered (mono-amine oxidase deficiency leading to aggression) has shown itself remarkably responsive to counseling.

A genetically dominated SSA caused by a cluster of genes could not suddenly appear and disappear in families, as it does. It would persist through every generation for many generations. It is genetically implausible that many “heterosexual” genes could switch off at the same time.

The human race shares most of its genes—something between 99.7%and 99.9%. That means all ethnic groups will have most of them. This has three implications.

If homosexuality is genetically dictated, homosexual practices will be identical or very similar in all cultures. But the enormous range and diversity of homosexual practice and customs in different cultures (and within cultures) argues against this.

There would be a similar percentage of homosexuality in all cultures. But homosexuality has been unknown in some cultures and mandatory in others.

Changes in homosexual practice and behavior in different cultures would take place very slowly, over many centuries. But this is not what history shows. The decline of whole models (culturally specific expressions) of homosexuality within a century; the relatively sudden (in genetic terms) emergence of the present Western model over a couple of centuries; and abrupt changes of practice within an ethnic group, even over a single generation, are not consistent with anything genetic. It is even less so the swiftly changing sexual practices within the current Western model.

The occurrence of SSA in the population is too frequent to be caused by a faulty pre-natal developmental process, so it is not innate in that sense either. This includes epigenetic processes, i.e. influences of the environment on genetic expression.

If SSA were genetically determined, and led to same-sex contact only it would have bred itself out of the population in only several generations. It would not exist today.

First attractions (both SSA and OSA) occur on average at age 10 and are rarely “earliest memories” meaning attraction is mostly socially induced. The spread of ages of first attraction is very large, very different from the small spread of ages for the genetically pre-programmed event, puberty."
http://www.isthereagaygene.com/scientific-evidence/

You understand nothing then.

 

Understand the black florist can't stand them and thinks their positions are immoral.

The question is should they be required to provide their public service to them and help them put on their celebration?

 

I believe I answered that question: As much as I despise KKK members, and as much as I think their position is immoral, I do not believe that, as a business person whose mission is to provide service to others, should automatically "assume" that the KKK member asking for services deserves to be discriminated against.

As "strange" as your scenario is (a KKK member would probably arrange his flowers himself rather than getting the assistance of a BLACK florist), I would see nothing wrong with serving that KKK member, UNLESS it created a dangerous environment for myself or my employees. I might make it "less interesting" for them to seek my services by making sure my proposal is giving me PLENTY of "profit" for the service I perform. . . but I would NOT refuse service, because that is NOT the "Capitalist" way to do business!

There are other ways to "skin a cat!"

Asking the same question over and over is not going to get you a different answer!

 

I believe that most homosexuals people are destined genetically to be homosexuals. . .and a few are just more interested in the person they fall in love with than the "sexual details" involved in the loving relationship.

EVEN IF 100% of of homosexual people were not predestined at an early age to become gay, and just made that "choice," I would STILL support their CHOICE. Who are you to tell ANYONE whom to love?

Love is MORE than the few inches of "sexual organs" hanging out (or carefully tucked in) a human body! That's all about ANATOMY and hormones, NOT LOVE.

Why is it that you expect people to respect your CHOICE of religious beliefs, but you do not respect their right to CHOOSE their partner in life? Is there something "genetic" about religious beliefs? Then if we can ONLY respect what is genetic. . .why do we "respect" religious beliefs?

And, where does it say in the Constitution that people do not have the right to CHOOSE who they love, but must obey to "the norms?"