Christian Bakers Who Lost their Business after Homosexual Attack Refuse to Pay $135K

That is your opinion of course, but then there are religious people that are FOR gay marriage so it still would be recognized. Again, normal is subjective and dependent on the comparison. Not a reason not to recognize it.

 

Wearing clothing is not our natural biological state and is not normal. Are you a deviate or correctly a nudist at all times?

 

Hey, go for it. Hope you do not freeze to death. By your standards we don't have to protect ourselves from the elements. Good grief.

 

No, it is YOUR standard and clothing is not necessary weather allowing nor is it required in a climate controlled environment. YOU claimed what is not natural is deviate. Wearing clothing when it is not necessary "for the elements" is unnatural. Therefore, YOUR claim is that wearing clothing to not be nude around other people is "deviant" behavior.

Your response is to turn around and ridicule your own logic. I agree your logic is ridiculous and one you don't believe or practice yourself.

In addition, your messages are inherently self contradictions. Religion and "natural law" are the diametric opposite from each other. The entire premise of religious behavior rules is for a person to deny their natural desires and instincts.

- - - Updated - - -

Since people do engage in same gender sex and same gender relationships - and are not required to do so, inherently then it is not against what is natural/normal for our species.

Heterosexuality also is not "natural" for species. Rather, it is a human-social created rule for social practical reasons - although there would be more children if people were completely promiscuous and non-heterosexual.

The "natural law" argument is always absurd - particularly in a religious context - since both religion and social laws are the diametric opposite of "natural law."

What you are doing is typical. You have a conclusion you want to reach, and then try to find words make try to make it sound logical. You are not succeeding.

You should stick with you believe it is sinful and leave it at that. That is not a factual claim, rather it is a metaphysical belief in a controlling, superior metaphysical being, ie "God." You then have determined you know God's opinion and that it is your role to be that metaphysical being's spokesperson.

 

Bunch of hogwash. We are a male/ female species. It is our natural way of reproducing. Our body parts have natural functions, deviating from those natural functions is perverting their natural design. I do not use the religious argument because it is not recognized in a secular society and our biological state is more than sufficient.

 

Ah, you agree with Catholics that using birth control, contraceptives and condoms are wrong - or in your words anyone who uses contraceptives or condoms is "perverted" and "deviant" because this deviates from and perverts the natural design of our male/female species as our natural way of reproducing.

I would try to explaining for the umpteenth time on the forum that gays are not sterile, but most people who militantly oppose legal SSM believe homosexuals are sterile.

 

There is a huge difference between contraceptives and homosexuality. The fact that humans engage in sex for recreation and not reproduction alone, does not excuse unnatural sexual activity as normal or healthy, which homosexuality is neither.

I have zero reason to believe that homosexuals are sterile. You are free to lower your standards for what constitutes normal human behavior, I will keep my standard to its highest and natural definition.

 

Government treat both man and woman as fully responsible for their children, it presumes man as a father and woman as a mother.
There is no such thing as full responsibility for homosexual couple offspring, so services are fundamentally different.

 

Your messages on this thread are studies in hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.

You claims sex is for procreation and then turn around and completely deny your own message.

 

I did not say sex was just for procreation. I said our biological sexuality of a male/female species is defined by procreation. Try to keep up and be honest.

 

Obviously not. If so, then no one would be homosexual or bisexual.

 

Those are behaviors that deviate from our natural state. Humans are capable of doing unnatural things. I've heard humans have sex with animals, tell me that is natural normal behavior. Less or more, homosexuality is just another perversion of our natural state.

 

You mean, unlike your notion of "the law is the law" and whatever is written by legislators is righteous and good?

What principles are those? Explain them and show how they are objective and logical. I doubt that you can. More likely, it's purely emotional to suit your "side" and whatever agenda they tell you to follow.

 

Well, the laws on public accommodation we have have been reviewed all the way to the Supreme Court. This has included assaults on the grounds of freedom of private property, freedom of religion, and even the 10th amendment (since in some cases states have promoted discrimination in the commons).

If you don't like it you could make an argument against the law we have today.

I'll respond, but I don't see any real reason to spend more time explaining what has been so thoroughly defended.

 

My contention is that a person ought to have the right to either engage in or opt not to engage in trade with whomever he'd like. I see no justification to use force against a person for not engaging in trade.

 

The issues seem to be:

1. Public community activists went after the vendors, they are allowed to do that, its called free market pressure which is legal and a good use of free market mechanisms.

2. They filed a complaint with the government as members of a protected class in the state again they can do that its legal since they are not a church they are a public business.

So what is the issue they were punished for discrimination under secular law for not operating in good faith as a public business, they deserved it for being bigoted to a same sex couple.

 

Public accommodation law says that if you open your doors to the public for enterprise, you need to accept those who enter.

Remember the Woolworth's lunch counter?

 

I understand what the current law states. I'm saying I disagree with the current law. My contention is that a person ought to have the right to either engage in or opt not to engage in trade with whomever he'd like. I see no justification to use force against a person for not engaging in trade. Can you explain the justification?

Can you articulate the principles to which you are referring?

 

America's direction of equal treatment under the law is seen to extend to public accommodation, housing, employment, credit, etc.

Equal treatment can not be seen as existing if it ignores all these areas.

Of course, you could suggest that we should allow discrimination in all these areas. But, I'm just not even going to bother addressing that. If you are interested, it isn't hard to look this stuff up, and why should you believe what I say about it?

Besides, we aren't going to go back to the days when store owners could hang "No Blacks" signs on their doors. It just is not going to happen. And, "No Gays" signs are not some different story.

You can believe what you want, but if you choose to open a public accommodation business, rent an apartment to someone, employe someone, etc., you are going to be doing business under the related law. And, that law is not accepting of discrimination based on age, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc.

 

Equal protection under the law means that the government must treat all people equally. This is a restriction on the government. This is not a restriction on the behavior of private individuals.

As I said, I am aware of the current law. My point is that I can't see any justification for a law that results in using violence against a person for not interacting with someone. No trespass has occurred. No violation has occurred. Exactly what harm has been done?

 

I am very aware of how bigotry works. You don't need to try to inform me of that.

Go back and read about the Woolworth's lunch counter.

 

I haven't yet seen any legitimate ethical justification for initiating violence against a person for not interacting with another. Perhaps you can present the ethical case.

 

The shop owners in the case of the title of this thread experienced zero violence.

Were you interested in the issue you mention, you would have read about Woolworth's counter.

But, you didn't.

 

Then they can live their lives in peace without anyone taking their property against their will? Good. Glad to hear it. I had heard that people were going to use violence to take their property.

Nobody should have their property violently taken for simply opting not to trade with someone.

 

Those just words of you declaring you are right because you say you are right. My equal proof is saying you are wrong.