you no longer can hold your own values in America
you are no longer able to chose to exercise your values in America. You now run the risk of being forced to become a hypocrite by the government. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not, this baker should not be forced to work for people he chooses not too.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 7.
Fred
A businessman, as with any laborer, can choose his customers.
I cannot be compelled to wax the floors at Target.
It only protects pre-existing, God-given rights.
Fred
The purpose of mating is not pleasure; mating is pleasureful IN ORDER to get creatures to procreate.
There was a study of heroin addicts, because they were the most recidivist. It turns out that the high one gets from heroin is most like the endorphin rush one gets from sexual climax. Which is why addictions exist.
Through the process of evolution, the intense, addictive pleasure of the sex act, which compels animals to copulate regardless of the personal threat or harm it may cause them (some insects continue mating even as their mate is eating them; eagles are sometimes killed because they begin mating in midair and won't stop until the act is completed or they become a stain on the ground below).
Romantic feelings, paternal and maternal instincts, likewise developed in many species, again, for the purpose of perpetuating the species. Such mating ensures the survival of the next generation to an age when they can, in turn, mate.
yes, they suffer from being homosexual, because it denies them the reward of mating and producing young.
Fred
I think that's all you really needed to say, and sums it up perfectly. The only issue worthy of note is the court's decision. It initiated force on behalf of the bogus "victims" and turned the baker into the real "victim". This doesn't help the gay community, and it undermines confidence in the judicial system.
But I call bullshit on your claim of mental/emotional illness.
One of the major bullshit points is your claim that romantic feelings exist for the function of perpetuating the species.
Oh, wait... romantic FEELINGS (including attraction and sexual arousal DO SUPPORT the FUNCTION of perpetuating the species... true!
But the concept that those things are the REASON for arousal or attraction is bullshit! The arousal and attraction and all that crap are driving forces that lead (virtually) all species to MATE because the MATING produces PLEASURE.
You could just as easily conclude that sex feels good IN ORDER TO perpetuate (the) species, but that is really a disconnected leap.
When you were a teenager hot for some member of (obviously) the opposite sex, were you thinking, "well, that's a hot number and they turn me on so that we can make babies to perpetuate the species"????
Get real. It was for pure animal pleasure.
It's only after humans reach some level of maturity and socialization that they desire to HAVE CHILDREN, and their GOAL is NOT "perpetuation of the SPECIES"... maybe perpetuation of their family name or to feel the wonders and fulfillment that come from bearing children, raising them and enjoying them.
But not, for crap's sake, "for the purpose of perpetuating the species."
And you may be "new around here," too, because if you'd been around enough, and met and talked with enough gays, lesbians and other flavors of LGBT's, I'll bet you that NONE of them would say "I suffer FROM homosexuality."
They may admit to suffering persecution and reduction of social and legal rights and privileges as a result of their homosexuality, but they do not suffer directly FROM being homosexual.
You can project that all you want, but it doesn't make it true, and even if you collect a lot of fellow travelers who agree, "consensus is NOT the same as truth or fact."
I don't play hide the banana. I'm hetero and my wife (actually, both of them) would attest to that, but nobody is FORCING YOU to accept the "changes in society."
Society is changing. You're the one who'll have to adapt or fade out. "Society" used to "accept" slavery as the norm. Society changed.
Some countries kill anyone who is vaguely homosexual. But look at the changes in state and federal laws over just the past few decades. You can accuse society of "decay" because of the increased acceptance of gays, but that doesn't make you right, either.
And I've written a lot about this on this and many other blog sites.
BTW, more and more science is proving ME right than proving your position.
Get over it if you want, or don't. I'm not forcing you to like it. I'm just encouraging you to open your mind to some new views.
I'm not optimistic, though.
When did we loose the right to free association? Yes, the judge should be taken off the bench for violating the constitution which doesn't specifically give us the right to free association in those exact words, but historic rulings have certainly established that principle.
Fred Speckmann
Like with everything else, there's a *context* to that statement, and the context is all important.
In this case, the government is not asking, it is compelling.
Marriage is God's, not Caesar's, btw (if you insist on taking it out of context).
You're rape analogy is more like breaking into someone's house and stealing things that weren't for sale to anyone and leaving money.
A businessman can choose his product and price, but he cannot choose his customers.
There is nothing you can say in 'defense' of homosexuality that cannot be said in 'defense' of pedophilia, bestiality, or any of a thousand sexual "orientations".
Sexual appetites are sexual appetites, and if a homosexual can't "choose" to be attracted to members of the same sex, then a pedophile can't "choose" to be attracted to children, or a bestial "choose" to be attracted to animals.
The difference being, we haven't been coerced and propagandized to accept bestiality or pedophilia as healthy and normal... yet.
That said, the only issue worth discussing is the court's ruling. The rest is crap (so to speak).
Homosexuals can engage in civil contracts just as can heterosexuals.
There are board rooms around the world where civil contracts are entered into every day, with no ceremony and no sexual activity of any kind involved (well, in France they may kiss each other on each cheek, but... they're *French*).
On the contrary, marriage is a religious concept and religious institution.
I even approve of homosexual bakers who have ovens in America... provided they aren't actually baking homosexuals in them.
Diabetics are created by God, as well... I'm not obligated to make confections without sugar for them to eat.
Child molesters are created by God, as well. Am I obligated to do business with them? Or are they expected to control their appetites?
I won't eat liver, by choice, either. Doesn't mean people who love to eat liver are compelled to do so.
I don't care if it's a choice; sexual appetites are an irrelevancy. Being coerced to do business with someone I do not wish to do business with IS the issue.
"Community service", unlike the "charitable" things the left support... is voluntary.
I do not volunteer.
By your logic, I *must* go rape any number of beautiful female celebrities, because I cannot control my behavior, even if I know that behavior is wrong. Simply because I'm attracted to them I must force them to have sex with me. I have no choice.
The owners of the lunch counters had a perfect right to refuse to do business with whomever they chose for whatever reason they chose.
The city, however, didn't have the authority to restrict admittance to public services, or regulate who may or may not start a lunch counter based upon race.
Equal protection under the law doesn't mean laws forcing equality; it means the existing laws be applied equally. It means that, in legal proceedings, in regulation, I am protected by the law regardless of any aspect of my person.
It doesn't mean passing laws to coerce equal treatment of their fellows on the part of free citizens.
You just said "he's supposed to be catering to the public, that means ALL of the public."
I'm part of "the public" therefore he has to cater to me, and unless I buy his wedding cakes, he can't cater to me.
What? I love my dog, I choose to marry her. Why are you denying me the freedom to marry the one I love?
Nobody is being denied the freedom to love or marry the one they choose. Nobody is being allowed to redefine marriage to mean something other than what it is. Well, actually, thanks to the courts (in places like IOWA, cough) people ARE being allowed to redefine marriage.
Next, I want to redefine "theft" to include possessing property that isn't mine, but I wish to be mine. Therefore, Walmart, Target, Home Depot and Bob Howard Auto Mall are all guilty of stealing from me.
Hey, I like this redefining stuff! Let's redefine citizenship to include (cause we wanna be inclusive) all animals and plants that are "born" on the American continents! We're going to need government funded assistance to help the plants get to the voting places, of course...
Then again, we have vegetables voting now...
Load more comments...