gay and trans people deserve rights

RickeyHoltsclaw

@FL0R13NZ ;  LGBTQ is demonically rooted and a deception that finds its origin in Hell...a mental and spiritual illness that destroys mind, body, soul. As a human being, the LGBTQ is granted the inalienable rights of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness but they have NO "right" to suggest their perverse behavior must be accepted by those in a society seeking sustainable norms, mores, values...LGBTQ has NO right to force their wickedness and perversion upon our youth or insist that God-honoring society acknowledge and advocate their deviance via the idio-cy of pronouns and gender insanity. LGBTQ belongs in the closet as it is a shame to any people seeking goodness, morality, life and virtue and a healthy family and productive, stable, communities. The ONLY Hope for the LGBTQ deceived is repentance and a sincere acknowledgment that Jesus is our Messiah.

 

Joeseph

@RickeyHoltsclaw




RICKETS IS DEEPLY OFFENDED AND OUTRAGED AT OTHERS LACK OF A MORAL COMPASS , YET CALLS THE CHRISTIAN GOD PURE LOVE EVEN WHEN HE COMMANDS MURDER, RAPE AND PILLAGE ..........DEAR OH DEAR........




LGBTQ is demonically rooted and a deception that finds its origin in Hell.

More Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace.  If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor.  But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town.  When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town.  But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder.  You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

What kind of God approves of murder, rape, and slavery?

just_sayin

@FL0R13NZ

you cant control who your attracted to 

Changing any behavior is difficult - ask anyone who has gone to Alcoholics Anonymous. There are genetic predictors for weight, however fat people don't throw fat parades to celebrate their fat pride.  There is actually a much higher genetic link to weight than to sexual orientation.  Science has shown that there is no gay gene.  

There’s (Still) No Gay Gene

Even the so called genetic indicators show that they are not determinate:

The researchers found five genetic variants—changes at a single site in the DNA sequence—that correlated with same-sex sexual behavior: two of these had a significant effect only in males, and one only in females. 
The effect of each variant is small and inconsistent: for example, the authors note that in one of the male-specific variants, subjects who had a thymine molecule (“T”) at a particular spot in the genetic sequence on chromosome 11 have a 3.6 percent likelihood of having had sex with other males, while subjects who had a guanine molecule (“G”) there had a likelihood of 4 percent. The other four significant variants (on chromosomes 4, 7, 12, and 15) showed similar, or even smaller, effects.
It’s effectively impossible to predict an individual’s sexual behavior from their genome,” said Neale, the director of genetics in the Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research at the Broad and an associate professor in medicine at Harvard Medical School (HMS), during a Tuesday teleconference introducing the paper’s findings. In fact, the team estimated that the genetic variants they studied could predict, at best, somewhere between 8 percent and 25 percent of the reported variation in the entire cohort’s sexual behavior. 

Plainly put, the vast majority (at least 75% - probably closer to 96%) of people with the so called gay indicators are heterosexual.  That means there are vastly more heterosexuals with gay genetic indicators than there are gay people.  Not a convincing argument.

So being gay is not genetically determined.  I'm not saying that people always consciously choose to be sexually attracted to people of the same sex, no more than fat people consciously choose to be fat.  But if something is not genetically determinate, then it can change over time. That includes sexual attraction, which research shows can change.

Should gay and trans people have rights?  Sure.  In a Democratic society every individual should be treated with respect and have the same rights.  But not extra rights that others don't have.  For instance a gay person doesn't have the right to make a Christian baker violate his religious views and make a cake for a gay wedding.  A gay person doesn't have the right to make a Muslim photographer take pictures of his gay wedding.  A trans person doesn't have the right to force someone else to use pronouns that do not match their biological sex against that person't religious convictions.

If a trans person wants to pretend that they are a different sex than they biologically are, they can live their life the way they want, provided they are an adult.  They don't have the right to join a woman's sports team though, if they are a biological male.  Male and female are not 'feelings', they are rooted in biological reality.  They don't have a right to force others to concede to their delusion.  

polytheistwitch

A bakery is a business. You have to get a state license and in most places a city license. You agree not to discriminate. Unless it's the church making the cake you don't get to use your religion as an excuse to be a bigot when it comes to doing business with other people.

just_sayin

polytheistwitch said:

A bakery is a business. You have to get a state license and in most places a city license. You agree not to discriminate. Unless it's the church making the cake you don't get to use your religion as an excuse to be a bigot when it comes to doing business with other people.

The Supreme Court found that it was the Christian baker who was discriminated against.  The gay couple were the bigots according to the finding of the case. SO LETS BE CLEAR - GAY COUPLES DEMANDING CHRISTIANS CELEBRATE THEIR WEDDING ARE THE BIGOTS!!!!!! 
If I ask a Muslim caterer to serve pork at a function, is he obligated to do so?  If the KKK asks a Black videographer to record their convention does he have to do that?  If Barrack Obama or Louis Farrakhan ask a Jewish baker to make a cake that says 'Hitler was right' does the Jewish baker have to do this?  What if Louis Farrakhan asks a Jewish painter to paint a picture of Jews dying in a gas chamber?  
You do not have the right to someone else's time or labor.  You can choose to not hire them, but you do not have a right to force them to participate in something that violates their faith or beliefs.  Their time, talents, and labor belongs to them and they retain the rights of how to use their time, talents, and labor.  The bigotry you advocate would force someone to engage in speech that is contrary to their religious views - that's a violation of their rights.  You ignored that fact.  Too often leftists only see one side and ignore the rights of others.  They fail to see their bigotry.

Barnardot

@RickeyHoltsclaw Well what your got to realize is that people nowadays are over all that hate the minority groups crap and the only reason you’re stuck on that thinking is because of all the weird religious stuff that you believe in. 

And that’s where all this homophobia started anyway. 

I think that you will find that being a homo or a lezo will be the default state of being anyway. We can procreate well enough without a guy doing a female.

So then when we analize the hole situation we can see that two guys in a gay relationship is more natural. 

Guys relate better to guys and women relate better to women in relationships. Also, there are heaps of guys that are just simply not very well hung and heaps of women who are ultra-gaping in the downstairs department. So, trying to whack a needle into a canyon is hardly a recipe for a harmonious relationship. 

So, when you put these two factors together is it no wonder why we have such a high rate of hetero divorces?

So then, we begin to realize that squeezing a doolie into a real tight an us is more natural and more satisfying. And women like doing the scissors anyway.

so you just need to get with the zeitgeist of time and get real about what sexuality is all about nowadays.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Barnardot ; Advocating for a mental, spiritual, illness AKA LGBTQ perversion does not offer a cure or a solution to the sickness no more than taking aspirin for a metastasizing malignancy remedies the devastation to human tissue and organs. 

LGBTQ is a mental illness, a spiritual sickness, that only faith in Jesus can heal and redeem. LGBTQ is NOT viable, normal, sustainable....it is destructive and horrific in its demonic destruction in the individual and the Nation that is polluted by same. 

HOMOPHOBIA is not at issue...your inability to acknowledge the TRUTH is at issue. 

You are not mentally, morally, ethically, spiritually, well as is every atheist and every abortionist and every advocate and liberally insane supporter of LGBTQ filth.

@Factfinder @Joeseph ; @21CenturyIconoclast ; @Polytheistwitch ; @Fredsnephew ; @MayCaesar

   

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Joeseph ; Elohim is a warrior God...our entire existence in Time is predicated upon war that was initiated in the Spiritual Realm and is causation for our temporary creation in Time as a battle ground for dealing with the aggressors in that war. You are dead spiritually and ignorant of this truth because you pursue the insanity of atheism in your offense over the deceit of Catholicism and the spiritual ignorance of those demonic cults...but Elohim is in a war of cosmic proportions and His actions through battles between Israel and the pagan tribes that warred against them is well documented for cause...you seek every opportunity to obfuscate your hatred for Jesus and the Bible...you are a pathetic atheistic loser who provides no hope for humanity, only death in Hell in your vulgar and perverse diatribes in this forum that honor only your father, Satan (John 8:44).

@Factfinder @Joeseph ; @21CenturyIconoclast ; @Polytheistwitch ; @Fredsnephew ; @MayCaesar

jack

FL0R13NZ said:

gay and trans people deserve rights

Hello F:

That's the wrong question.  It implies that there's somebody sitting in judgment as to whether a person DESERVES rights or not..  In this great country of ours, gay and trans people HAVE rights automatically, absolutely and unequivocally.

Quoting the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

excon

Bogan

you cant control who your attracted to 

SO, if a man is sexually  attracted to sheep or to 10 year old girls or boys, we should not be judgmental?

polytheistwitch

@just_sayin baking a cake for a wedding is a transactional agreement. They're not participating in the wedding they're providing an item that's going to a wedding. And the only bigots in this equation are Christians that refuse to follow the rules of business and serve every customer that comes through the door for a particular item. Don't want to do gay weddings don't do any weddings that's how it's supposed to work.

polytheistwitch

@Bogan Since none of those parties can consent you're comparing apples and oranges.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@polytheistwitch ; There are no "gay weddings" but a union of perversion....weddings are between men and women. There is no such thing as "same sex marriages" but a union of perversion...irrespective of what man might approve or "license."

just_sayin

polytheistwitch said:

@just_sayin baking a cake for a wedding is a transactional agreement. They're not participating in the wedding they're providing an item that's going to a wedding. And the only bigots in this equation are Christians that refuse to follow the rules of business and serve every customer that comes through the door for a particular item. Don't want to do gay weddings don't do any weddings that's how it's supposed to work.

To the Christian baker, a marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman and God.  It is a religious act.  You would have him celebrate something he believes desecrates his beliefs.  Those who demand the Christian must participate in celebrating something that God disapproves of are the bigots.  Why do you ignore the rights of people of faith?  

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

polytheistwitch said:

@just_sayin baking a cake for a wedding is a transactional agreement. They're not participating in the wedding they're providing an item that's going to a wedding. And the only bigots in this equation are Christians that refuse to follow the rules of business and serve every customer that comes through the door for a particular item. Don't want to do gay weddings don't do any weddings that's how it's supposed to work.

To the Christian baker, a marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman and God.  

So. Their rights aren't threatened as the wedding cake wasn't for them. They nor anyone else has the right to use their business as a  bully pulpit when they're biding for the secular dollar. You agree when restaurants refuse service to Trump or his supporters? No? Why not?  The old bigoted signs that read "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" Don't mean so much these days.

Anti-Discrimination Laws

Anti-discrimination laws apply on the local, state and federal levels. The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that no business (public or private) serving the public can discriminate based on a customer’s national origin, sex, religion, color or race. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act maintains no business is allowed to turn away a customer based on the person being a member of the following protected status:

• Race or color
• National origin or citizenship status
• Religious beliefs
• Sex
• Age
• Veteran status
• Disability or pregnancy
• Sexual orientation
• Gender identity
• https://amtrustfinancial.com/blog/small-business/can-a-business-legally-refuse-a-customer

all4actt

@polytheistwitch

That has already been decided in the Supreme Court.  This ruling basically states that you can not force any person or buisness to have to do anything that is against their religious beliefs. 

Is it smart for a buisness to restrict their services to any segment of the population? Probably not, but it still remains their choice.

My big question is why would anybody want to support a buisness that has an obvious prejudice against them?

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

polytheistwitch said:

@just_sayin baking a cake for a wedding is a transactional agreement. They're not participating in the wedding they're providing an item that's going to a wedding. And the only bigots in this equation are Christians that refuse to follow the rules of business and serve every customer that comes through the door for a particular item. Don't want to do gay weddings don't do any weddings that's how it's supposed to work.

To the Christian baker, a marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman and God.  

So. Their rights aren't threatened as the wedding cake wasn't for them. They nor anyone else has the right to use their business as a  bully pulpit when they're biding for the secular dollar. You agree when restaurants refuse service to Trump or his supporters? No? Why not?  The old bigoted signs that read "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" Don't mean so much these days.

Anti-Discrimination Laws

Anti-discrimination laws apply on the local, state and federal levels. The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that no business (public or private) serving the public can discriminate based on a customer’s national origin, sex, religion, color or race. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act maintains no business is allowed to turn away a customer based on the person being a member of the following protected status:

• Race or color
• National origin or citizenship status
• Religious beliefs
• Sex
• Age
• Veteran status
• Disability or pregnancy
• Sexual orientation
• Gender identity
• https://amtrustfinancial.com/blog/small-business/can-a-business-legally-refuse-a-customer

Facts don't care about your feelings.  The facts are the Supreme Court ruled in the Christian baker's favor.  He does not have to be forced into labor against his will to produce an item to celebrate something that his faith says is wrong.  .  Why did you seek to deceive, @FactFinder?  

It seems some support involuntary servitude if the victim is a Christian, as @FactFinder does.  It is bigoted to force someone to use their time or labor for something that violates their faith.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

polytheistwitch said:

@just_sayin baking a cake for a wedding is a transactional agreement. They're not participating in the wedding they're providing an item that's going to a wedding. And the only bigots in this equation are Christians that refuse to follow the rules of business and serve every customer that comes through the door for a particular item. Don't want to do gay weddings don't do any weddings that's how it's supposed to work.

To the Christian baker, a marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman and God.  

So. Their rights aren't threatened as the wedding cake wasn't for them. They nor anyone else has the right to use their business as a  bully pulpit when they're biding for the secular dollar. You agree when restaurants refuse service to Trump or his supporters? No? Why not?  The old bigoted signs that read "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" Don't mean so much these days.

Anti-Discrimination Laws

Anti-discrimination laws apply on the local, state and federal levels. The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that no business (public or private) serving the public can discriminate based on a customer’s national origin, sex, religion, color or race. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act maintains no business is allowed to turn away a customer based on the person being a member of the following protected status:

• Race or color
• National origin or citizenship status
• Religious beliefs
• Sex
• Age
• Veteran status
• Disability or pregnancy
• Sexual orientation
• Gender identity
• https://amtrustfinancial.com/blog/small-business/can-a-business-legally-refuse-a-customer

Facts don't care about your feelings.  The facts are the Supreme Court ruled in the Christian baker's favor.  He does not have to be forced into labor against his will to produce an item to celebrate something that his faith says is wrong.  .  Why did you seek to deceive, @FactFinder?  

It seems some support involuntary servitude if the victim is a Christian, as @FactFinder does.  It is bigoted to force someone to use their time or labor for something that violates their faith.

True facts don't care about feelings. The Supreme court isn't perfect, or do you think they are? The statutes remain in place, speaking of facts. Odd you think I've had an emotional response bent on deception when it's you who practices deceit time and time again. Is it your lie that the laws I've produced don't exist in your fairytale existence? Cause they do exist you know. Anti discriminations laws that is. That's called knowledge based on facts that's trumping your fantasy magical fairy dust or spirit or marshmallows! 

polytheistwitch

@just_sayin You're going to try to claim that a Christian should be put into servitude when you're the type of person that would force a woman to carry a baby for 9 months and shoot it out of freaking vajayjay.

just_sayin

polytheistwitch said:

@just_sayin You're going to try to claim that a Christian should be put into servitude when you're the type of person that would force a woman to carry a baby for 9 months and shoot it out of freaking vajayjay.

Abortion kills an innocent human life.  A gay couple could simply ask someone else to make their cake.  See the difference.  No one died in the Christian baker situation.  I swear the left will protest all day to keep a child molesting serial murderer from the death penalty, but will eagerly kill an innocent human life at the drop of a hat.

Tell me if the situation is reversed and a gay man is asked to make a cake that says some derogatory slur about gay men (and make that derogatory slander as bad and as offensive as you can make it - so that it disrespects the man and all other gay people to), should he have to make that cake?  The tendency of the immoral left is to defend the rights of those it sees as on their side, but ignore the rights of others.  So most leftists would say that such a request would violate the man's civil rights and he doesn't have to be forced into speech that denounces a protected class.  See the inconsistency and religious bigotry there?  I know I do.

Barnardot

@just_sayin @FLOR13NZ ;Science has shown that there is no gay gene. 

Yes, but science has shown that there are gay chromosomes which are in the genes.

Up to you your tricks again by taking half the story and trying to make it a fact. When will just_lyin ever stop.

just_sayin

Barnardot said:

@just_sayin @FLOR13NZ ;Science has shown that there is no gay gene. 

Yes, but science has shown that there are gay chromosomes which are in the genes.

Up to you your tricks again by taking half the story and trying to make it a fact. When will just_lyin ever stop.

Bernie, if I had mentioned where to buy a strap on dildo with a huge fist on the end of it that your wife could put on and pound you with, you would have remembered every detail.  I already addressed what you claimed I omitted:

There’s (Still) No Gay Gene

Even the so called genetic indicators show that they are not determinate:

The researchers found five genetic variants—changes at a single site in the DNA sequence—that correlated with same-sex sexual behavior: two of these had a significant effect only in males, and one only in females. 

The effect of each variant is small and inconsistent: for example, the authors note that in one of the male-specific variants, subjects who had a thymine molecule (“T”) at a particular spot in the genetic sequence on chromosome 11 have a 3.6 percent likelihood of having had sex with other males, while subjects who had a guanine molecule (“G”) there had a likelihood of 4 percent. The other four significant variants (on chromosomes 4, 7, 12, and 15) showed similar, or even smaller, effects.

It’s effectively impossible to predict an individual’s sexual behavior from their genome,” said Neale, the director of genetics in the Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research at the Broad and an associate professor in medicine at Harvard Medical School (HMS), during a Tuesday teleconference introducing the paper’s findings. In fact, the team estimated that the genetic variants they studied could predict, at best, somewhere between 8 percent and 25 percent of the reported variation in the entire cohort’s sexual behavior. 

Plainly put, the vast majority (at least 75% - probably closer to 96%) of people with the so called gay indicators are heterosexual.  That means there are vastly more heterosexuals with gay genetic indicators than there are gay people.  Not a convincing argument.

So being gay is not genetically determined.  As I already said.

I know your next question, Bernie, you can buy the fist dildo on Amazon.com.  You're welcome.

Barnardot

@just_sayin @Polytheistwitch ;SO LETS BE CLEAR - GAY COUPLES DEMANDING CHRISTIANS CELEBRATE THEIR WEDDING ARE THE BIGOTS!!!!!! 

Come on, you have already been pulled up for your dishonest arguments on this page. Now settle down, cut the capital letters and exclamation marks, take your Ritalin, and listen up.

The decision in that case was about the customer getting stroppy and threatening the baker; it had nothing to do with being gay. But given that, it's no wonder that the customer got stroppy anyway.

Around the same time, a Registrar was arrested and thrown in the clink for refusing to issue a marriage license to a gay couple. 

And gay couples are not demanding that Christians celebrate their wedding. 

And while you're at it you can make an attempt to cut the gaslighting. It is totally ridiculous to accuse gays of being bigoted, and any antagonism from them is the result of bigotry from Christians in the first place.

Jesus bleeding Christ, sort yourself out.

 

just_sayin

Barnardot said:

@just_sayin @Polytheistwitch ;SO LETS BE CLEAR - GAY COUPLES DEMANDING CHRISTIANS CELEBRATE THEIR WEDDING ARE THE BIGOTS!!!!!! 

Come on, you have already been pulled up for your dishonest arguments on this page. Now settle down, cut the capital letters and exclamation marks, take your Ritalin, and listen up.

The decision in that case was about the customer getting stroppy and threatening the baker; it had nothing to do with being gay. But given that, it's no wonder that the customer got stroppy anyway.

Around the same time, a Registrar was arrested and thrown in the clink for refusing to issue a marriage license to a gay couple. 

And gay couples are not demanding that Christians celebrate their wedding. 

And while you're at it you can make an attempt to cut the gaslighting. It is totally ridiculous to accuse gays of being bigoted, and any antagonism from them is the result of bigotry from Christians in the first place.

Jesus bleeding Christ, sort yourself out.

 

SMH.  Are you seriously saying gay people can't be bigoted???? Of course they can.  Anyone can be bigoted.  

In 2018, the US Supreme Court ruled 7–2 in favor of Jack Phillips, a Christian baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The court found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission acted with hostility towards Phillips' religious beliefs.  The Christian baker showed he was the one who had been discriminated against by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.  Stop your lying, Bernie.

Barnardot

@jack ;FL0R13NZ said:

gay and trans people deserve rights

Hello F:

That's the wrong question.  It implies that there's somebody sitting in judgment as to whether a person DESERVES rights or not.. 

And it implies quite correctly.
There are heaps of red necks and righties continually judging minority groups and they need to be reminded.

Barnardot

@Bogan ;you cant control who your attracted to 
SO, if a man is sexually  attracted to sheep or to 10 year old girls or boys, we should not be judgmental?

Got nothing to do with it. The argument is that we can't control who we are attracted to. 

Although the statement is wrong, because we are humans with a brain (at least, most of us) and we have the ability to control our inclinations.

The difference is that doing pedro things is illegal but doing gay things is not.

polytheistwitch

@just_sayin Who goes into any bakery and ask for a cake that says something derogatory about a whole group of people. And they're not asking anyone to put something derogatory on the wedding cake. Wedding cakes for straight people you make wedding cakes for gay people. If you don't want to make wedding cakes for gay people don't make wedding cakes.

just_sayin

polytheistwitch said:

@just_sayin Who goes into any bakery and ask for a cake that says something derogatory about a whole group of people. And they're not asking anyone to put something derogatory on the wedding cake. Wedding cakes for straight people you make wedding cakes for gay people. If you don't want to make wedding cakes for gay people don't make wedding cakes.

Well, the poor Christian baker has had lots of gay and trans people ask for wedding cakes and to celebrate their sex transitions; specially since the Supreme Court case.  There is another case pending with a trans person now.  And you may not think it is derogatory to harass the baker, and that is where you are missing it.  It is a derogatory thing in the mind of the Christian baker.  Again, and how many times must I repeat this, we must not ignore the rights of those whom we disagree with.   You honestly don't see how forcing someone with strong religious convictions to violate his faith and make a creation that celebrates what he believes is a sin and an abomination is not in anyway derogatory to him or to his faith?  He believes marriage is a covenant before God.  You are asking him to celebrate something blasphemous to him and join His God to it.

Did you know that if someone walks into a bakery and asks for a Red Sox cake, and the owner is a huge Yankees fan, the baker can legally refuse service.  But you would deny the Christian baker the right to refuse to make a cake celebrating what he believes is the abomination of joining God's approval to a same-sex marriage.  SMH.  Learn to respect the rights of others - especially those you disagree with.  just sayin

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;The Christian baker showed he was the one who had been discriminated against by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. 

Okay, so I challenge you on this. Prove that the judgement was because of religious grounds. And I mean, from an unbiased, non Goofy site, but from the actual transcript of the proceedings.

Barnardot

@just_sayin @polytheistwitch ; You honestly don't see how forcing someone with strong religious convictions to violate his faith

And you just can't see how someone with strong religious beliefs is a total tool because his beliefs are extremely anti-social, and in some cases illegal, bigoted and offensive. 

Get real. If someone is "violating" a vial, corrupt, anti-social, bigoted system of belief then so be it. These nits have to be told how offensive towards normal society they rally are.

just_sayin

Barnardot said:

@just_sayin ;The Christian baker showed he was the one who had been discriminated against by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. 

Okay, so I challenge you on this. Prove that the judgement was because of religious grounds. And I mean, from an unbiased, non Goofy site, but from the actual transcript of the proceedings.

OK.  Here's some of the text from the Supreme Court verdict in Masterpiece Cakeshop vs Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Held: The Commission’s actions in this case violated the Free Exercise Clause. Pp. 9–18. (a) The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression. See Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. ___, ___. While it is unexceptional 2 MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD. v. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMM’N Syllabus that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. To Phillips, his claim that using his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs. His dilemma was understandable in 2012, which was before Colorado recognized the validity of gay marriages performed in the State and before this Court issued United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. 744, or Obergefell. Given the State’s position at the time, there is some force to Phillips’ argument that he was not unreasonable in deeming his decision lawful. State law at the time also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages they considered offensive. Indeed, while the instant enforcement proceedings were pending, the State Civil Rights Division concluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages. Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case. Pp. 9–12. (b) That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case. Another indication of hostility is the different treatment of Phillips’ case and the cases of other bakers with objections to anti-gay messages who prevailed before the Commission. The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message on the requested wedding cake would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the cases involving requests for cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism. The Division also considered that each bakery was willing to sell other products to the prospective customers, but the Commission found Phillips’ willingness to do the same irrelevant. The State Court of Cite as: 584 U. S. ____ (2018) 3 Syllabus Appeals’ brief discussion of this disparity of treatment does not answer Phillips’ concern that the State’s practice was to disfavor the religious basis of his objection. Pp. 12–16. (c) For these reasons, the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint. 

Point proved.

polytheistwitch

@just_sayin I think once you get a business license in a city and state are letting you make money selling wares you have to sell those wares to people you don't like as well as people you do. If you can't do that you're discriminating and you should be shut down and lose your business license. As a business owner myself I would never tell someone they weren't welcome in my business unless they were acting like a goofball or were violent or stealing. Because when you open up a business to the public the public comes through the door. It's a bad business model and an even crappier moral model

just_sayin

polytheistwitch said:

@just_sayin I think once you get a business license in a city and state are letting you make money selling wares you have to sell those wares to people you don't like as well as people you do. If you can't do that you're discriminating and you should be shut down and lose your business license. As a business owner myself I would never tell someone they weren't welcome in my business unless they were acting like a goofball or were violent or stealing. Because when you open up a business to the public the public comes through the door. It's a bad business model and an even crappier moral model

In the Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court case, the court pointed to the fact that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had found that gay bakers had been allowed to not make cakes for customers who had requested cakes with the Bible verse "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." - Leviticus 18:22, but did not grant the Christian baker an exception.  They said this was discrimination based on the man's religious beliefs.  So, why is it OK to turn down a customer's request when someone wants a Bible verse on a cake, but not OK when it is to celebrate a ceremony that the man's religious faith says is a sin?  

Again, it just seems to me that you are failing to take into account everyone's rights or at least giving some people less rights than you are willing to grant to others. just sayin

MayCaesar

Something to consider is the difference between rights and privileges. A right is to do something implies that one doing it is protected by the government from retaliation by others - for example, the right to free speech means that the government will protect me from the mob's rage if I sing the Nazi national anthem on a crowded street. It does not imply that one is entitled to a private platform to do so on - for example, me singing the Nazi national anthem in a private cinema theater will get me kicked out, possibly banned from it, and that does not violate my right to free speech for I do not own the theater.

In the context of gays and trans people, they (should) have the same rights as everyone else, and no additional privileges. For example, if I need a prescription to get a particular drug, then so should a trans person. Merely saying, "I identify as the opposite sex", is not a free ticket to getting hormonal treatment without an approval by a doctor. Conversely, if I can marry a woman, then so should another woman.

Fredsnephew

Argument Topic: Hmmmmmmmmmm.

@FL0R13NZ

All people deserve rights.

Gay and trans people don't deserve special rights.

Delilah6120

@just_sayin

Plainly put, the vast majority (at least 75% - probably closer to 96%) of people with the so called gay indicators are heterosexual.  That means there are vastly more heterosexuals with gay genetic indicators than there are gay people.  Not a convincing argument.

So being gay is not genetically determined.  I'm not saying that people always consciously choose to be sexually attracted to people of the same sex, no more than fat people consciously choose to be fat.  But if something is not genetically determinate, then it can change over time. That includes sexual attraction, which research shows can change.

Should gay and trans people have rights?  Sure.  In a Democratic society every individual should be treated with respect and have the same rights.  But not extra rights that others don't have.  For instance a gay person doesn't have the right to make a Christian baker violate his religious views and make a cake for a gay wedding.  A gay person doesn't have the right to make a Muslim photographer take pictures of his gay wedding.  A trans person doesn't have the right to force someone else to use pronouns that do not match their biological sex against that person't religious convictions.

If a trans person wants to pretend that they are a different sex than they biologically are, they can live their life the way they want, provided they are an adult.  They don't have the right to join a woman's sports team though, if they are a biological male.  Male and female are not 'feelings', they are rooted in biological reality.  They don't have a right to force others to concede to their delusion.  

Sexual orientation is influenced by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors. And some studies say that genetic variations can play a role. There are many factors at play that can determine one´s sexual preference like hormonal exposure during fetal development, the brain structure and even early social experiences. One´s sexuality is influenced by multiple biological and environmental factors.

Correct, we all have rights. We should only be concerned when one asserts their rights and they infringe on anothers´ rights to freedom becomes the problem.

If oneś sexual orientation does not infringe on anothers´ rights, then mind your own damn business as Tim Walz has said.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Delilah6120 ; If one desires to live in sexual perversion and they're over eighteen years of age...it is your right to die in Hell but you do not have the "right" to force or introduce your perversion to children or seek legislation that permits the sexual mutilation of children. Keep your mental illness in the closet or at least keep it to yourself.

just_sayin

Delilah6120 said:

@just_sayin

Plainly put, the vast majority (at least 75% - probably closer to 96%) of people with the so called gay indicators are heterosexual.  That means there are vastly more heterosexuals with gay genetic indicators than there are gay people.  Not a convincing argument.

So being gay is not genetically determined.  I'm not saying that people always consciously choose to be sexually attracted to people of the same sex, no more than fat people consciously choose to be fat.  But if something is not genetically determinate, then it can change over time. That includes sexual attraction, which research shows can change.

Should gay and trans people have rights?  Sure.  In a Democratic society every individual should be treated with respect and have the same rights.  But not extra rights that others don't have.  For instance a gay person doesn't have the right to make a Christian baker violate his religious views and make a cake for a gay wedding.  A gay person doesn't have the right to make a Muslim photographer take pictures of his gay wedding.  A trans person doesn't have the right to force someone else to use pronouns that do not match their biological sex against that person't religious convictions.

If a trans person wants to pretend that they are a different sex than they biologically are, they can live their life the way they want, provided they are an adult.  They don't have the right to join a woman's sports team though, if they are a biological male.  Male and female are not 'feelings', they are rooted in biological reality.  They don't have a right to force others to concede to their delusion.  

Sexual orientation is influenced by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors. And some studies say that genetic variations can play a role. There are many factors at play that can determine one´s sexual preference like hormonal exposure during fetal development, the brain structure and even early social experiences. One´s sexuality is influenced by multiple biological and environmental factors.

Correct, we all have rights. We should only be concerned when one asserts their rights and they infringe on anothers´ rights to freedom becomes the problem.

If oneś sexual orientation does not infringe on anothers´ rights, then mind your own damn business as Tim Walz has said.

Pointing out that there isn't a gay gene is just pointing to the truth.  The truth does not care about your feelings.  However, practically, it is you who is more likely to not be minding your business.  Leftists have tried to ban programs (SOCE) that help someone who is pursuing a heterosexual lifestyle.  Shouldn't they be allowed to be who they want to be, and make their own choices, or is it only when they want to be gay that you will tolerate their choice?  The research shows that sexual orientation is not set in stone.  Let people make their own choices.

While I may not agree with someone's choice, I haven't tried to stop them from making it with regards to their sexual preference.  However, many leftists can't say that.  

RickeyHoltsclaw

@FL0R13NZ ; What "rights" does the LGBTQAI++ minority deserve that are not already guaranteed them in the Bill of Rights?

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@FL0R13NZ ; What "rights" does the LGBTQAI++ minority deserve that are not already guaranteed them in the Bill of Rights?

The right to not be discriminated against just because their sexual or racial identity in public or places open to the public. 

all4actt

@polytheistwitch

SCOTUS disagreed.