Who do you believe is going to win the religious liberty case this Tuesday?

WilliamSchulz

I would like to point out that I have not mixed up the facts of this case. I have been going over this case with a doctorate professor who we have shared ideas with. I would also like to thank Edril for summarizing my points nicely. 

I would also like to point out to Dr. Cereal that he did not deny them on account of homosexuality, he denied them because they asked him to make a wedding cake that went against the baker's religious beliefs, so he was denying them a service, and he offered them anything else in his shop.

Finally, for Skeptical One, I do think being homosexual is a choice. People are not born gay because there is no "gay" hormone. Homosexuals make a choice to love other men, and can act on that love to marry the man. Although there is love in the relationship, it is imperfect love. One last thing, I condone homosexual desires, that is not wrong, but the choosing to act on the desires is what I consider wrong. 

I will post a longer argument, but I have school so see you soon.

someone234

@WilliamSchulz Thankfully the government isn't full of homophobic bigots like yourself and will hopefully rule to protect the gay and not the bigoted baker.

WilliamSchulz

How am I a homophobic bigot? Please don't use personal insults and attack my argument instead. 

someone234

@WilliamSchulz Whether or not you are 'born gay' it surely isn't something anyone would have chosen to be in the first place since all societies were homophobic.

There is absolutely no rationale to choose to be gay and yet people end up being it. So whether or not it's from birth or involuntarily developed throughout childhood and adolescence, it is definitely not a choice.

SkepticalOne

WilliamSchulz said:

Finally, for Skeptical One, I do think being homosexual is a choice. 

This is the crux of the debate I believe.  If homosexuality were a choice, then instead of race we might use something like hairstyle as an analogy.  Would it be ok to deny service to an individual because they had purple hair?  Well, sure, it would still be kind of a move, but at least the denial isn't because of an unchangeable aspect of the individual's person. Hairstyles isn't a protected class nor should it be.

However, the fact of the matter is homosexuality is not a choice. We don't know exactly what causes it but there appears to be an epigenetic component to it. Environment (including the womb) can trigger the expression of certain genes and resulting in homosexuality. This is beyond the control of the individual. 

This leads us back to denying service because of race or homosexuality is either equally justified or equally discriminatory. Neither race or homosexuality are something that can be rationally and/or honestly chosen, so the latter is true.



http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-genetic-homosexuality-nature-nurture-20151007-story.html
http://healthland.time.com/2012/12/13/new-insight-into-the-epigenetic-roots-of-homosexuality/

SkepticalOne

someone234 said:

@WilliamSchulz Thankfully the government isn't full of homophobic bigots like yourself and will hopefully rule to protect the gay and not the bigoted baker.

I think "bigot" should be reserved for malicious, fearful individuals. William is merely ignorant - not hateful or homophobic.

someone234

@SkepticalOne Enlighten me please as to how he is not the latter 2.

SkepticalOne

@someone234

Criticism isn't synonymous with fearful hatred. 

someone234

@SkepticalOne Okay?

bigot

NOUN

• A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/bigot

He is both homophobic and intolerant to those who wish to act on their urges in a way that harms no one because unlike paedophilia and bestiality everyone involved can be said to consent.

So... What's your point? Where did I say hateful? He is homophobic and bigoted.

DrCereal

WilliamSchulz said:

I would like to point out that I have not mixed up the facts of this case. I have been going over this case with a doctorate professor who we have shared ideas with. I would also like to thank Edril for summarizing my points nicely. 

I would also like to point out to Dr. Cereal that he did not deny them on account of homosexuality, he denied them because they asked him to make a wedding cake that went against the baker's religious beliefs, so he was denying them a service, and he offered them anything else in his shop.

Finally, for Skeptical One, I do think being homosexual is a choice. People are not born gay because there is no "gay" hormone. Homosexuals make a choice to love other men, and can act on that love to marry the man. Although there is love in the relationship, it is imperfect love. One last thing, I condone homosexual desires, that is not wrong, but the choosing to act on the desires is what I consider wrong. 

I will post a longer argument, but I have school so see you soon.

He indirectly denied them the product because they were homosexuals.
Them being homosexuals -> The marriage to be a homosexual marriage -> The baker to refuse to bake them a wedding cake.

Any direct or indirect refusal to sell a specific product that's open to the rest of the public to a protected class is a violation of CADA.

WilliamSchulz

Point in hand, it is not discrimination for the reasons mentioned previously that homosexuality is a belief and not empirical like race is. While the product of a wedding cake was open to the public, the cake is also hand done by the baker and is done privately for specific people, so the baker can deny specific people on account of not being in line with his beliefs. 

WilliamSchulz

someone234 said:

@SkepticalOne Okay?

bigot

NOUN

• A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/bigot

He is both homophobic and intolerant to those who wish to act on their urges in a way that harms no one because unlike paedophilia and bestiality everyone involved can be said to consent.

So... What's your point? Where did I say hateful? He is homophobic and bigoted.

You didn't, yet acting on urges, especially wrong ones, are wrong. Even if it doesn't hurt anyone, that does not make the action morally sound. Something can still be wrong, even if it doesn't hurt anyone. Take for instance the modern day KKK. They don't kill or lynch like they used to, but their words still harm blacks even if they are not physically harming them. This is where a distinction needs to be made here.

WilliamSchulz

SkepticalOne said:

WilliamSchulz said:

Finally, for Skeptical One, I do think being homosexual is a choice. 

This is the crux of the debate I believe.  If homosexuality were a choice, then instead of race we might use something like hairstyle as an analogy.  Would it be ok to deny service to an individual because they had purple hair?  Well, sure, it would still be kind of a move, but at least the denial isn't because of an unchangeable aspect of the individual's person. Hairstyles isn't a protected class nor should it be.

However, the fact of the matter is homosexuality is not a choice. We don't know exactly what causes it but there appears to be an epigenetic component to it. Environment (including the womb) can trigger the expression of certain genes and resulting in homosexuality. This is beyond the control of the individual. 

This leads us back to denying service because of race or homosexuality is either equally justified or equally discriminatory. Neither race or homosexuality are something that can be rationally and/or honestly chosen, so the latter is true.



http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-genetic-homosexuality-nature-nurture-20151007-story.html
http://healthland.time.com/2012/12/13/new-insight-into-the-epigenetic-roots-of-homosexuality/

The problem is that genes are in your DNA, and that can't be altered in the womb! Otherwise, everyone could not have Down Syndrome, because genes could be altered! But they CAN'T! Genes don't cause homosexuality, our mind and rational thinking does. Certain factors like poor family life and lack of care might ease the brain into thinking that homosexuality is okay, but genes are certainly not the cause!

someone234

@WilliamSchulz WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH KKK?!!!!!!

You are comparing the rights of KKK to the rights of homosexuals... LOL

WilliamSchulz

someone234 said:

@WilliamSchulz WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH KKK?!!!!!!

You are comparing the rights of KKK to the rights of homosexuals... LOL

Please read my argument, I am explaining that although some things don't hurt people, which is why you argue homosexuality is okay, that it can still be morally reprehensible.

someone234

@WilliamSchulz KKK hurts people, at first physically but mentally it hurts many. 

Anyway, I agree entirely with allowing full freedom of speech so you're barking up the wrong tree with me. I would support also pissing on KKK images in public and setting fire to their posters so I'm kind of an all-freedom person.

Edril

@WilliamSchulz

Do you remember making the decision about whether you are going to be attracted to men or women? Be honest. You didn't.

DrCereal

WilliamSchulz said:

Point in hand, it is not discrimination for the reasons mentioned previously that homosexuality is a belief and not empirical like race is. While the product of a wedding cake was open to the public, the cake is also hand done by the baker and is done privately for specific people, so the baker can deny specific people on account of not being in line with his beliefs. 

I'm sorry to say that it is discrimination (and is not allowed) in accordance with the law (the set of rules and definitions that are actually relevant to the case).

C.R.S. 24-34-601 (2)(a), "It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual’s patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry."

SkepticalOne

@WilliamSchulz

Epigentics is not a modification of DNA, but a change in how certain parts of it are expressed. This expression (on or off) is determined by environment. Homosexuality is linked to the prenatal environment (among other things). This not my opinion:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3296090/

To claim 'homosexuality is a choice' is a symptom of ignorance. I've provided information that can cure this ailment. 

SkepticalOne

@someone234

William has expressed an opinion contrary to yours and mine,  but he has not been intolerant. In fact, he has stated he condones aspects of homosexuality.

someone234

@SkepticalOne What he says and what he does are two different things.

He can say he "condones" the urge to f*** someone of one's own gender and then say he "abhors" acting on that urge... LOL... The reason it's funny is that he probably is going to do the paedophilia and bestiality comparison but I already covered that in a rebuttal posted earlier in this very debate.

SkepticalOne

@someone234

Apparently, you've seen something I haven't. At any rate, I think you diminish your ability to persuade your interlocutor by applying such emotionally charged labels. Of course, if persuasion is not your goal then...flame away!  ;-)

someone234

@SkepticalOne I have thwarted him and it is why he gave up.

WilliamSchulz

someone234 said:

@WilliamSchulz KKK hurts people, at first physically but mentally it hurts many. 

Anyway, I agree entirely with allowing full freedom of speech so you're barking up the wrong tree with me. I would support also pissing on KKK images in public and setting fire to their posters so I'm kind of an all-freedom person.

I'm fine with it too, I support free speech for the life of me, yet it is important to tell when free speech can sometimes be hate speech. In fact, free speech can not slander a person, right in the first amendment and interpreted by the Supreme Court.

WilliamSchulz

Edril said:

@WilliamSchulz

Do you remember making the decision about whether you are going to be attracted to men or women? Be honest. You didn't.

Yes, darn right I did! I would rather be attracted to women because the point of a man and a woman is to grow each other closer to God and also to raise a family. We have to define sexual intercourse, as a man and a woman can do this to have a kid, but two gays can only have pleasure, what they're doing isn't even sex because by biological definitions, sex creates new life, which simply can't happen under a man and a man! That is why I can't be attracted to men because that is not the point of marriage and my vocation.

WilliamSchulz

DrCereal said:

WilliamSchulz said:

Point in hand, it is not discrimination for the reasons mentioned previously that homosexuality is a belief and not empirical like race is. While the product of a wedding cake was open to the public, the cake is also hand done by the baker and is done privately for specific people, so the baker can deny specific people on account of not being in line with his beliefs. 

I'm sorry to say that it is discrimination (and is not allowed) in accordance with the law (the set of rules and definitions that are actually relevant to the case).

C.R.S. 24-34-601 (2)(a), "It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual’s patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry."

Thank you for the word for word, but this is where I simply say that he did not refuse them on homosexuality, which would fall under sexual orientation. He denied them because he did not want to be forced to take part in a homosexual event, namely their marriage, but he offered them ANYTHING else, so he wasn't discriminating, he was applying his religious conscience.

WilliamSchulz

someone234 said:

@SkepticalOne I have thwarted him and it is why he gave up.

Aww, that's so sweet of you. I deserve my sleep sometimes, its not giving up you know. Zzzzzzzz.