solipsismx wrote: »
Welcome to the 21st century, AZ and TX!
At least two scientific studies have demonstrated that men who have extremely intolerant views of homosexuality (hint: a few are here) tend to have larger erections (as measured by penile plethysmography) than other heterosexual men when viewing films of gay sex acts who are not overtly homophobic. This explains a lot. It makes sense that men who are not exactly sure or comfortable with being a heterosexual would lash out at gay people due to their own insecurity. When shown gay porn, 80% of homophobes had an erection compared to 34% of non-homophobic males professing to be heterosexual. Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?Henry E. Adams, Lester W. Wright, Jr., and Bethany A. Lohr University of Georgia.http://my.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdfApparently homophobia also takes around 2 to 5 years off your life in another study.http://newsok.com/study-homophobia-takes-years-off-of-your-life/article/3935208
The slippery slope arguments that mention bestiality, incest, polygamy etc.. are the same tired old arguments used in Loving V. Virginia against miscegenation. Amazing how bigots just adapt with the times and their victims may change but their hate remains in tact. No one is pushing an agenda or asking for special rights. This is about equality and dignity that has been denied to certain Americans and until gay marriage is legal in all 50 states it will remain an important topic. Two consenting adults that wish to marry should have that right in 2014.
Ha ha ha! I guess it helps to have carefully conducted scientific experiments to confirm what we all know: That the people who are most virulently opposed to homosexuality are homosexuals themselves, albeit the self-denying variety. (I hate gays! They make me feel 'funny'.) We see that all the time with these anti-gay evangelical preachers and guardians of morality and senators. As the old saying in the old country says, the chicken that clucks the loudest is the one that laid the egg.
Welcome to the forum.
Just an FYI: Double, triple, quadruple exclamation points, all caps and poor grammar when making emphatic assertions are strongly discouraged here.
Just be careful about the creme-filled pastries....
I was beginning to wonder how long frugality would go with his supposed Christian teachings before jumping to a crude anti-gay joke.
This bill has a far reaching concern for me. So this bill would have someone from a business refuse you service because of religious belief. Hypothetical this Business could refuse you service if you are dark skin or tall or mix marriage or for whatever reason they can refuse service because of their religious belief. Sorry but this goes backwards to Jim Crow days of the South. Why do they need this bill. The business can just put up a sign and said we can refuse you service due to our religious belief.
That tea party has sailed.
headrush69 wrote: »
Apples and oranges.
The discriminating part is not what you sell, but not selling what you sell to specific people.
There are no gay people. Only heterosexual people with identity issues.
To claim that homosexuality is an identity issue is truly the definition of ignorance. Can you please define transgender for me?
frugality wrote: »
Everyone should have the right to discriminate between right and wrong.
solipsismx wrote: »
I suppose one could be born with the tendency to be a thief.
Ever since 1964, signs like that haven't actually been true. You can't, by law, refuse right to service to someone because of race, color, religion or national origin. The 14th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause) says that the right must be applied equally. One citizen should not have more rights than another. That's why courts are striking down gay marriage bans, that's why this law would have been overturned, and that's why this will all be history at some point. America doesn't do everything right, but in the 1960s, society did set into motion the promise that the Declaration of Independence started with when Jefferson wrote that "All men are created equal."
If gay people are icky to you or against your religious laws, don't marry a gay person. It won't hurt your relationship one bit. This is America, and we're proud of the fact that we aren't a theocracy. For those of you who seem to want it to be one, I assume will you be OK if suddenly a religious group you really don't like gains majority of Congress or the courts?
Two consenting adults that wish to marry should have that right in 2014.
And a photographer who doesn't want to take pictures at a gay wedding should have that right in 2014. I wonder if the NRA could sue a Web design firm that refuses to take their business for political reasons.
1960, Jackson Mississippi, Woolworths counter, isn't that you on the left with the drink in your hand?
Ever since 1964, signs like that haven't actually been true. You can't, by law, refuse right to service to someone because of race, color, religion or national origin. The 14th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause) says that the right must be applied equally. One citizen should not have more rights than another. That's why courts are striking down gay marriage bans, that's why this law would have been overturned, and that's why this will all be history at some point.
Is that considered a logical argument? "Due to a change in the law in 1964 you can't do A, B, of C, therefore courts are saying that you can't do D." I wonder what other restrictions the Court will discover/invent.
That is a good question but I think it has already been addressed. When you sign up for an ad feed from say, Google, you can tailor the type of ads that you want to display and block any organizations, for example competitors, form being in the queue. I think the same thing probably applies to philosophical competition as well. For example I have two non-profit organizations that do not want to have their ads to appear on the same page and that is a bit of challenge programatically. They both do the same kind of work but really don't like sharing the limelight.
I'm pretty sure that meets the definition of assault. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that violence against gays or anyone else is acceptable. And if Woolworth (do they still exist) tried that today, there would (rightfully) be a massive uprising and they would decide that policy immediately.
applezilla wrote: »
That tea party has sailed.