Submit! Update

Source.

Source.

A 27-year veteran of the Utah Air National Guard said he was reprimanded after he wrote a letter objecting to a gay wedding in the West Point chapel and was later told to prepare for retirement because his personal beliefs about homosexuality were not compatible with the military’s policies.

Source

LGBT rights advocates chalked up a win on Wednesday as a Senate committee passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a bill that would ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Source.

Jodi Rose, Australian Artist, Marries 600-Year-Old French Bridge Le Pont du Diable

Though their union is not legally recognized in France, Rose said it’s just as strong as any other marriage.

“While I respect those whose romantic and sexual feelings are oriented towards objects, mine is a symbolic affair, a pagan / animist view of the spiritual vibration in everything,” she wrote on her blog, Bridgeland. “He understands that I love other bridges — and men — ours is a love that embraces the vagaries of life, as materialized in the swirling currents of the river that flows beneath his magnificent body.”

Source

Hey, who are you to say it’s wrong. No, seriously: I ask you. Who are you to say it’s wrong? Did not the Supreme Court confirm that marriage is no longer to be based on biology but on feelings? Feelings. Oh, whoa, oh, feelings! Gmarriage for everybody!

And listen. You can have any opinion you want in these great United States. As long as its government approved.

Update

Transgender at 6:

Maryland couple decided to listen to their 5-year-old daughter’s urgent and persistent insistence that she was a boy, after a psychiatrist told them it would be healthy to let the child live as a boy…

Psychiatrists, as we know, are rarely mistaken, they being in a scientific field which in no way is subject to fad, whim, and misinformation. Source.

A photography studio in New Mexico was fined years ago under the state’s Human Rights Act for refusing to accept a lesbian couple’s request to photograph their commitment ceremony because it was contrary to the owners’ Christian beliefs.

Source.

Remember, as some commenters below have reminded us, all rights, including the right to take photographs, come from the blessed government. Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the government. Amen. It is government which gets to decide what is right and wrong, what is good for us and what bad. This cannot be questioned.


———————————————————————–

Finally landed. But still way behind with emails!

35 Comments

  1. Can’t be true. It’s a live and let live world, right? Your rights won’t quash mine and mine won’t quash yours. Sure.

    More disturbing to me is the gender orientation legislation going on in California. If it passes, a five year old can say they feel more like a girl than a boy and can play on the girls sports teams and use the girl’s restroom. That is seriously messed up.

    You are right–this is all about “feelings” and has nothing whatsoever to do with reality.

  2. Rasmussen today published a short essay on much the same theme, but addressing it as a rights issue framed relative to a business/home/etc. owner:

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_scott_rasmussen/americans_want_to_exercise_their_rights_reasonably

    The soldier case referenced doesn’t belong:

    Relative to formal declarations of rights, and formal agreements to waive certain rights, decades-long standing rules associated with military service as such that the Utah Air Nat’l Guard vet got what he deserved–assuming he wrote the e-mail while on active duty as an official correspondence, which all indications suggest.

    All military serve at the behest of, and subordinate to, civilian leadership. When the civilian leadership institutes/imposes a new policy, like it or not, active duty military must comply; this compliance necessarily includes forgoing certain rights many civilians take for granted. There’s no real leeway on this, and, with an all-volunteer force when one voluntarily agrees to join the military and consents to this arrangement, the most common examples are made very clear via formal orientation training (with many training reminders over the years).

    According to Fox (http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/airman-punished-for-objecting-to-gay-marriage-in-military-chapel.html), the soldier wrote this remark about gays using a military chapel for their marriage:

    “I hope sir that you will take appropriate action so this does not happen again.”

    That is a clear solicitation/request by the soldier to a senior officer(s) to violate the new policy that just replaced don’t ask/don’t tell. That new policy constitutes a lawful order. Soliciting anyone, especially a senior officer, to violate it is solicitation to plan for and conduct insubordination.

    The response in the reprimand, “As a noncommissioned officer you are expected to maintain a standard of professional and personal behavior that is above reproach. You have failed!” was clearly provoked and justified.

    To frame that event, as so many have, as essentially reverse-discrimination against someone opposed to gay marriage is a gross distortion of the RELEVANT facts.

    There’s a pretty strong clue this particular event was being distorted: In published report after report, selected quotes were presented while the soldier’s e-mail, which shows full context, is consistently withheld — that’s the surefire tactic for twisting/distorting/spinning a story a particular way.

    The old-fashioned term for that is “lying.”

    That’s what the story about the enlisted USAF Guard vet being reprimanded for objecting to gay marriage in the chapel is — a lie.

    While talking about the ‘gay thing’ the soldier overstepped his lawful boundaries and for that he was justifiably reprimanded. The ‘gay thing’ may have been the nucleus of his focus but it was just a springboard from which he jumped a bit too far & one landing spot having nothing to do with gays and everything to do with compliance with/conspiracy to violate lawful orders prompted the reprimand.

    But this is a new age where anything & everything can be distorted to a “soundbite” on which partisan views are projected & broadcast. EVEN IF THAT MEANS SELECTIVELY REPORTING FACTS AND MAKING ARGUMENTS THEREFROM — IDEOLOGICAL PROPAGANDA, in other words.

    Objectivity, search for real truth, is the casualty.

    Another conservative has addressed this trend recently & his essay is worth a read:

    http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/my_break_with_the_extreme_right/singleton/

    Or, links via: http://www.fumento.com/weblog/archives/2012/05/my_break_with_t.html

  3. The first two cases are businesses which have a license granted to operate in a public sphere and therefore they cannot discriminate based on their believes. If you would allow such discrimination then there would be no reason not to allow restaurants to hang “No blacks allowed” signs, or hospital to deny treatment to homosexuals, black people, etc.

    The soldier case, as Ken has explained, is more about insubordination than about gay marriage in the chapel which, as long as the chapel is interfaith, and as far as I know it is, nobody should feel offended.

    About the “bill that would ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.” I am surprised you need that, a country like the USA should have it already in place.

    And the artist marrying the bridge, well, who cares… live and let live.

  4. These are all obvious end points of post modern relativism. More end points are to follow until the whole thing becomes untenable and collapses from its own disorder.

  5. The point here is you are no longer the owner of your business, the government is. The government tells you who to serve and how to do so. I know people think this is “fair”, but it is not. A business should be allowed to exclude anyone they want. No one has the “right” to demand a business serve them. Yes, Fran, that means that blacks, whites, gays, etc can be excluded by a business (I will grant the exception of hospitals and emergency services). We have laws that forbid this, but that does not make the law correct, it just makes it the law. An interesting note is Spike Lee Jones was noted as saying he only hired blacks for his movies–so one CAN discriminate if it’s with the government’s blessing. There are also “women only” colleges but not men. Women can be Boy Scout leaders–try getting male girl scout leader. That is what happens when we use the law to “modify” behaviour. It’s just a fight to see who reigns as king of the mountain. Fairness and equality have nothing to with it.

    Now, before you all have a fit about discrimination, the only lasting changes to discrimination come about when people VOLUNTARILY change their behaviours. Passing laws only forces a person to act in a certain way–they still hate blacks or gays, you just won’t let them say so. Then the anger builds and people get hurt. You cannot force people to be good or to like each other.

  6. Fran, that means that blacks, whites, gays, etc can be excluded by a business (I will grant the exception of hospitals and emergency services).

    Well, aren’t you merciful.

    An interesting note is Spike Lee Jones was noted as saying he only hired blacks for his movies.

    Okay, so Spike Lee Jones is a black racist douche-bag… Your point being? Do we make now a list of white racist douche-bags too? It won’t be a short one.

    There are also “women only” colleges but not men.

    Interesting you complain about that, because I can imagine gay people being all 100% for it!

    Women can be Boy Scout leaders–try getting male girl scout leader.

    This is Boy Scout business, why should anyone in the world care but them? This is like complaining that there are not enough women in the Jedi council; it’s Jedi business. A females Pope? Catholics business… just let them play their fairy tales in whatever way they want.

    You cannot force people to be good or to like each other.

    No, but democracies should be about respect and tolerance towards others. You don’t have to like the gay that you serve coffee but you should do it with respect.

    A gay doctor, likewise, might not like you but if you pop up (God forbid) in an emergency room, the gay doctor will still save your life.

  7. To Fran:

    Not at all the same. People are born with certain attributes. They’re male, female, asian, caucasian, african (not sure what word is safe to use here), short, tall, blue eyed, brown eyed, green eyed (like me), etc. Then they make choices – they prefer men, women, asians, caucasians, africans, etc. as partners. They prefer tall, short, blonde, brunette, etc. They worship God, Allah, no entity, Gaia, etc. The first category is fundamentally different than the others, which are behaviors, decisions, and preferences, not “out of the womb” characteristics.

    Here in enlightened California, we have “women only” gyms and fitness classes. They’re licensed to operate in the public sphere. Should I (a man) be able to sue because I’m not allowed to exercise my choice of exercise companions?

  8. Here in enlightened California, we have “women only” gyms and fitness classes. They’re licensed to operate in the public sphere. Should I (a man) be able to sue because I’m not allowed to exercise my choice of exercise companions?

    Well, we can go case by case and see when it is appropriate to allow private club for members only.

    In this case I imagine women going to this gym do so because they are tired of Alpha males sexually harassing them so I’d say it is appropriate. But this is something we, as a society, decide it is fair. It is not an out of the blue decision from the business owner to block entrance to men.

    If we allow business owners to impose their belief system on their customers entire communities would be in danger to be neglected. We would not be a modern society anymore but a salad of isolated tribes.

  9. Fran: Really? I don’t recall the ability to open a women only gym or college coming up for a vote sot that society could decide. So what you’re really saying is that this type of discrimination is OK because it fits YOUR idea of fairness (protecting women from sexist alpha males) and the baker and the bed and breakfast is not OK because it doesn’t fit YOUR idea of fairness (“I believe it’s immoral and won’t cater to it”). So discrimination is cool if YOU like it, wrong if YOU don’t.

    Do I have that right?

  10. In true democracy, I don’t have to serve coffee to the gay guy. Or more precisely, in truly “free” society, I don’t have to serve coffee to the gay guy.

    Society does not “own” businesses. They should not get to make the rules. You say society can decide if the female-only gym is okay but say it’s nobody’s business what the Boy Scouts do? Really?

  11. Fran,

    requiring a Gubmint license to allow me to engage in Commerce is against our basic Freedom. To do business they FORCE us to get a license then use the license to FORCE us to change our beliefs or at least activity based on those beliefs.

    Those supporting this FASCIST/COMMUNIST/ISLAMIC/Tyrannical methods better get in good with the RULERS if y’all don’t want to be stepped on.

  12. Rob Ryan, Sheri

    Obviously the city council allow that gym to operate otherwise it’d be shut down and chances are that most members in that council are men. Are they discriminating against themselves?

    Are you going to complain if you cannot use women locker room and showers in your gym too? Discrimination? How about women only toilets? More discrimination? We men are the first agreeing with such “discrimination” because we know better.

    In Japan they had to set up only women wagons because of the constant sexual harassment they were subject to when traveling. You are talking about an special case of discrimination intended to protect all women; including your mother, wife and daughter.

    Would you force your women to go through same sex toilets? To take showers with the next dude in the gym? is this idea of fairness only mine? Please find an example where you yourself (or anyone sane) can stand by it.

    Sheri, kuhnkat

    in truly “free” society, I don’t have to serve coffee to the gay guy… To do business they FORCE us to get a license then use the license to FORCE us to change our beliefs or at least activity based on those beliefs

    Okay a few things.

    First. It is interesting how you are all about freedom and against government messing with your lives to then whine like babies when the government does not give you the gay ban candy.

    Second. We, as a society, not the government, agree not to discriminate others in exchange not to be discriminated ourselves.

    But if you don’t want gays in your business the solution is simple: use your first amendment right. Nobody can stop you to wallpaper the whole business with wholly scripture signs explaining how those you dislike will spend an eternity of torture in hell… I guarantee you that you won’t see many gays in that business.

    The Bakery? Easy. Make it a Christian bakery where only cakes with “God bless men and women marriage” messages are sold. Again, not many gay couples will buy one and they do they’ll have to read the message and suck it up.

    Finally. The kind of society you propose is basically one with no government regulations. I totally respect your belief but you also have to be aware of all the downsides of such society.

    Anarchy might sound appealing but if you want a taste of it maybe you want to spend sometime in Somalia; a country with no government.

    You’ll have there all the freedom you want… you will also have war lords all over the place but, hey, it is about freedom, right? I mean, you can turn a war lord yourself. freedom!

  13. Okay, you have moved into absurd with the toilet question, although California is about to allow mixing of sexes in restroom as long as the person “feels” male or female. Moving into the absurd does not get answered–I will revisit this question if California rules my “feeling” male says I can use the men’s restroom.

    It’s not the lack of a gay ban that people are angry over–for the third or fourth or fifth time, it’s EXACTLY what is being discussed here. If gays would just marry and that’s it, people may not be as angry. But they won’t. They have to get into people faces, ruin businesses and retaliate like toddlers because they feel “wronged”. This is about revenge. I guess that’s means you are all for revenge since you are so supportive.

    Second–totally and completely wrong. The government decides now what is acceptable descrimination and the government frankly does not care who get stepped on as long as they get enough votes to be re-elected. Society doesn’t get a choice. Less than 10% of society is supposedly gay and yet they rule businesses, churches and the government in all of this.

    I cannot plaster my business with anti-gay signs. I have NO first amendment rights in this. That is what we are trying to tell you. No person opposing homosexuality has first amendment rights. All someone has to claim is my posters are “hate speech” and there goes my business. There is NO freedom in this, NO opposition allowed.

    Can’t do a Christian bakery either. The government will not allow it. You really don’t understand how this works, do you? NO OPPOSITION is allowed. None. Or you get closed down. I wouldn’t be surprised if religious bookstores are required to sell pro-gay material soon.

    I am not for anarchy. I am for the government maintaining order to the degree we don’t have riots in the streets and warlords. This is not an either/or choice. It’s not regulate to death or anarchy. We can still outlaw homicide, require driver’s licenses, have speed limits, etc without demanding everyone support gays or have a right to employer-provided birth control. When you argue like this, it just tells me you don’t really understand. Or you’re going for the absurd again because you lack a legitimate argument.

  14. They have to get into people faces, ruin businesses and retaliate like toddlers because they feel “wronged”. This is about revenge. I guess that’s means you are all for revenge since you are so supportive.

    No, I am not. As a matter of fact, if you ask me, I’d say that the people involved in the bakery and B&B cases are not gay activists but con artists; why on Earth would anyone insists in having a cake (something you eat) made in place where people despise you? Obviously these con-artist were after this family’s money.

    But these are con-artist that happen to be gay, and I guarantee you that not every gay go into con-artist strategies pressing peoples buttons to get money.

    If fact, I know about a case in Oklahoma I think, it was a woman going into hair salons. She would ask for a hair cut, then she would complain about the cut and call names to the owner slapping her very mildly. The owner then would go nuclear on her face and when police come you have the owner perfectly sound and the customer severely beaten… in summary, the owner had to sell the store to compensate the customer and face felony charges. It seems this woman repeated this scheme several times.

    But she did not do this because she hates hair saloons, she did so because she is a con artist!! In short, judge con artist for what they are, not for what the pretend to be (gay activists in this case)… And play smart when you find one.

    I cannot plaster my business with anti-gay signs. I have NO first amendment rights in this. That is what we are trying to tell you.

    You cannot say things like “Let’s Kill Gays” but nobody can stop you from using Bible verses in the wall of your business or even in your napkins like

    “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Leviticus 18:22”

    or

    “Even as Sodom and Gomorrah … giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh … suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 7-8”

    Or you’re going for the absurd again because you lack a legitimate argument.

    Listen, don’t allow your thirst for freedom turn you into a hater. People pressing your buttons are not activists. I guarantee you that there are many many nice gay people that are kind and would not press anyones buttons. They just want to be happy and be left alone.

    Don’t judge everyone for a few provocateurs that take gay-rights as an excuse to exude their hate on you or as a con artist tool for easy money, by doing so you are actually playing their game… and losing it.

    Really, what are you scared of?

  15. I am not scared–I resent having my rights stomped on by the gay activists. I resent having my rights lost due to 10% of the population or less that demands they get their way. IF the gays were not out for revenge, why push the marriage issue at all? Why not push for civil unions and equal legal rights? Because it is about forcing everyone to call them moral and cater to their whims. I don’t hate gay people–I believe their behaviour is immoral. I don’t believe they should be beat up or hurt. However, I also don’t believe their sexual orientation needs to be shoved in my face. The simple fact is all gays could have equal rights to straight couples through appropriate legal steps. Inheritance taxes, co-ownership of homes, etc are all done with unmarried straight couples. So this is about revenge and forcing people to call the behaviour moral.
    (I presume that the Bible versus do show that God said homosexuality was immoral?)

  16. Fran,

    “First. It is interesting how you are all about freedom and against government messing with your lives to then whine like babies when the government does not give you the gay ban candy.”

    I have no idea what GAY BAN CANDY you are talking about. I simply want the same rights as everyone else. That means I want the right ot use the words nigger and faggot without going to jail even if I would probably NEVER use those words referring to a fellow human being!!!

    The Government does NOT grant our rights. This is the difference between the US and the rest of the countries where the government can legally remove those rights on a whim. The government is SUPPOSED to PROTECT our GOD GIVEN RIGHTS which they are spectacularly FAILING at doing by creating special classes who have more rights than others.

    “Second. We, as a society, not the government, agree not to discriminate others in exchange not to be discriminated ourselves.”

    I NEVER agreed not to discriminate against anyone else to prevent them from discriminating against me. That would be really ignorant as I would then be left with having this same discussion with pedophiles, cannibals, communists, Jihadis…

    You really do not understand the term discriminate do you. The leftards have CHANGED the popular meaning of a useful term to mean something EVIL we should never do, but, to discriminate is something we do continuously. Discrimination, before the racists and leftards got going was what we did to decide which restaurant had better food, etc. It is a use of our intellect to look at multiple facts and determine if the thig those facts are a part of is better or not or whether we just prefer it.

    Seriously, you are definitely a product of our Government School system.

  17. Fran:

    Even if I stipulate that the people we’re discussing are con artists who happen to be gay, that is not the issue. The issue is that the laws (both legislative and administrative, i.e., regulations) support this con. THAT is the issue at hand, not the fact that there is a segment of society (composed of gays, straights, whites, blacks, men, women, etc.) that will use any weakness in “the system” to gain an advantage. But it’s the weakness that’s being discussed. And that weakness is the arbitrary “this discrimination is ok because it suits my sense of fairness, that discrimination is not ok because it does not.”

  18. On the Colorado:

    First the guy is a friggin idiot. He will lose rightly and this is no surprise to any intelligent person. I discussed and proved that the right of property include primarily the right to acquire goods.

    This is what the Cato institute, a conservative organisation, says about right of property:

    “And the common-law judges understood a pair of corollaries as well: that property, broadly conceived, separates one individual from another, and that individuals are independent or free to the extent that they have sole or exclusive dominion over what they hold. Indeed, Americans go to work every day to acquire property just so they can be independent.”

    ‘if rights of acquisition, enjoyment, and disposal
    were not legally protected.’

    “In a nutshell, the basic rights they have recognized, beyond the rights
    of acquisition and disposal, are the right of sole dominion”

    http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-handbook-policymakers/2009/9/hb111-34.pdf

    Sole dominion apply to a single person, not a place of business like a store. Refusing good money is anti-capitalism. Refusing to sell deprive a person of his right to acquire property.

    Source 2:

    Again it has nothing to do with the religion belief of the owner of the Inn. It is about the right of property of the individual. Either the company accepts all wedding, or none. The Inn doesn’t have any religious beliefs, the people who operate it, have religious beliefs. These are two different entities.

    Source 3:

    Was the guy forced to be at the wedding. If not, none of his right were violated. Then meddle in other people private life. BTW, he is actually reprimanded for not respecting the chain of command. He entered in direct communication with someone not related to his unit and lack respect toward that person, this is what led to his reprimand.

    Source 4:

    The new law changes nothing since these people were already since every persons are covered by the civil right acts.

    Source 5

    She has the right to believe she married a bridge. I would like to see her go in front of the court to try and prevent the demolition of the bridge, or to prevent people using it. This is a silly joke.

  19. Civil union is what they were asking for at the beginning, But some extremist conservative went as far as to make gay sex illegal in some state (Texas and Virginia for example). That led to fighting for gay marriage.

  20. Fran,

    “First. It is interesting how you are all about freedom and against government messing with your lives to then whine like babies when the government does not give you the gay ban candy.”

    Gay ban candy?? Uh no. I have never supported the Federal Government setting special rules for ANY group INCLUDING heterosexual marriage. The Federal Government would have been more inline with the Founding Principals if they had simply erased all BIASED laws recognizing Marriage at the Federal level. This is not saying the Federal Government would deny its existence, only that there would be no BENEFITS or DISADVANTAGES handed out for that status. Officially it would be recognizing Contract Law and not a MARRIAGE. You know, like Civil Onions?? Of course you would rather PRESUME on what I believe and have in my mind!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    “Second. We, as a society, not the government, agree not to discriminate others in exchange not to be discriminated ourselves.”

    No, WE do NOT agree on much of anything at the social level and if we did I would be looking to move. We used to agree to live by the LAWS of the land that were LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL!!

    “But if you don’t want gays in your business the solution is simple: use your first amendment right. Nobody can stop you to wallpaper the whole business with wholly scripture signs explaining how those you dislike will spend an eternity of torture in hell… I guarantee you that you won’t see many gays in that business.”

    No, that is NOT allowed as it would be insulting to them and probably to Muslims. Oh, you haven’t mentioned the fact we are liable to be in court for INSULTING them!!

    “The Bakery? Easy. Make it a Christian bakery where only cakes with “God bless men and women marriage” messages are sold. Again, not many gay couples will buy one and they do they’ll have to read the message and suck it up.”

    Your intellect is showing. The gay couple would still come in and ask for a cake made to their specs and if refused would claim we INSULTED them by only offering the Christian Message. We would also have Muslims and others complaining because YOU think everyone should be OK. Then, if we actually DID bake the cake the Gays wanted and decorated it accordingly we would be liable to insult the Muslims again!!!

    “Finally. The kind of society you propose is basically one with no government regulations. I totally respect your belief but you also have to be aware of all the downsides of such society.”

    No, you simply have not studied our history where we had not built up this ridiculous, dangerous pile of gubmint MEDDLING!!! Our country was the great melting pot with none of this ridiculous civil rights BS. The WORLD wanted to come here where we could insult and discriminate against each other at will. Strangely enough our economy flourished with all these different races and beliefs slamming against each other daily with no government interfering except to arrest the violent offenders.

    Why?? Because there were plenty of people to service the needs of virtually ANY group. These cases are completely unnecessary. If there was actually only the ONE bakery in the area that could reasonably be contracted then there MIGHT be a tiny sliver of basis to that case. As that is unlikely in this country the case is baseless and just a method to impose the AGENDA on those they hate.

    What you people are really promoting is SLAVERY!! You are telling us we MUST service anyone at THEIR pleasure with no limits. A couple years ago we saw where that leads. A young lady in Germany applied for support from the government as she could not find employment. She was told that she MUST accept a job as a prostitute as it was available or she could NOT get any payments. THIS is where giving up our personal beliefs and preferences leads and to WORSE!!!

    “Anarchy might sound appealing but if you want a taste of it maybe you want to spend sometime in Somalia; a country with no government.

    You’ll have there all the freedom you want… you will also have war lords all over the place but, hey, it is about freedom, right? I mean, you can turn a war lord yourself. freedom!”

    You have an interesting imagination. It has nothing to do with morality and our RIGHT to personal beliefs and preferences. Not too many decades ago this was the direction the left was going. Now they are going for Tyranny instead!!

  21. kuhnkat

    Can you provide a case where the court said you can’t use scripture from the bible?

    Usually, the court admit the scripture, but object to the comment, or action, associated with them

  22. Fran,

    “Well, we can go case by case and see when it is appropriate to allow private club for members only.”

    Yes, that is what is happening, BUT, the PRECEDENT has been set so why should these businesses be allowed to have licenses?? First you say we have RIGHTS to not be denied THEN YOU tell us that it is OK in special cases. Why is it OK in the special case YOU want and not the special case I want??

    “In this case I imagine women going to this gym do so because they are tired of Alpha males sexually harassing them so I’d say it is appropriate. But this is something we, as a society, decide it is fair. It is not an out of the blue decision from the business owner to block entrance to men.”

    I do not like Homosexuals hitting on me so wish them not in my area. This should mean I can exclude them from my business and should not have to shower with them. This is YOUR LOGIC above!! Of course, that is NOT what the court decided therefore allowing some Private Clubs and not others IS discriminatory.

    “If we allow business owners to impose their belief system on their customers entire communities would be in danger to be neglected. We would not be a modern society anymore but a salad of isolated tribes.”

    Note, your use of the WE above. WE are going to tell everyone what they are going to believe and how they are going to act. Who decides again?? I thought you were big on the Democracy bit. Here in Californai WE decided AGAINST gay marriage several times. YOUR WE is still imposing it upon us!! This is TYRANNY!!

    You have the right to not give that business owner your business. This is also why gubmint should not be allowed to impose Monopolies upon us like Power Companies, Water Companies…

    If we allowed business owners to neglect particular classes or communities it leaves a vacuum. That vacuum will be filled by an individual(s) in that community getting a loan and starting a business to serve it. Why do you wish to deny opportunity to people??

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  23. ” A young lady in Germany applied for support from the government as she could not find employment. She was told that she MUST accept a job as a prostitute as it was available or she could NOT get any payments. THIS is where giving up our personal beliefs and preferences leads and to WORSE!!!”

    Can you provide sources for this?

    Usually it is conservatives that request stricter rules for unemployment benefit. Progressive would simply give the check for any number of weeks.

    “What you people are really promoting is SLAVERY!! You are telling us we MUST service anyone at THEIR pleasure with no limits.”

    All that is ask is that people render the same services you render to anyone regardless of their personal life. If someone bakes cake, it is not of his business to know what the cake is for.

  24. Rob, Fran,

    If a men feels strongly enough to take to court a gym that would refuse him membership because of his gender he would probably win. But who want to pay thousands of dollars in attorney fees to have the right to go to Curves.

  25. “kuhnkat

    Can you provide a case where the court said you can’t use scripture from the bible?

    Usually, the court admit the scripture, but object to the comment, or action, associated with them”

    Could you please give me a little more info as to what you are referring to?? I do not understand why you are asking me this question.

  26. Sylvain,

    “All that is ask is that people render the same services you render to anyone regardless of their personal life. If someone bakes cake, it is not of his business to know what the cake is for.”

    How did the bakery know it was for a gay wedding??? Oh yeah, freedom of speech. The gays can talk about their life and sexual habits in the bakery, yet, the bakery cannot express THEIR personal beliefs by refusing service.

    If they had simply come in and requested a cake without somehow getting involved in sexuality there would have been no problem. Basically if someone insults me I am liable to refuse service. Talking to me about perverted sexual practices IS an insult!! I also don’t want to know about your hetero sexual practices.

  27. kuhnkat,

    The CRA is actually the law that stipulate that public accommodation can’t discriminate against anyone. Such laws have become necessities because the majority could always find ways to marginalise even minority and impede on their right and freedom.

    The bakery is a public accommodation, it is a morale identity who has no religious belief. It is the owner who has those beliefs. These are 2 different person. Either you make wedding cake or you don’t. If you do you have to sell it to anyone who want it.

  28. The only solution I see to this mess is for people who believe homosexuality is immoral to not run businesses. Let’s see if the pro-gay crowd can run all the hospitals, bakeries, cover photography, provide florists, etc. Yes, it will be hard on business owners, but as long as people are willingly to let the government steal their businesses, this will continue. Pack it up, go home and let the 10% of the population that felt wronged figure out how to cover all the businesses they sought to destroy. At this point in time, I would never run a business nor provide rental housing. I will not be forced to participate in something I find morally reprehensible.

  29. Sylvain,

    “On the Colorado:

    First the guy is a friggin idiot. He will lose rightly and this is no surprise to any intelligent person. I discussed and proved that the right of property include primarily the right to acquire goods.”

    You may have discussed, but, where is the PROOF again?? If someone does not OWN something they certainly cannot transfer title to it. If the title cannot be transferred you cannot legally ACQUIRE it. The TITLE does not have to be a physical document.

    “This is what the Cato institute, a conservative organisation, says about right of property:

    “And the common-law judges understood a pair of corollaries as well: that property, broadly conceived, separates one individual from another, and that individuals are independent or free to the extent that they have sole or exclusive dominion over what they hold. Indeed, Americans go to work every day to acquire property just so they can be independent.”

    ‘if rights of acquisition, enjoyment, and disposal
    were not legally protected.’

    “In a nutshell, the basic rights they have recognized, beyond the rights
    of acquisition and disposal, are the right of sole dominion”

    http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-handbook-policymakers/2009/9/hb111-34.pdf

    Sole dominion apply to a single person, not a place of business like a store. Refusing good money is anti-capitalism. Refusing to sell deprive a person of his right to acquire property.”

    Yes, Sole Dominion applies to what an individual owns or posesses. If the man OWNS the Property, the building, the goods, etc. In other words, there are no liens or other entanglements on the property or goods, he certainly CAN have Sole Dominion over it!!!

    You then go on to EXTEND this idea. You basically are saying that we HAVE to sell because it is someone else’s RIGHT to buy. Uh no. The fact that excluding a group from who you will sell to would seem to be against Capitalism has NOTHING to do with our Constitution or guaranteed rights. Let’s try and clarify this with an extreme example. By your logic we should sell Nuclear Weapons to Al Qaeda, Iran, and anyone else who can come up with a mutually agreed upon price. Obviously this is ludicrous. Selling a Ferrari to a 6 year old with his daddies CC also would not be a RIGHT!!! Your assumption that Capitalism is enshrined in the Constitution is another misunderstanding.

    Back to Sole Dominion. This goes back to my previous post where the gubmint uses FORCE to TAKE that Sole Dominion away from us!!! People tell me that the gubmint is not affecting their lives and this is a perfect example of how the gubmint has inserted itself into EVERY PART of our lives whether we like it or not!!!

    You claim this is somehow a civil right. If the government decided that YOU could be hired against your will by a group of people to gain satisfaction through Sadomasochistic practices you MIGHT consider that an imposition on YOUR civil rights. Of course, if they passed a LAW it would be OK, RIGHT?!?!?

    Of course not. The Civil Rights Laws are only legal insofar as they implement what was already accepted as rights. Anything past that is IMPOSITION BY FORCE on the populace. The fact that Men in Black Dresses OK it also means nothing other than that for a while it is the LAW and still not Constitutionally acceptable.

    “Source 2:

    Again it has nothing to do with the religion belief of the owner of the Inn. It is about the right of property of the individual. Either the company accepts all wedding, or none. The Inn doesn’t have any religious beliefs, the people who operate it, have religious beliefs. These are two different entities.”

    Your comments might apply if the Inn were a Corporation with Publicly traded stock. It is not and your argument fails. In addition the case is about the people at the Inn TALKING about their belief, not about any refusal of service. There doesn’t get to be much more egregious damage to the First Amendment than this case. If they cannot even talk about their belief, why should guys be allowed to FALUNT THEIR BELIEF by going to the inn together?!?!?!

    Does the insanity of the Radical LGBT and leftards start to show here???

    Additionally I believe that Corporate Law and ALL Law that recognizes entities in court that are NOT individuals or groups of individuals is insanity in addition to being unConstitutional!!

    “Source 3:

    Was the guy forced to be at the wedding. If not, none of his right were violated. Then meddle in other people private life. BTW, he is actually reprimanded for not respecting the chain of command. He entered in direct communication with someone not related to his unit and lack respect toward that person, this is what led to his reprimand.”

    Whether he was forced to go to the wedding has nothing to do with the case. It would only make it more egregious if it happened and it apparently did not.

    This man is being released because of an expressed BELIEF!!! This is a First Amendment issue. Your misunderstanding would allow this man to be thrown out of the service for SPEAKING what he believes!!! The fact that the military has a new standard that gays are to be allowed in and accepted does NOT mean he cannot express his opinions in PRIVATE discussions. If he had published this letter BEFORE he was dismissed there would have been some basis for the Academies claim that he had acted in a fashion that showed poorly on the service. Since it was a PRIVATE letter that becomes an internal issue.

    You claim the Chapel is non-denominational. Yes, it amy now be that way due to SECULAR ORDERS!!! The Church was originally consecrated as a Chrisitan Church. If this were a Mosque there would be no question of having a gay wedding in it. in fact, I can’t wait until gays and Muslims, who have their OWn prayer room in the Pentagon, come into conflict. Bet the AUTHORITIES do not allow this to happen??

    Now, since “marriage” isn’t supposed to be a religious thing, why are they requesting the use of RELIGIOUS facilities for their wedding?? Again, the mental gymnastics required to somehow make the gays the wronged and this man expressing his personal beliefs in a private letter the bad guy is amazing!!!

    “Source 4:

    The new law changes nothing since these people were already since every persons are covered by the civil right acts.”

    From the story: a bill that would ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

    Setting aside the gay issue for a moment, although I contend it is also covered, giving the mentally disturbed a RIGHT to force their mental instabilities on others seems to be at the bottom of many leftard “civil rights issues.” Basically it used to be the assumption that someone who hallucinated continuously was mentally ill and needed help. Now we have these people declaring 24×7 inability to accept reality (gender identity issues) as a protected class who can force themselves on othes who have to go along with their mental issues!!

    “Source 5

    She has the right to believe she married a bridge. I would like to see her go in front of the court to try and prevent the demolition of the bridge, or to prevent people using it. This is a silly joke.”

    Again, people and gubmint accepting peoples mental issues as reality. If gender identity can fly why not this?? If the people working at an Inn can be sued for TALKING ABOUT their faith, if the Air Force guy can be fired for TALKING about his belief privately, if the bakery can be sued for exercising their personal preference, why should the state’s interest in the bridge, based on INDIVIDUALS collective interest, not be trumped??

  30. Sylvain,

    “Civil union is what they were asking for at the beginning, But some extremist conservative went as far as to make gay sex illegal in some state (Texas and Virginia for example). That led to fighting for gay marriage.”

    Laws against sodomy have been around a LOOOOONG time and in many countries.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law

  31. Kuhnkat,

    Property right include the right to acquire. The right to acquire is essential since it is what guaranty that your money has value. When a public accommodation refuses the exchanges of money for good or services that they usually provide in exchange of an amount of money.

    You own a bakery. You have a cake that you are willing to sell to person A who doesn’t have enough money. Five minutes later, person B comes into the store and want to buy the same cake. You can not refuse to sell this person the cake because you discovered that this was gay.

    If you sell your private car this is a different thing because you have only one car and your home is not a public accommodation.

    The right to acquire goods or services is equal to the right of sole dominion. This is what the Cato institute links proves.

    I own a house. How long do you think it would take the city planning department to request that I cut the grass if I felt like letting it grow.

  32. “This man is being released because of an expressed BELIEF!!! This is a First Amendment issue. Your misunderstanding would allow this man to be thrown out of the service for SPEAKING what he believes!!! The fact that the military has a new standard that gays are to be allowed in and accepted does NOT mean he cannot express his opinions in PRIVATE discussions. If he had published this letter BEFORE he was dismissed there would have been some basis for the Academies claim that he had acted in a fashion that showed poorly on the service. Since it was a PRIVATE letter that becomes an internal issue.”

    The chaplain decides what the Chapel under his care can do or not.

    The guy in Utah emailed, a superior officer who wasn’t in his chain of command. He did not only gave is opinion but he also requested action from that superior officer. This is why he is reprimanded, not because is belief. There are consequences to our actions.

    I was fired once for calling a supervisor in a call center an idiot with the IQ of a peanut. I was asked to retract and I refused. I was fired (I actually wanted it) with an absurd letter, that I happily showed to the unemployment officer, who laughed has she read the letter and approved my unemployment benefit request. I could have sued the company but I already got what I wanted.

  33. “If the people working at an Inn can be sued for TALKING ABOUT their faith”

    They were sued for denial of service ne for expressing their faith.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *