Religion Ranting Topic

[Rapier]

And why shouldn't people be able to choose who they're going to offer their services to? If its theirs, no one has the prerrogative to force them. This doesn't apply to public officers because they're bound to their service, but an autonomous person should be able to act in accordance to their own will.

or I'm too sleepy and spouting gibberish. Yeah, probably that.

[Tryhard]

Well, I said this in the other thread:

I've got mixed feelings on it. On one hand, it is important for the government to not allow proliferation of discrimination against a certain group of people in their country. If they allow mass denial of services to a specific group, they have failed those people. I would dread to see a bunch of "No X allowed" signs outside of shops or businesses. The right to discriminate isn't a particularly compelling case for me.

On the other hand, punishment/fining/jailing people for these views isn't going to do anything or change anything. If anything, they are just going to be more resentful, indignant or disgruntled. They will not see why they are being punished because in their minds they are right. Secondly, doing so is almost saying that you do not have confidence in the ability for good ideas to overcome bad ones, and that you are scared that more people would follow discriminatory practices.

While I wouldn't say I was thrilled anti-discrimination laws exist in terms of providing services, I don't think their existence is unnecessary.

Obviously if you are libertarian or have libertarian leanings you would think differently and I'm not particularly trying to go down that route of argument, my issue is that it is not being described as giving private businesses or such the right to discriminate. Because that's precisely what is being discussed. Edited August 29, 2016 by Tryhard

[Rapier]

well, until I get a better opinion, this is pretty much my stance on it:

I suppose the State should intervene if and only if said person is discriminated in a way that no one accepts their request, if said service is of relevance to their civic lives.

The problem of discrimination only becomes legally relevant when it harms someone's rights. Otherwise, it's a moral/cultural issue that should be fought against by more open minded individuals until social consciousness develops to include those individuals. It's not anyone's right to eat the cakes a baker makes. As morally reprehensible as it is, a baker should be able to refuse selling cakes to people because of X quality. No one can be forced to sign a contract they don't want to, and the State can't oblige them to do so. I don't know if this is also a thing on the American Civic law, but one of the prerequisites of a contract is autonomous, unalienated will.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Rapier

[Raguna]

Treading a fine line here but it's usually always a case on who's rights are more important and which member of society has to compromise their beliefs in order to leave the premises unscathed. The baker exercised their belief, but the opposition won over so really they couldn't do so even when alternatives were in place. In public departments and workplaces, you have to give service no matter who your client is or what he believes but private institutions are a different matter. I don't think denying a wedding cake is such a grave offence when other areas are more than readily available. It's only in cases where one could need medical attention or something similar where people should set aside differences to get the help needed.

Discrimination or shunning isn't exactly something that will ever disappear from this world. It's more of a matter on who the appropriate targets are to receive said shunning which is usually aimed at members of society that contribute or have contributed negatively towards the welfare or consciousness of the people such as rapists or the like. Now, I'm not lumping homosexuals in that category, it's simply trying to prove that no matter what law we do or don't pass there will be resentments as beliefs begin to clash with one another over which should be predominant. Church and State are meant to be separate entities but a good amount of people live in both so tensions rise when sides clash over issues like these and I doubt anyone will be truly happy with the results since pleasing everyone is an impossibility.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Raguna

[Time the Crestfallen]

Yes, it is. It's sanctioning a gay marriage.

This person doesn't want to do that. They haven't said "you can't have a gay marriage". All they've said is "please don't include me, bakary x will probably take your request".

When the government forces the bakary to comply, it is at the end of a gun. That directly goes against religious freedom because they are not able to adhere to their religious beliefs.

Having a wedding is not a right. That's something important to realize here.

I don't see the equivalency of that to gun manufactorers. Can you explain?

Very well then, I won't argue the definition of religious freedom anymore, but you still haven't answered why this is defensible but not everything you rail Islam for other than the 'Islam is not a religion' argument which it is, under literally every definition of the word.

I dunno what the gun thing was. I was trying to say that if I sell a gun to someone and then they murder someone with it, then I am not guilty of murder as long as I followed the proper restrictions and, as such, is it really participating in gay marriage if the only thing you do is make the cake they're gonna eat. But, like I said, I have a cold and I'm not sleeping well. It's also Spring aka allergy season (I've had 5 nosebleeds in 3 days). I'm really not thinking straight right now.

[Irysa]

well, until I get a better opinion, this is pretty much my stance on it:

The problem of discrimination only becomes legally relevant when it harms someone's rights. Otherwise, it's a moral/cultural issue that should be fought against by more open minded individuals until social consciousness develops to include those individuals. It's not anyone's right to eat the cakes a baker makes. As morally reprehensible as it is, a baker should be able to refuse selling cakes to people because of X quality. No one can be forced to sign a contract they don't want to, and the State can't oblige them to do so. I don't know if this is also a thing on the American Civic law, but one of the prerequisites of a contract is autonomous, unalienated will.

I don't think people are claiming cake is a right, but they're claiming that people have a right not to be discriminated against for the way they were born. What reasoning do you have for the state creating laws, and why is this not compatible with that reasoning? I mean, laws passed by the state are a way of attempting to change social conciousness, and there's plenty of historical precedent for it. I doubt people here are going to object to Title 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (I encourage you to read that part), and it pretty much details: (to quote Wikipedia)

Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".

If people are okay with this, why are they not okay with adding those who aren't heteronormative to the list? Or is the argument now on the fact that its a Bakery?

Edited August 29, 2016 by Irysa

[Life]

I don't think people are claiming cake is a right, but they're claiming that people have a right not to be discriminated against for the way they were born.

There is no scientific evidence to support that statement.

Continue.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[Lord Raven]

Are you fucking kidding?

I posted scientific evidence for transpeople in the other thread, but there is an exorbitant amount of evidence for homosexuality being related to DNA.

more: http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/10443/20141118/homosexuality-genetic-strongest-evidence.htm

hat's at least according to a new and groundbreaking study recently published in the journal Psychological Medicine, which details how a study of more than 800 gay participants shared notable patterns in two regions of the human genome - one on the X chromosome and one on chromosome 8.

[Life]

Are you fucking kidding?

I posted scientific evidence for transpeople in the other thread, but there is an exorbitant amount of evidence for homosexuality being related to DNA.

more: http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/10443/20141118/homosexuality-genetic-strongest-evidence.htm

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/08/23/johns-hopkins-research-no-evidence-people-are-born-gay-or-transgender/

And yet this study (which came out a week and a half ago) clearly states that there is not enough medical evidence to support that claim.

Pardon me for backing the comprehensive study that is a few days old and goes into depth about ideas like "born that way".

Also, reading comprehension. This is the title of the first article.

Homosexuality may be caused by chemical modifications to DNA

You're better than that. Why are you making the silly leap from "may" to "is"? Edited August 30, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[Time the Crestfallen]

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/08/23/johns-hopkins-research-no-evidence-people-are-born-gay-or-transgender/

And yet this study (which came out a week and a half ago) clearly states that there is not enough medical evidence to support that claim.

Pardon me for backing the comprehensive study that is a few days old and goes into depth about ideas like "born that way".

I feel like where a lot of people get a bit mixed up is the difference between 'you don't choose to be gay' and 'they're born that way'. Their brains develop in a way that results in those traits, so it isn't a choice. But at the same time a lot of people try to explain homosexuality as being the result of genetics which it isn't and if it is, it and transgenderism must be the most recessive alleles known to man.

[Life]

I feel like where a lot of people get a bit mixed up is the difference between 'you don't choose to be gay' and 'they're born that way'. Their brains develop in a way that results in those traits, so it isn't a choice. But at the same time a lot of people try to explain homosexuality as being the result of genetics which it isn't and if it is, it and transgenderism must be the most recessive alleles known to man.

The study concludes that it is very much possible that a person may end up gay or bisexual based also on nuture (in general, homosexuals experience maltreatment and violence much more than heterosexuals before the age of 18).

What I am saying is that the science isn't all in. There's a rush to claim that it is all biological and yet it is quite possible that A) it isn't and B) the science isn't all in.

Pardon me for not making the astrological jump that Raven's made.

[Rezzy]

I feel like where a lot of people get a bit mixed up is the difference between 'you don't choose to be gay' and 'they're born that way'. Their brains develop in a way that results in those traits, so it isn't a choice. But at the same time a lot of people try to explain homosexuality as being the result of genetics which it isn't and if it is, it and transgenderism must be the most recessive alleles known to man.

To be honest, it's far more complicated than anyone can say definitively. Maybe we're born that way, maybe it's environmental, maybe it's a bit of both. No one knows, and ultimately it doesn't matter. I don't care, and I'm happy with who I am.

Tangent: I don't really like the phrase "We're born that way." It makes it sound like non-heterosexuality is some congenital disease.

I can only speak for myself, but I developed lesbian feelings around age 12. If someone had analyzed me at age 10, I couldn't tell you if they'd be able to determine my future sexual orientation or not.

On the terms of discrimination. For the cake example, I don't think people should be forced to sell me a cake, if they don't want to. I am a libertarian and believe people have the right to be assholes if they want. I don't agree with them, but I value freedom, whether religious or simply the right to refuse to serve anyone they want, more than access to luxury items. As long as they don't assault me, that's their prerogative. I've been spit on before (not in a store, elsewhere), but never denied service. Generally stores want my money and don't care about my orifice preference.

[Life]

Made a mistake in my first claim.

Should have said "not enough" rather than "no".

Carry on.

[Lord Raven]

You're better than that. Why are you making the silly leap from "may" to "is"?

a) new studies don't obsolete old ones, ever necessarily, so how new a study is has extremely little to do with its validity relative to another study. You know there's a professor at the U of A that says the lorentz force isn't real, and his paper was published more recently than the original papers about the Lorentz Force. The age of the study is irrelevant.

b) one article i linked didn't say "may", the other one did. you're getting hung up over a simple word choice; can you refute the evidence? Mine points to specific things, whereas the other one says "nah it's not true."

c) the evidence points to "it is linked" vs "it is not linked," which is why you hear "may," because while the findings are incomplete and continue to be studied, there exists evidence which contradicts your claim, that there is no evidence which supports this statement. If you're going to talk in absolutes you better accept that any little thing is going to contradict your argument.

If you want a link to the original papers that support the claim that it is linked to genetics or DNA, then here you go

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8332896?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7581447?dopt=Abstract

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9625997&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0033291714002451

If you can find the original paper that talks about that, then link it. Otherwise, I've looked up the dude who made it, and he needs to stay within his discipline. Here's a link to his linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lawrence-mayer-md-phd-3b49865

He's an MD/PhD but his speciality is in, and I quote;

Dr. Mayer is a full-time professor of biostatistics, epidemiology, biomedical informatics, public health and psychiatry. He does a limited amount of consulting mostly in epidemiology and biostatistics. He is one of the few MD/PhD biostatistician-epidemiologists. His focus is on evaluating data, methods and models used in assessing risks. Specifically, his primary interests are the evaluation of statistical and epidemiological data and models in a clinical, regulatory, or legal arena.

Dr. Mayer has worked with large corporations, regulatory bodies, citizen groups, and participants in litigation. In litigation he has worked equally for plaintiffs and defendants.

He prides himself on being able to communicate complex ideas in simple language. Dr. Mayer welcomes challenging problems that require in-depth, multilevel analyses.

Prefers problems where the issues (medical, or otherwise) are multidimensional, the methods and models are varied and the data are of limited quality or controversial. Problems often include analysis of the methodology applied, analysis of the inferences made from a given set of statistical methods and complex chart reviews across specialties and across patients.

Has worked on problems in drug and device development, testing and regulation, product liability, patent disputes, occupational and environmental exposures, and medical malpractice. Has worked on data and analyses in numerous specialties including toxicology, internal medicine (cardiology, endocrinology, etc.) Ob/Gyn, psychiatry, and surgery.

Has given about 50 depositions over the last 30 years in a variety of cases ranging from toxic torts and patent disputes in major federal litigation to state personal injury and malpractice suits.

This does not have much to do with actual psychology or genetics. He is not credible. Instead, the article you linked talks about this:

challenged the claim that discrimination and social stigma are the only reasons why homosexual and transgender people suffer higher rates of mental health problems and are more likely to commit suicide.

The study breaks down in three parts: First, Mayer and McHugh examined whether homosexuality is an inherited trait, and concluded that people are not simply "born that way." Second, they looked at the causes of the poor mental health associated with gay and transgender people, concluding that social stress does not explain all of it. Finally, they studied transgenderism, concluding that it is not innate and that transgender "treatments" are associated with negative outcomes.

The article does not state his proof behind why homosexuality is not an inherited trait. It just states that he said it; if you want to sift through his methodology, then by all means do so, because I'm not in the mood to sift through a 143 page paper that appears to deal primarily with the mental health of someone in the LGBT community.

Credentials and speciality are extremely important when it comes to research; a professor at my alma mater claimed that the speed of light as we know it is incorrect, and used a shoddy justification using theories he is not very well-versed in to make his point. Experts in said field point out how he misapplied certain aspects of relativity in his arguments. The guy primarily studies quantum optics, so this was far out of his expertise. Therefore, this guy who got an MD/PhD in psychiatry (not psychology) and biostatistics is not qualified to make such a claim.

There exists more evidence for my point as there does against it.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Irysa]

First; I make no apology for the choice of phrase "people have a right not to be discriminated against for the way they were born" because I did not explictly connect it to anything about homosexuality in that statement, nor did I explictly say "born that way" either. Epigenetics and traits that develop have the same foundations in your genetic makeup. For example, Stargardt's disease. You are not "born" blind, but you sure as hell have a genetic makeup that can affect how something like blindness can develop from an early point in life.

I was (and am) trying to find a point of common ground here in order to further the discussion. Do you agree or disagree with the sentiment of that statement? Furthermore, please answer the question I placed within the earlier post; do you disagree with Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Do you think it was bad to implement that law, and/or similar laws, especially regarding segregation? Were they bad for the social makeup and fabric of society, or do you think they resulted in positive changes?

To sidestep the "disagreement" (or denial, whatever you want to call it), do you think homosexuality is a choice; ie, there isn't much difference between choosing to not provide a service to someone because they're gay as it is because they're being rude to you? Do you actually believe you can will your sexuality to change?

Edited August 30, 2016 by Irysa

[Rezzy]

First; I make no apology for the choice of phrase "people have a right not to be discriminated against for the way they were born" because I did not explictly connect it to anything about homosexuality in that statement. I was (and am) trying to find a point of common ground here in order to further the discussion. Do you agree or disagree with the sentiment of that statement? Furthermore, please answer the question I placed within the earlier post; do you disagree with Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Do you think it was bad to implement that law, and/or similar laws, especially regarding segregation? Were they bad for the social makeup and fabric of society, or do you think they resulted in positive changes?

To sidestep the "disagreement" (or denial, whatever you want to call it), do you think homosexuality is a choice; ie, there isn't much difference between choosing to not provide a service to someone because they're gay as it is because they're being rude to you?

To answer your first question, I believe anything that is funded by the government has an obligation to treat everyone equally. So, no refusing marriage licenses, preventing people from attending school, or whatnot. For private institutions, they can deny service to whoever they want. Public backlash and boycotts will prevent them from doing so in most cases. The government should only prevent us from harming each other or defrauding each other. And if someone doesn't want to serve me, I don't want to eat there anyway, since they'd probably spit in my food or something, if they didn't want to serve me in the first place.

For homosexuality being a choice? I can only speak for myself, but my attractions just came about; I don't know how to not be attracted to women. But whether it's a choice or not doesn't really matter.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Rezzy

[eclipse]

First; I make no apology for the choice of phrase "people have a right not to be discriminated against for the way they were born" because I did not explictly connect it to anything about homosexuality in that statement. I was (and am) trying to find a point of common ground here in order to further the discussion. Do you agree or disagree with the sentiment of that statement? Furthermore, please answer the question I placed within the earlier post; do you disagree with Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Do you think it was bad to implement that law, and/or similar laws, especially regarding segregation? Were they bad for the social makeup and fabric of society, or do you think they resulted in positive changes?

To sidestep the "disagreement" (or denial, whatever you want to call it), do you think homosexuality is a choice; ie, there isn't much difference between choosing to not provide a service to someone because they're gay as it is because they're being rude to you?

I've got a reason for staying mum about a lot of this subject for the time being - there's something that needs to happen first.

As for sexuality, it is complicated. I'm too lazy to bring up stories where someone's sexuality shifts from one category to another (straight to gay, vice-versa, and bisexuality is another can of worms), but it happens. A user from way back when named Crystal Shards argued that human sexuality is fluid.

I believe that people should choose whether or not they want to honor any sort of request, whether it be a business transaction, a date request, or anything else, really. I'd say that the physical features someone is born with is arguably static, yet I have yet to mean someone who's willing to date anyone, regardless of appearance. Besides, I think it's better that people are tactfully honest about why a request is being denied, as opposed to "well because I don't want to".

(note that if I see any arguments about the last sentence that don't take the "tactfully" into account, I'm going to IRL facepalm)

EDIT: Static or fluid, I see this as a really roundabout way of saying "discriminating against people who make choices is a good thing". It's a toxic mindset, and really REALLY bad for this topic of religion.

Edited August 30, 2016 by eggclipse

[Irysa]

I made a slight edit to my post that the two of you may want to look at. I also urge people to actually respond to the question about Title II; is this a law you disagree with? Was it uneccessary? Some of you are implying that you do think it is, but I would like to explictly confirm you think it is a bad law. Statements like the following;

For homosexuality being a choice? I can only speak for myself, but my attractions just came about; I don't know how to not be attracted to women. But whether it's a choice or not doesn't really matter.

are only consistent (in that, whether it's a choice is irrelevant, I just want to deny services at will) if the person making them also agrees that Title II is bad. The same goes for much of what eclipse said too.

I've got a reason for staying mum about a lot of this subject for the time being - there's something that needs to happen first.

I assume the caveat is "did you ever deny someone a date" etc and the thing is I feel its pretty pointless to develop a response to that if you believe that discrimination doesn't exist and it's just saying no. Because if you don't believe discrimination exists, why should I bother explaining why I think there's a difference between being an open to the public service provider that is offering a service, and being a person who is not offering a service and instead being requested to perform one? Do you believe it is not discriminatory if a business owner says "no blacks on site", doesnt hire any black employees and refuses to serve blacks?

EDIT: Static or fluid, I see this as a really roundabout way of saying "discriminating against people who make choices is a good thing". It's a toxic mindset, and really REALLY bad for this topic of religion.

Not "good", but "permissable within the law".

Edited August 30, 2016 by Irysa

[Life]

Will look at your stuff later, Raven.

First; I make no apology for the choice of phrase "people have a right not to be discriminated against for the way they were born" because I did not explictly connect it to anything about homosexuality in that statement. I was (and am) trying to find a point of common ground here in order to further the discussion. Do you agree or disagree with the sentiment of that statement? Furthermore, please answer the question I placed within the earlier post; do you disagree with Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Do you think it was bad to implement that law, and/or similar laws, especially regarding segregation? Were they bad for the social makeup and fabric of society, or do you think they resulted in positive changes?

To sidestep the "disagreement" (or denial, whatever you want to call it), do you think homosexuality is a choice; ie, there isn't much difference between choosing to not provide a service to someone because they're gay as it is because they're being rude to you?

I'll answer the second question first.

As a private business owner, I should be able to refuse business for any reason I want and furthermore, should not have to disclose the reason for why I am refusing business. If the government steps in, that means the use of force and that's the first step towards authoritarianism.

As for Title 2, I don't have a problem simply because of this clause:

42 U.S.C. § 2000a© © The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce, and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any state or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.

That means that a private business can "descriminate" (I use quotations because I don't see it as descrimination when they offer other solutions and say that they don't want to cater for this one specific event) in order to exercise their right to freedom of religion.

Remember, they never said "we don't cater to gays". The bakery was in Portland and not in some backwater town in Alabama. They just didn't want to do a gay wedding.

Question: If you walked into a bakery and they said the same thing (assuming you're gay), would you throw down and sue them for all they're worth or would you simply find another bakery and tell your friends to avoid the first one? Understand that if you choose the first, that's a lot of money and time down the drain and you can't be sure of what the result will be.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[eclipse]

assume the caveat is "did you ever deny someone a date" etc and the thing is I feel its pretty pointless to develop a response to that if you believe that discrimination doesn't exist and it's just saying no. Because if you don't believe discrimination exists, why should I bother explaining why I think there's a difference between being an open to the public service provider that is offering a service, and being a person who is not offering a service and instead being requested to perform one?

Y'know that pointlessness you feel about my argument? That's how I feel about your stance.

But again, there's a reason why I'm keeping quiet about certain things - not your fault, but it can't be helped.

[Rezzy]

EDIT: Static or fluid, I see this as a really roundabout way of saying "discriminating against people who make choices is a good thing". It's a toxic mindset, and really REALLY bad for this topic of religion.

I'm not sure if you meant my post. I don't think it's a choice, but I also don't think it matters.

I don't think it's good that people would refuse me or LGBT people service, but I just value freedom of religion and right to refuse service more than I value access to luxury goods. When freedom and being nice conflict, freedom wins, unless there is harm being done to another involved. As they say "I think he's an asshole, but I will fight for his right to be an asshole." And I don't even think people who don't like homosexuality on the basis of religion are bad, we just have a difference of opinion.

[Life]

I'm not sure if you meant my post. I don't think it's a choice, but I also don't think it matters.

I don't think it's good that people would refuse me or LGBT people service, but I just value freedom of religion and right to refuse service more than I value access to luxury goods. When freedom and being nice conflict, freedom wins, unless there is harm being done to another involved. As they say "I think he's an asshole, but I will fight for his right to be an asshole." And I don't even think people who don't like homosexuality on the basis of religion are bad, we just have a difference of opinion.

That's Voltaire you quoted. "I disapprove of your opinion but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

[Irysa]

Y'know that pointlessness you feel about my argument? That's how I feel about your stance.

But again, there's a reason why I'm keeping quiet about certain things - not your fault, but it can't be helped.

I don't really follow because I'm actually legitimately not very interested in pursuing a discussion if you actually believe discrimination does not exist period. Whilst I don't like to make assumptions, the implication of some of your posts is very much that, and I'm asking not for an excuse to try to publically defame you, I'm asking because it will save us both a lot of time and effort. In a gesture of goodwill, I'll tell you I have denied my time and money towards people asking for it, but if you want to say "well you're just discriminating then" to me, then as I briefly alluded to earlier, I'm not a business open to the public that is advertising a service thus I do not see this as the same thing. I'm choosing to withhold something I've never agreed I would give away, even if certain conditions are met. Rather than being the person putting forward a contract and withdrawing it, I'm the person rejecting the contract that is being placed in front of me.

As for Title 2, I don't have a problem simply because of this clause:

I think you may have quoted the wrong clause, because I do not see how that exempts private businesses per se. Is a gasoline station not a private business? There is an exemption for private clubs later in the section of the law which I can somewhat agree with (despite the lack of a proper definition), but it seems pretty explict that it doesn't allow a Hotel or a Gas station to deny service to people because of their race for example.

Remember, they never said "we don't cater to gays". The bakery was in Portland and not in some backwater town in Alabama. They just didn't want to do a gay wedding.

Because their gayness doesn't come into highlight if they just want a cake.

Question: If you walked into a bakery and they said the same thing (assuming you're gay), would you throw down and sue them for all they're worth or would you simply find another bakery and tell your friends to avoid the first one?

I'm uninterested in pursuing a legal battle over a cake, but wouldn't be above trying to get the message to a wider audience to defame the business.

That's Voltaire you quoted. "I disapprove of your opinion but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire did not actually say that. It was his biographer that said it to describe his beliefs.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Irysa

[-Cynthia-]

From a legal perspective, protected classes extend beyond genetic factors determined at birth (religion, familial status, veteran status) so whether sexual orientation is or isn't genetically determined at birth doesn't seem especially relevant unless you want to exclude those factors for a similar reason.

[Time the Crestfallen]

To be honest, it's far more complicated than anyone can say definitively. Maybe we're born that way, maybe it's environmental, maybe it's a bit of both. No one knows, and ultimately it doesn't matter. I don't care, and I'm happy with who I am.

Tangent: I don't really like the phrase "We're born that way." It makes it sound like non-heterosexuality is some congenital disease.

I can only speak for myself, but I developed lesbian feelings around age 12. If someone had analyzed me at age 10, I couldn't tell you if they'd be able to determine my future sexual orientation or not.

On the terms of discrimination. For the cake example, I don't think people should be forced to sell me a cake, if they don't want to. I am a libertarian and believe people have the right to be assholes if they want. I don't agree with them, but I value freedom, whether religious or simply the right to refuse to serve anyone they want, more than access to luxury items. As long as they don't assault me, that's their prerogative. I've been spit on before (not in a store, elsewhere), but never denied service. Generally stores want my money and don't care about my orifice preference.

Oh, for sure. I just get a little bent out of shape when people say it's a genetic thing (this is part of my field of study, I get defensive), since both homosexuality and transgenderism haven't really been proven to be an inheritable characteristic. The science hasn't really been set in stone for the entire subject.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Phillius