Alpha: A church does not have to perform gay marriages. The law can never make them. That's not even an issue.

I'm glad to hear that you seem to be not discriminating. I apologize if I gave the impression you were, I think I misunderstood your position.

Sexuality is not defined by your plumbing, your gender at best that is merely a shortcut people use define your genitals. The truth is that sexuality is a range, not male or female based on your genitals. It is a range and no one can help what they are attracted to. Bigots have hangups about that because they have no scientific understanding of reality.

Homosexual or even bisexual behaviors are a result of evolution. The religious crap defending bigotry is antiquated argument from ignorance. Other mammals and primates display the same behaviors.

Alpha: am I correct then that you do not support the idea of people being allowed to refuse service for no reason other than they object to the customer's apparent sexuality?

(April 20, 2015 at 3:18 pm)Brian37 Wrote: The truth is that sexuality is a range, not male or female based on your genitals. It is a range and no one can help what they are attracted to. Bigots have hangups about that because they have no scientific understanding of reality.

Present the science. I'm open to it.

---

(April 20, 2015 at 3:21 pm)robvalue Wrote: Alpha: am I correct then that you do not support the idea of people being allowed to refuse service for no reason other than they object to the customer's apparent sexuality?

No. As I said, I would support a gay bar if it refused service to apparently heterosexual couples and asked them to leave.

I suppose I have some libertarian leanings.

Right, so if the sexuality was a pre requisite which is made clear, that's not a random discrimination as such. Although I would worry about people making "not gay bars", if it was something that could be enforced.

But would you condemn a baker who refuses to serve someone because they are gay? Morally speaking.

Here's another article:
http://socpro.oxfordjournals.org/content...6.abstract

Excerpt:
The paper argues that the tension which characterizes relations between lesbian- and bisexual-identified women is not the result of failure to recognize these similarities in experience. Instead, historical circumstances have led to a situation in which bisexuality poses a personal and political threat to lesbians and lesbian politics; the similarity between lesbians'and bisexuals' experiences aggravates rather than mitigates this threat.


Huh, that's what I was saying.

---

(April 20, 2015 at 3:29 pm)robvalue Wrote: Right, so if the sexuality was a pre requisite which is made clear, that's not a random discrimination as such. Although I would worry about people making "not gay bars", if it was something that could be enforced.

But would you condemn a baker who refuses to serve someone because they are gay? Morally speaking.

If the baker had a clear opposite-sex prerequisitie, would you accept it? If not, why do you make excuses for the gay bar?

I'm not saying I do accept the idea that people could be ejected from a gay bar. Like I said, I'm worried about the implications of allowing such an action. I have no problem with it being advertised as a gay bar, but throwing someone out for not being gay is problematic and I don't know if I could support that.

I was noting that it's not totally random discrimination as such, although I'm not convinced the action is justified. I'm open to discussion on that point. Do you see my concern that if you allow one establishment the right to eject people based on sexuality, you allow any establishment that right?

If you start talking about non-gay bakers... this is exactly my concern. What if every baker becomes "non gay"?

But putting that aside for the moment, would you condemn a general baker with no signs up or policies from refusing to serve a gay because he is gay?

(April 20, 2015 at 3:45 pm)robvalue Wrote: I'm not saying I do accept the idea that people could be ejected from a gay bar. Like I said, I'm worried about the implications of allowing such an action. I have no problem with it being advertised as a gay bar, but throwing someone out for not being gay is problematic and I don't know if I could support that.

I was noting that it's not totally random discrimination as such, although I'm not convinced the action is justified. I'm open to discussion on that point. Do you see my concern that if you allow one establishment the right to eject people based on sexuality, you allow any establishment that right?

If you start talking about non-gay bakers... this is exactly my concern. What if every baker becomes "non gay"?

But putting that aside for the moment, would you condemn a general baker with no signs up or policies from refusing to serve a gay because he is gay?

What's the difference between the bakery and a church?

Wait...

I see an attempt not to answer the question. Red herring, services churches provide is a matter of seperation of church and state. In America, anyway.

Morally, I think it's disgusting that religions can be legally bigoted, but that's how it is.

(April 20, 2015 at 3:25 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(April 20, 2015 at 3:18 pm)Brian37 Wrote: The truth is that sexuality is a range, not male or female based on your genitals. It is a range and no one can help what they are attracted to. Bigots have hangups about that because they have no scientific understanding of reality.

Present the science. I'm open to it.

---

(April 20, 2015 at 3:21 pm)robvalue Wrote: Alpha: am I correct then that you do not support the idea of people being allowed to refuse service for no reason other than they object to the customer's apparent sexuality?

No. As I said, I would support a gay bar if it refused service to apparently heterosexual couples and asked them to leave.

I suppose I have some libertarian leanings.

If you support equality for gays, that is not the way the argument works. Religious bigotry has been the social norm, heterosexuals are not the ones who are the minorities who have had a history of gays denying them service. This is about human rights. Either you are for equal protection under the law or you are justifying treating others as second class citizens.