Bryan Adams cancels Mississippi show, citing state's new law

[bentfarang]

One singer canceling a tour won’t stop a hate bill, but these actions add up. Make no mistake, these are hate bills.

These bills are written to give carte blanche to a wide variety of professionals to discriminate against LGBT people in the course of their jobs.

Why would these crackers do something like this? Hate, ignorance and fear. These are your local Republican governments in action.

Pathetic.

Cracker isn't a derogatory name is it?

[Jingthing]

It is. On the mild side. To be fair, just being a southerner doesn't make you stupid, backwards, or a bigot. But they do have more than their fair share.

[bentfarang]

It is. On the mild side. To be fair, just being a southerner doesn't make you stupid, backwards, or a bigot. But they do have more than their fair share.

In that case it serves as a contradiction to Pinot's whole argument against hatefulness. Just seems a bit ironic.

[Diplomatico]

"Bryan Adams cancels Mississippi show citing state's new law poor ticket sales."

[Andaman Al]

So are all these states that are now bringing in legislation, based on the Holy Book to discriminate against the LGBT community also bringing in laws to ban the sale of Shrimps, Lobster and Crab?

[bentfarang]

So are all these states that are now bringing in legislation, based on the Holy Book to discriminate against the LGBT community also bringing in laws to ban the sale of Shrimps, Lobster and Crab?

New Testament bro...

[Throatwobbler]

oH Y

So are all these states that are now bringing in legislation, based on the Holy Book to discriminate against the LGBT community also bringing in laws to ban the sale of Shrimps, Lobster and Crab?

New Testament bro...

Yes the good old christian concept of choose the bits you like and ignore the stupid stuff.

[Jingthing]

So are all these states that are now bringing in legislation, based on the Holy Book to discriminate against the LGBT community also bringing in laws to ban the sale of Shrimps, Lobster and Crab?

New Testament bro...

Correct me if I'm wrong but I've heard Jesus said nothing about gay people or transgender people, pro or con. Also the USA is not a theocracy.

But it is certainly true that fundamentalists often tend to hypocritically focus on some things and ignore others, with a particular obsession on things related to SEX.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Jingthing

[Andaman Al]

So are all these states that are now bringing in legislation, based on the Holy Book to discriminate against the LGBT community also bringing in laws to ban the sale of Shrimps, Lobster and Crab?

New Testament bro...

I don't get it

[Andreas2]

Ain't it funny, artists using their right to cancel already signed voluntary contracts (I guess) to punish people and to protest laws that they (the people) should have the right to refuse business relations with entities they don't agree with? The very same right Brian Adams seems to be using right now?

Just to be clear. Every artist - or business-person for that matter -, must have the right to refuse any business relation with any party (customers, providers) they don't want to do business with. I totally support Brian Adams' right to refuse any contract with parties he doesn't like or detests.

But: To all the SJWs here on TV: What am I missing? I'm all for the freedom provided to The Boss and Bryan Adams to cancel or to not provide concerts in regions in the US they detest for their freedom to have their preferences, be they based on religion or otherwise. Why aren't you fighting - Or at least arguing - for the very same freedom for minorities or the common people?

Edited April 15, 2016 by Andreas2

[lostboy]

Ain't it funny, artists using their right to cancel already signed voluntary contracts (I guess) to punish people and to protest laws that they (the people) should have the right to refuse business relations with entities they don't agree with? The very same right Brian Adams seems to be using right now?

Just to be clear. Every artist - or business-person for that matter -, must have the right to refuse any business relation with any party (customers, providers) they don't want to do business with. I totally support Brian Adams' right to refuse any contract with parties he doesn't like or detests.

But: To all the SJWs here on TV: What am I missing? I'm all for the freedom provided to The Boss and Bryan Adams to cancel or to not provide concerts in regions in the US they detest for their freedom to have their preferences, be they religious based or otherwise. Why aren't you fighting - Or at least arguing - for the very same freedom for minorities or the common people?

You attempt to tarnish and brand those who fight discrimination against minorities with the false moral equivalence of themselves being discriminatory.

Funny little thought experiment that, isn't it.

One thing though, those people whom you claim should be able to retain and express their 'right' to not engage with people according to their 'preferences' believe that we LGBT people should not exist; that our existence is a sin; that our lives and voices should be diminished. LGBT people are people, who exist in real life and who, in western liberal democracies have an actual right to equal treatment under the law. Those people you are defending - they are propagating a belief system that is based on what? Their beliefs cannot stand against the reality of LGBT existence. To argue otherwise is inhuman. The US Constitution does not require citizens to have religion. It does not empower any religion or religious belief of one group over any other group.

You don't like LGBT people. That's up to you. But in terms of public policy and public access, LGBT people cannot be denied. It is unconstitutional in the US and immoral there and other western countries. Most people, in fact an overwhelming number of people now support LGBT rights to dignity and equality.

I think it is very clear what you are missing.

Edited April 15, 2016 by lostboy

[Andreas2]

You attempt to tarnish and brand those who fight discrimination against minorities with the false moral equivalence of themselves being discriminatory.

Funny little thought experiment that, isn't it.

One thing though, those people whom you claim should be able to retain and express their 'right' to not engage with people according to their 'preferences' believe that we LGBT people should not exist; that our existence is a sin; that our lives and voices should be diminished. LGBT people are people, who exist in real life and who, in western liberal democracies have an actual right to equal treatment under the law. Those people you are defending - they are propagating a belief system that is based on what? Their beliefs cannot stand against the reality of LGBT existence. To argue otherwise is inhuman. The US Constitution does not require citizens to have religion. It does not empower any religion or religious belief of one group over any other group.

You don't like LGBT people. That's up to you. But in terms of public policy and public access, LGBT people cannot be denied. It is unconstitutional in the US and immoral there and other western countries. Most people, in fact an overwhelming number of people now support LGBT rights to dignity and equality.

I think it is very clear what you are missing.

Hi lostboy

Thank you for your (almost) fair and valid reply. I hope and think I understand and respect your argument... And if I don't, it surely is a misunderstanding from my side.

I'm a Rothbardian-Libertarian, so I'm everything but a collectivist (neither right wing, nor left wing, nor whatever). My core principles are based on the NAP (Non aggression principle).

My argument of my post was mainly to show my acceptance but also the hypocrisy of artists who enjoy the very same freedoms they enthusiastically exercise but also oppose.

Please, don't throw me in the corner of individuals who "don't like LGBT people" because of that. That's completely wrong and has nothing to do with my argument - My post was food for thought and has absolutely nothing to do with my sexual orientation or preferences.

[Neurath]

This is much needed push back...brought on by LGBT people purposely targeting business of people of Christian faith... demanding service...such a being forced to make a penis cake for a gay wedding...

Never happened.

He means any cake that is longer than it is wide.

[Neurath]

One singer canceling a tour won’t stop a hate bill, but these actions add up. Make no mistake, these are hate bills.

These bills are written to give carte blanche to a wide variety of professionals to discriminate against LGBT people in the course of their jobs.

Why would these crackers do something like this? Hate, ignorance and fear. These are your local Republican governments in action.

Pathetic.

This is much needed push back...brought on by LGBT people purposely targeting business of people of Christian faith...demanding service...such a being forced to make a penis cake for a gay wedding...crying foul when they are politely asked to take their business down the street...where they will be accommodated...

What is hateful...is the lack of respect for all people...not just gay people...

Your people just do not know when to give it a rest...bringing lawsuits against people of faith causes the LGBT more harm than good...

Hate...is in the eye of the beholder...if you could be honest...you would acknowledge that the hate and unreasonable witch-hunt comes from the LGBT community...IMHO

.....Are gay people not allowed to eat donuts because they are not anatomically appropriate to gay men. So they can only be eaten by straight men and lesbians?

You're joking, surely?

[Scott]

Stay on the topic, please. There is a lot of trolling about cakes and the topic is about Bryan Adams canceling a concert.

Continued trolling, baiting and inflammatory posts can result in warnings and suspensions.

[bentfarang]

So are all these states that are now bringing in legislation, based on the Holy Book to discriminate against the LGBT community also bringing in laws to ban the sale of Shrimps, Lobster and Crab?

New Testament bro...

Correct me if I'm wrong but I've heard Jesus said nothing about gay people or transgender people, pro or con. Also the USA is not a theocracy.

But it is certainly true that fundamentalists often tend to hypocritically focus on some things and ignore others, with a particular obsession on things related to SEX.

The OP tried to imply that Christians need to abstain from eating certain foods... which is not correct. In my reading of the New Testament I found that it was stated that only the laws relating to the partaking of blood and sexual immorality apply to the new dispensation. So, I guess it stands to reason that Christians should avoid these acts. However, love of God and love towards each other are the 2 express commandments in the new testament, and I think us Christians sometimes lose sight of that. But, many posters here attack Christianity without knowing what it is about.

[lostboy]

You attempt to tarnish and brand those who fight discrimination against minorities with the false moral equivalence of themselves being discriminatory.

Funny little thought experiment that, isn't it.

One thing though, those people whom you claim should be able to retain and express their 'right' to not engage with people according to their 'preferences' believe that we LGBT people should not exist; that our existence is a sin; that our lives and voices should be diminished. LGBT people are people, who exist in real life and who, in western liberal democracies have an actual right to equal treatment under the law. Those people you are defending - they are propagating a belief system that is based on what? Their beliefs cannot stand against the reality of LGBT existence. To argue otherwise is inhuman. The US Constitution does not require citizens to have religion. It does not empower any religion or religious belief of one group over any other group.

You don't like LGBT people. That's up to you. But in terms of public policy and public access, LGBT people cannot be denied. It is unconstitutional in the US and immoral there and other western countries. Most people, in fact an overwhelming number of people now support LGBT rights to dignity and equality.

I think it is very clear what you are missing.

Hi lostboy

Thank you for your (almost) fair and valid reply. I hope and think I understand and respect your argument... And if I don't, it surely is a misunderstanding from my side.

I'm a Rothbardian-Libertarian, so I'm everything but a collectivist (neither right wing, nor left wing, nor whatever). My core principles are based on the NAP (Non aggression principle).

My argument of my post was mainly to show my acceptance but also the hypocrisy of artists who enjoy the very same freedoms they enthusiastically exercise but also oppose.

Please, don't throw me in the corner of individuals who "don't like LGBT people" because of that. That's completely wrong and has nothing to do with my argument - My post was food for thought and has absolutely nothing to do with my sexual orientation or preferences.

Apologies if I mischaracterised you or your position. While my post was a touch sharp, I think that I did focus my comment on your argument. I have seen similar arguments, particularly on the political threads applied to the issue of freedom of speech. In this case, I do not agree that those protesting the enactment of laws that discriminate against minorities or a minority are being hypocritical if they object to people who support such laws giving expression to their bigotry.

I believe that on this matter there is a false equivalence. We are not debating one set of principles over another. We are discussing those with a set of beliefs and behaviours that are learned in opposition to groups of people who exist and are discriminated against because of their genetic composition. I do not see any equivalence there. I see irrational discrimination against other people who live their lives according to their biology, not some belief system inculcated into people by others who have special or vested interests in doing so.

This is why I referred to your position as a Thought Experiment; something that provides some interest in an academic sense but falls down when reality hits. Reality being the fact that the elements that make a person part of a minority are not dictated by choice.

Protest at speech or actions that deprive others of their essential rights is a duty. There are such things as universal truths. I believe this is demonstrated by the experience of universal suffrage for women globally, civil rights for African Americans and now majority acceptance of LGBT equality.

[Chicog]

Ain't it funny, artists using their right to cancel already signed voluntary contracts (I guess) to punish people and to protest laws that they (the people) should have the right to refuse business relations with entities they don't agree with? The very same right Brian Adams seems to be using right now?

Just to be clear. Every artist - or business-person for that matter -, must have the right to refuse any business relation with any party (customers, providers) they don't want to do business with. I totally support Brian Adams' right to refuse any contract with parties he doesn't like or detests.

But: To all the SJWs here on TV: What am I missing? I'm all for the freedom provided to The Boss and Bryan Adams to cancel or to not provide concerts in regions in the US they detest for their freedom to have their preferences, be they based on religion or otherwise. Why aren't you fighting - Or at least arguing - for the very same freedom for minorities or the common people?

Since you don't know the terms of the private contract between the artist and promoter, it's probably best you don't just invent them.

This is not the same as the obligation of a company that serves the general public to not discriminate against customers.

[Chicog]

This is much needed push back...brought on by LGBT people purposely targeting business of people of Christian faith... demanding service...such a being forced to make a penis cake for a gay wedding...

Never happened.

He means any cake that is longer than it is wide.

[Andreas2]

Ain't it funny, artists using their right to cancel already signed voluntary contracts (I guess) to punish people and to protest laws that they (the people) should have the right to refuse business relations with entities they don't agree with? The very same right Brian Adams seems to be using right now?

Just to be clear. Every artist - or business-person for that matter -, must have the right to refuse any business relation with any party (customers, providers) they don't want to do business with. I totally support Brian Adams' right to refuse any contract with parties he doesn't like or detests.

But: To all the SJWs here on TV: What am I missing? I'm all for the freedom provided to The Boss and Bryan Adams to cancel or to not provide concerts in regions in the US they detest for their freedom to have their preferences, be they based on religion or otherwise. Why aren't you fighting - Or at least arguing - for the very same freedom for minorities or the common people?

Since you don't know the terms of the private contract between the artist and promoter, it's probably best you don't just invent them.

This is not the same as the obligation of a company that serves the general public to not discriminate against customers.

I absolutely agree with you. These artists, including their enterprises, have every right to discriminate in any way as they please - As everybody else must have this right. I thought that's exactly what I said. That goes hand in hand with freedom of association.

Regarding contracts, if there are any, you are also absolutely right, we don't know them. And if there are any and as long as they are honoured (e. g. by refunding of already sold tickets etc.) there is nothing to complain about.

[Andaman Al]

So are all these states that are now bringing in legislation, based on the Holy Book to discriminate against the LGBT community also bringing in laws to ban the sale of Shrimps, Lobster and Crab?

New Testament bro...

Correct me if I'm wrong but I've heard Jesus said nothing about gay people or transgender people, pro or con. Also the USA is not a theocracy.

But it is certainly true that fundamentalists often tend to hypocritically focus on some things and ignore others, with a particular obsession on things related to SEX.

The OP tried to imply that Christians need to abstain from eating certain foods... which is not correct. In my reading of the New Testament I found that it was stated that only the laws relating to the partaking of blood and sexual immorality apply to the new dispensation. So, I guess it stands to reason that Christians should avoid these acts. However, love of God and love towards each other are the 2 express commandments in the new testament, and I think us Christians sometimes lose sight of that. But, many posters here attack Christianity without knowing what it is about.

Sorry but you are so wrong! The bible makes it quite clear that eating certain foods is 'detestable' and an 'abomination', all we have now are Evangelicals who try and word the argument based on grammatical interpretations of the words 'detestable' and 'abomination' to justify that when the word of God says eating shellfish is an 'abomination' it is not the same 'abomination' he means when talking of homosexuality - of which incidentally you will not find a single mention in the bible as many many scholars now agree that the translation of the hebrew and greek words is actually 'pederasty' which is a whole different ball game (excuse the pun) and certainly is an abomination. The words were changed to male with male, i guess in order to ensure the clergy could continue their favourite pastime of pederasty unhindered through the centuries.

At the end of the day if you believe that God has inspired the words in the bible, then you are not worthy of interpreting the words of such a superior sentient being. At the last count there are some 613 commandments in the scriptures and YOU have no right to pick and choose. There are millions of people that live according to those 613 commandments, but to do otherwise for the sake of your own convenience makes you as big a sinner as any satanist. All 613 commandments with biblical references can be found here, complete with appropriate reference, chapter and verse:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments

If you believe homosexuality is a sin because of your religious faith, that is fine, but equally 'detestable', is eating shell fish, pork and even wearing clothes made from more than one material, so rip that cotton and polyester shirt off your back now as an eternity in hell awaits for you and all your lycra wearing friends.

You cannot make a choice, you adhere to the book or you do not. If you do not you are not a Christian (no heaven no harp playing on clouds) and you as a mere mortal commit the greater sin of interpreting what your God means. You can't have your cake and eat it (Scot that was not a reference to the other cakes you mentioned ) .

Bryan Adams and everyone else for that matter should ensure that the States that have adopted these discriminatory laws turn into economic tumbleweed zones, and lets see how powerful the almighty is then (who could part the red sea but not force one of his own creations into performing a live concert).

Edited April 16, 2016 by Andaman Al

[Chicog]

Don't forget to execute people who work on Sundays.

After all, you are only defending your religious rights.

[bentfarang]

So are all these states that are now bringing in legislation, based on the Holy Book to discriminate against the LGBT community also bringing in laws to ban the sale of Shrimps, Lobster and Crab?

New Testament bro...

Correct me if I'm wrong but I've heard Jesus said nothing about gay people or transgender people, pro or con. Also the USA is not a theocracy.

But it is certainly true that fundamentalists often tend to hypocritically focus on some things and ignore others, with a particular obsession on things related to SEX.

The OP tried to imply that Christians need to abstain from eating certain foods... which is not correct. In my reading of the New Testament I found that it was stated that only the laws relating to the partaking of blood and sexual immorality apply to the new dispensation. So, I guess it stands to reason that Christians should avoid these acts. However, love of God and love towards each other are the 2 express commandments in the new testament, and I think us Christians sometimes lose sight of that. But, many posters here attack Christianity without knowing what it is about.

Sorry but you are so wrong! The bible makes it quite clear that eating certain foods is 'detestable' and an 'abomination', all we have now are Evangelicals who try and word the argument based on grammatical interpretations of the words 'detestable' and 'abomination' to justify that when the word of God says eating shellfish is an 'abomination' it is not the same 'abomination' he means when talking of homosexuality - of which incidentally you will not find a single mention in the bible as many many scholars now agree that the translation of the hebrew and greek words is actually 'pederasty' which is a whole different ball game (excuse the pun) and certainly is an abomination. The words were changed to male with male, i guess in order to ensure the clergy could continue their favourite pastime of pederasty unhindered through the centuries.

At the end of the day if you believe that God has inspired the words in the bible, then you are not worthy of interpreting the words of such a superior sentient being. At the last count there are some 613 commandments in the scriptures and YOU have no right to pick and choose. There are millions of people that live according to those 613 commandments, but to do otherwise for the sake of your own convenience makes you as big a sinner as any satanist. All 613 commandments with biblical references can be found here, complete with appropriate reference, chapter and verse:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments

If you believe homosexuality is a sin because of your religious faith, that is fine, but equally 'detestable', is eating shell fish, pork and even wearing clothes made from more than one material, so rip that cotton and polyester shirt off your back now as an eternity in hell awaits for you and all your lycra wearing friends.

You cannot make a choice, you adhere to the book or you do not. If you do not you are not a Christian (no heaven no harp playing on clouds) and you as a mere mortal commit the greater sin of interpreting what your God means. You can't have your cake and eat it (Scot that was not a reference to the other cakes you mentioned ) .

Bryan Adams and everyone else for that matter should ensure that the States that have adopted these discriminatory laws turn into economic tumbleweed zones, and lets see how powerful the almighty is then (who could part the red sea but not force one of his own creations into performing a live concert).

I think quoting old testament rules does not change my answer above. And, your disrespect reminds me of the very people you hate so much... hateful words indeed. Discrimination was against Jesus' preaching. He welcomed all to him and associated with prostetutes etc. Did I give the impression that I support discrimination against anyone?

[bentfarang]

Don't forget to execute people who work on Sundays.

After all, you are only defending your religious rights.

But the Sabbath is on Saturday... and we are so way off topic here it is a joke.

[timendres]

You attempt to tarnish and brand those who fight discrimination against minorities with the false moral equivalence of themselves being discriminatory.

Funny little thought experiment that, isn't it.

One thing though, those people whom you claim should be able to retain and express their 'right' to not engage with people according to their 'preferences' believe that we LGBT people should not exist; that our existence is a sin; that our lives and voices should be diminished. LGBT people are people, who exist in real life and who, in western liberal democracies have an actual right to equal treatment under the law. Those people you are defending - they are propagating a belief system that is based on what? Their beliefs cannot stand against the reality of LGBT existence. To argue otherwise is inhuman. The US Constitution does not require citizens to have religion. It does not empower any religion or religious belief of one group over any other group.

You don't like LGBT people. That's up to you. But in terms of public policy and public access, LGBT people cannot be denied. It is unconstitutional in the US and immoral there and other western countries. Most people, in fact an overwhelming number of people now support LGBT rights to dignity and equality.

I think it is very clear what you are missing.

Hi lostboy

Thank you for your (almost) fair and valid reply. I hope and think I understand and respect your argument... And if I don't, it surely is a misunderstanding from my side.

I'm a Rothbardian-Libertarian, so I'm everything but a collectivist (neither right wing, nor left wing, nor whatever). My core principles are based on the NAP (Non aggression principle).

My argument of my post was mainly to show my acceptance but also the hypocrisy of artists who enjoy the very same freedoms they enthusiastically exercise but also oppose.

Please, don't throw me in the corner of individuals who "don't like LGBT people" because of that. That's completely wrong and has nothing to do with my argument - My post was food for thought and has absolutely nothing to do with my sexual orientation or preferences.

Apologies if I mischaracterised you or your position. While my post was a touch sharp, I think that I did focus my comment on your argument. I have seen similar arguments, particularly on the political threads applied to the issue of freedom of speech. In this case, I do not agree that those protesting the enactment of laws that discriminate against minorities or a minority are being hypocritical if they object to people who support such laws giving expression to their bigotry.

I believe that on this matter there is a false equivalence. We are not debating one set of principles over another. We are discussing those with a set of beliefs and behaviours that are learned in opposition to groups of people who exist and are discriminated against because of their genetic composition. I do not see any equivalence there. I see irrational discrimination against other people who live their lives according to their biology, not some belief system inculcated into people by others who have special or vested interests in doing so.

This is why I referred to your position as a Thought Experiment; something that provides some interest in an academic sense but falls down when reality hits. Reality being the fact that the elements that make a person part of a minority are not dictated by choice.

Protest at speech or actions that deprive others of their essential rights is a duty. There are such things as universal truths. I believe this is demonstrated by the experience of universal suffrage for women globally, civil rights for African Americans and now majority acceptance of LGBT equality.

I am certainly going to touch a nerve or two in this post. For that I apologize in advance, but I believe open discussion helps all who debate honestly and openly.

First, I will say that I have no bias against anyone who is gay or lesbian. I have close friends, both gay and transgender, and I think they are beautiful people and I enjoy our friendship. I have never felt anything negative towards anyone because they are gay. I was raised in a Catholic family, and I can understand their views based upon the passages of the Bible. I disagree with their interpretations, but I understand them.

Andreas2's point about protest, in my opinion, is valid. You state that Protest at speech or actions that deprive others of their essential rights is a duty. First, speech is protected. A person has every right to state the opinion that they believe being gay is wrong (speech). Just as you have the right to state your opinions and beliefs. But, they have no right to manifest violence or discrimination against someone who is gay (action). Without the right of speech, women, blacks, nor gays would have ever made any progress with their fights for equality. You simply cannot pick and choose which messages are valid and which are not. As long as the messages are peaceful and respectful, society at large will ultimately decide what is the correct answer, and with amazement (for me, anyway), eventually they always do. When I was a young boy, being openly gay was utterly unacceptable. That has changed. That is the power of speech. The ability to appeal to the intelligence and understanding of those around you. We should all cherish and defend this right, regardless of how uncomfortable it can become at times.

But in the case of the Oregon bakers, the LBGT community has taken action to harm that couple's life, via their business, in a way that I think cannot be justified. The couple simply stated that, because of their religious belief, they did not want to bake a wedding cake for a gay ceremony. They were not attempting to discriminate against gays, they were attempting to exercise their beliefs. We must accept that point, since they clearly had done business with gays prior to that event! They had no problem doing any other business with gay people. It was simply when the business applied specifically to something deeply associated with their faith, they asked the couple to do business with another baker. They did not attack them. They did not tell them they would burn in hell. They did not invite the community in to ridicule them. They simply expressed their desire to not do that specific piece of business. That is not, in my opinion, discrimination. Yet, I can easily see why others would consider it as such. I think it is the very fact that the bakers did prior business with gay patrons that favors my view of it.

Consider another scenario. I have the right to free speech. I wish to print a publication of my beliefs for others to read, in the hopes of convincing them to agree with my beliefs. I have every right to do so. I enter a print shop and ask the printer to print my publication. In my publication, I state that I believe homosexuality will ultimately destroy civilization (this is a scenario, of course, I don't really believe that). I am not advocating any action against gay people, or hatred of gay people, I am simply expressing my belief. The printer is gay. Now, do you feel the printer should be forced to print my publication? Or should he have the right to ask me to do business elsewhere?

You state: We are discussing those with a set of beliefs and behaviours that are learned in opposition to groups of people who exist and are discriminated against because of their genetic composition. I do not see any equivalence there. I see irrational discrimination against other people who live their lives according to their biology, not some belief system inculcated into people by others who have special or vested interests in doing so.

I believe you are treading on some very thin ice here. To completely dismiss the clear connection between biological reproduction and certain beliefs that disagree with homosexuality, is to almost dismiss your very own argument that homosexuality is a biological phenomenon. Furthermore, and here is where things get very sticky, many would argue that sexual preference is a learned behavior, not a biological manifestation. I have to admit that very well thought out arguments in this regard, as well as my own personal experiences, have me lead me to lean more towards the learned behavior argument. Other than the most rudimentary aspect of biological reproduction, I believe that sex in human beings is entirely a mental phenomenon. To not accept this argument requires that you explain bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, and a number of other sexual preferences, while completely carving homosexuality out of the equation. It is very tricky business, the human mind, and we are still advancing in our understanding.

Many will point to a gay gene to promote the biological argument. I believe this is even thinner ice. The biological explanation of gender (man versus woman) is clearly identifiable, as is the genetics that causes people to have black or white skin. But homosexuality has not been so clearly demonstrated. To say that genetics can make men more effeminate or women more masculine is to dismiss the very people who are such, but are heterosexual. I know men who are very effeminate, but are straight, and I know men who are very masculine, but are gay. If you begin to make the biological argument, based on current science, you start to back yourself into difficult corners. If you are gay, but lack the so-called gay gene, does society have the right to label you as wrong? Do we begin to accept that their might be a criminal gene that allows us to lock up people before they have committed a crime? Short of clear genetic defects that affect the development of the human brain, attempting to link genetics to the human mind is, in my opinion, a serious mistake. And what will happen to the entire argument if science later proves that homosexuality is entirely a mental phenomenon?

This is where I think the gay community has made a mistake. They should not be attempting to tie their rights to a biological basis. I, personally, do not think it exists. And it is not necessary. The gay community is on very solid ground simply stating that they have human rights to live their lives as they wish. Religions have every right to believe what they want to believe, but have no right whatsoever to force that belief on their fellow citizens. If a Christian does not want to bake a wedding cake, but is otherwise willing to do business with gays, that seems fine by me. If a gay printer does not wish to print my crazy gays-will-destroy-civilization (again, I don't believe that!) pamphlet, but would otherwise do business with me, that also seems fine. Simple. Constitutional. Workable.

Again, the government can afford no such luxury. It must service all citizens equally according to the law. And this is where I think another mistake is being made in the current debate. You state But in terms of public policy and public access, LGBT people cannot be denied. So very true, but, the bakers in question are running a private business! No one is preventing gays from accessing government services, walking into a federal park, riding the subway, entering a public library, or driving on public roads. In my opinion, to force a private business to conduct business against their (even if irrational or disagreeable) desires, is no different from forcing a person with an irrational fear of flying to board a plane. The government has no business attempting to force citizens to adhere to any belief or thought process. Their mandate is to ensure that everyone is afforded the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. People can be stupid, they can be irrational, they can be discriminating in their thoughts, as long as it does not subvert the freedom and liberty of the next guy. In the case of the Oregon bakers, there was no subversion of the freedom or liberty of the gay couple. They were perfectly free to conduct business elsewhere. Let society vote with their feet and their dollars. If the bakers were truly discriminatory, word would get around, and eventually their only customers would be those who agreed with them, and free enterprise would have dealt them their ultimate fate.

Now that I am certain I have offended many people, I wish to re-iterate: I have no issues whatsoever with homosexuality. It does not cause any harm to society. It does not reduce the freedom or liberty of anyone. Gay persons have every right to life and liberty, pursuing their needs and desires like everyone else. I have believed this since early childhood and have never doubted it. And I look forward to the day that all of this friction can be put behind us, and we can all focus our attention on the more pressing matters facing humanity.

[Andaman Al]

I am certainly going to touch a nerve or two in this post. For that I apologize in advance, but I believe open discussion helps all who debate honestly and openly.

First, I will say that I have no bias against anyone who is gay or lesbian. I have close friends, both gay and transgender, and I think they are beautiful people and I enjoy our friendship. I have never felt anything negative towards anyone because they are gay. I was raised in a Catholic family, and I can understand their views based upon the passages of the Bible. I disagree with their interpretations, but I understand them.

Andreas2's point about protest, in my opinion, is valid. You state that Protest at speech or actions that deprive others of their essential rights is a duty. First, speech is protected. A person has every right to state the opinion that they believe being gay is wrong (speech). Just as you have the right to state your opinions and beliefs. But, they have no right to manifest violence or discrimination against someone who is gay (action). Without the right of speech, women, blacks, nor gays would have ever made any progress with their fights for equality. You simply cannot pick and choose which messages are valid and which are not. As long as the messages are peaceful and respectful, society at large will ultimately decide what is the correct answer, and with amazement (for me, anyway), eventually they always do. When I was a young boy, being openly gay was utterly unacceptable. That has changed. That is the power of speech. The ability to appeal to the intelligence and understanding of those around you. We should all cherish and defend this right, regardless of how uncomfortable it can become at times.

But in the case of the Oregon bakers, the LBGT community has taken action to harm that couple's life, via their business, in a way that I think cannot be justified. The couple simply stated that, because of their religious belief, they did not want to bake a wedding cake for a gay ceremony. They were not attempting to discriminate against gays, they were attempting to exercise their beliefs. We must accept that point, since they clearly had done business with gays prior to that event! They had no problem doing any other business with gay people. It was simply when the business applied specifically to something deeply associated with their faith, they asked the couple to do business with another baker. They did not attack them. They did not tell them they would burn in hell. They did not invite the community in to ridicule them. They simply expressed their desire to not do that specific piece of business. That is not, in my opinion, discrimination. Yet, I can easily see why others would consider it as such. I think it is the very fact that the bakers did prior business with gay patrons that favors my view of it.

Consider another scenario. I have the right to free speech. I wish to print a publication of my beliefs for others to read, in the hopes of convincing them to agree with my beliefs. I have every right to do so. I enter a print shop and ask the printer to print my publication. In my publication, I state that I believe homosexuality will ultimately destroy civilization (this is a scenario, of course, I don't really believe that). I am not advocating any action against gay people, or hatred of gay people, I am simply expressing my belief. The printer is gay. Now, do you feel the printer should be forced to print my publication? Or should he have the right to ask me to do business elsewhere?

You state: We are discussing those with a set of beliefs and behaviours that are learned in opposition to groups of people who exist and are discriminated against because of their genetic composition. I do not see any equivalence there. I see irrational discrimination against other people who live their lives according to their biology, not some belief system inculcated into people by others who have special or vested interests in doing so.

I believe you are treading on some very thin ice here. To completely dismiss the clear connection between biological reproduction and certain beliefs that disagree with homosexuality, is to almost dismiss your very own argument that homosexuality is a biological phenomenon. Furthermore, and here is where things get very sticky, many would argue that sexual preference is a learned behavior, not a biological manifestation. I have to admit that very well thought out arguments in this regard, as well as my own personal experiences, have me lead me to lean more towards the learned behavior argument. Other than the most rudimentary aspect of biological reproduction, I believe that sex in human beings is entirely a mental phenomenon. To not accept this argument requires that you explain bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, and a number of other sexual preferences, while completely carving homosexuality out of the equation. It is very tricky business, the human mind, and we are still advancing in our understanding.

Many will point to a gay gene to promote the biological argument. I believe this is even thinner ice. The biological explanation of gender (man versus woman) is clearly identifiable, as is the genetics that causes people to have black or white skin. But homosexuality has not been so clearly demonstrated. To say that genetics can make men more effeminate or women more masculine is to dismiss the very people who are such, but are heterosexual. I know men who are very effeminate, but are straight, and I know men who are very masculine, but are gay. If you begin to make the biological argument, based on current science, you start to back yourself into difficult corners. If you are gay, but lack the so-called gay gene, does society have the right to label you as wrong? Do we begin to accept that their might be a criminal gene that allows us to lock up people before they have committed a crime? Short of clear genetic defects that affect the development of the human brain, attempting to link genetics to the human mind is, in my opinion, a serious mistake. And what will happen to the entire argument if science later proves that homosexuality is entirely a mental phenomenon?

This is where I think the gay community has made a mistake. They should not be attempting to tie their rights to a biological basis. I, personally, do not think it exists. And it is not necessary. The gay community is on very solid ground simply stating that they have human rights to live their lives as they wish. Religions have every right to believe what they want to believe, but have no right whatsoever to force that belief on their fellow citizens. If a Christian does not want to bake a wedding cake, but is otherwise willing to do business with gays, that seems fine by me. If a gay printer does not wish to print my crazy gays-will-destroy-civilization (again, I don't believe that!) pamphlet, but would otherwise do business with me, that also seems fine. Simple. Constitutional. Workable.

Again, the government can afford no such luxury. It must service all citizens equally according to the law. And this is where I think another mistake is being made in the current debate. You state But in terms of public policy and public access, LGBT people cannot be denied. So very true, but, the bakers in question are running a private business! No one is preventing gays from accessing government services, walking into a federal park, riding the subway, entering a public library, or driving on public roads. In my opinion, to force a private business to conduct business against their (even if irrational or disagreeable) desires, is no different from forcing a person with an irrational fear of flying to board a plane. The government has no business attempting to force citizens to adhere to any belief or thought process. Their mandate is to ensure that everyone is afforded the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. People can be stupid, they can be irrational, they can be discriminating in their thoughts, as long as it does not subvert the freedom and liberty of the next guy. In the case of the Oregon bakers, there was no subversion of the freedom or liberty of the gay couple. They were perfectly free to conduct business elsewhere. Let society vote with their feet and their dollars. If the bakers were truly discriminatory, word would get around, and eventually their only customers would be those who agreed with them, and free enterprise would have dealt them their ultimate fate.

Now that I am certain I have offended many people, I wish to re-iterate: I have no issues whatsoever with homosexuality. It does not cause any harm to society. It does not reduce the freedom or liberty of anyone. Gay persons have every right to life and liberty, pursuing their needs and desires like everyone else. I have believed this since early childhood and have never doubted it. And I look forward to the day that all of this friction can be put behind us, and we can all focus our attention on the more pressing matters facing humanity.

I doubt you have offended anyone. Your post is quite excellent.

[smotherb]

oH Y

So are all these states that are now bringing in legislation, based on the Holy Book to discriminate against the LGBT community also bringing in laws to ban the sale of Shrimps, Lobster and Crab?

New Testament bro...

Yes the good old christian concept of choose the bits you like and ignore the stupid stuff.

It seems the bits they like are often the stupid stuff

[lostboy]

You attempt to tarnish and brand those who fight discrimination against minorities with the false moral equivalence of themselves being discriminatory.

Funny little thought experiment that, isn't it.

One thing though, those people whom you claim should be able to retain and express their 'right' to not engage with people according to their 'preferences' believe that we LGBT people should not exist; that our existence is a sin; that our lives and voices should be diminished. LGBT people are people, who exist in real life and who, in western liberal democracies have an actual right to equal treatment under the law. Those people you are defending - they are propagating a belief system that is based on what? Their beliefs cannot stand against the reality of LGBT existence. To argue otherwise is inhuman. The US Constitution does not require citizens to have religion. It does not empower any religion or religious belief of one group over any other group.

You don't like LGBT people. That's up to you. But in terms of public policy and public access, LGBT people cannot be denied. It is unconstitutional in the US and immoral there and other western countries. Most people, in fact an overwhelming number of people now support LGBT rights to dignity and equality.

I think it is very clear what you are missing.

Hi lostboy

Thank you for your (almost) fair and valid reply. I hope and think I understand and respect your argument... And if I don't, it surely is a misunderstanding from my side.

I'm a Rothbardian-Libertarian, so I'm everything but a collectivist (neither right wing, nor left wing, nor whatever). My core principles are based on the NAP (Non aggression principle).

My argument of my post was mainly to show my acceptance but also the hypocrisy of artists who enjoy the very same freedoms they enthusiastically exercise but also oppose.

Please, don't throw me in the corner of individuals who "don't like LGBT people" because of that. That's completely wrong and has nothing to do with my argument - My post was food for thought and has absolutely nothing to do with my sexual orientation or preferences.

Apologies if I mischaracterised you or your position. While my post was a touch sharp, I think that I did focus my comment on your argument. I have seen similar arguments, particularly on the political threads applied to the issue of freedom of speech. In this case, I do not agree that those protesting the enactment of laws that discriminate against minorities or a minority are being hypocritical if they object to people who support such laws giving expression to their bigotry.

I believe that on this matter there is a false equivalence. We are not debating one set of principles over another. We are discussing those with a set of beliefs and behaviours that are learned in opposition to groups of people who exist and are discriminated against because of their genetic composition. I do not see any equivalence there. I see irrational discrimination against other people who live their lives according to their biology, not some belief system inculcated into people by others who have special or vested interests in doing so.

This is why I referred to your position as a Thought Experiment; something that provides some interest in an academic sense but falls down when reality hits. Reality being the fact that the elements that make a person part of a minority are not dictated by choice.

Protest at speech or actions that deprive others of their essential rights is a duty. There are such things as universal truths. I believe this is demonstrated by the experience of universal suffrage for women globally, civil rights for African Americans and now majority acceptance of LGBT equality.

I am certainly going to touch a nerve or two in this post. For that I apologize in advance, but I believe open discussion helps all who debate honestly and openly.

First, I will say that I have no bias against anyone who is gay or lesbian. I have close friends, both gay and transgender, and I think they are beautiful people and I enjoy our friendship. I have never felt anything negative towards anyone because they are gay. I was raised in a Catholic family, and I can understand their views based upon the passages of the Bible. I disagree with their interpretations, but I understand them.

Andreas2's point about protest, in my opinion, is valid. You state that Protest at speech or actions that deprive others of their essential rights is a duty. First, speech is protected. A person has every right to state the opinion that they believe being gay is wrong (speech). Just as you have the right to state your opinions and beliefs. But, they have no right to manifest violence or discrimination against someone who is gay (action). Without the right of speech, women, blacks, nor gays would have ever made any progress with their fights for equality. You simply cannot pick and choose which messages are valid and which are not. As long as the messages are peaceful and respectful, society at large will ultimately decide what is the correct answer, and with amazement (for me, anyway), eventually they always do. When I was a young boy, being openly gay was utterly unacceptable. That has changed. That is the power of speech. The ability to appeal to the intelligence and understanding of those around you. We should all cherish and defend this right, regardless of how uncomfortable it can become at times.

But in the case of the Oregon bakers, the LBGT community has taken action to harm that couple's life, via their business, in a way that I think cannot be justified. The couple simply stated that, because of their religious belief, they did not want to bake a wedding cake for a gay ceremony. They were not attempting to discriminate against gays, they were attempting to exercise their beliefs. We must accept that point, since they clearly had done business with gays prior to that event! They had no problem doing any other business with gay people. It was simply when the business applied specifically to something deeply associated with their faith, they asked the couple to do business with another baker. They did not attack them. They did not tell them they would burn in hell. They did not invite the community in to ridicule them. They simply expressed their desire to not do that specific piece of business. That is not, in my opinion, discrimination. Yet, I can easily see why others would consider it as such. I think it is the very fact that the bakers did prior business with gay patrons that favors my view of it.

Consider another scenario. I have the right to free speech. I wish to print a publication of my beliefs for others to read, in the hopes of convincing them to agree with my beliefs. I have every right to do so. I enter a print shop and ask the printer to print my publication. In my publication, I state that I believe homosexuality will ultimately destroy civilization (this is a scenario, of course, I don't really believe that). I am not advocating any action against gay people, or hatred of gay people, I am simply expressing my belief. The printer is gay. Now, do you feel the printer should be forced to print my publication? Or should he have the right to ask me to do business elsewhere?

You state: We are discussing those with a set of beliefs and behaviours that are learned in opposition to groups of people who exist and are discriminated against because of their genetic composition. I do not see any equivalence there. I see irrational discrimination against other people who live their lives according to their biology, not some belief system inculcated into people by others who have special or vested interests in doing so.

I believe you are treading on some very thin ice here. To completely dismiss the clear connection between biological reproduction and certain beliefs that disagree with homosexuality, is to almost dismiss your very own argument that homosexuality is a biological phenomenon. Furthermore, and here is where things get very sticky, many would argue that sexual preference is a learned behavior, not a biological manifestation. I have to admit that very well thought out arguments in this regard, as well as my own personal experiences, have me lead me to lean more towards the learned behavior argument. Other than the most rudimentary aspect of biological reproduction, I believe that sex in human beings is entirely a mental phenomenon. To not accept this argument requires that you explain bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, and a number of other sexual preferences, while completely carving homosexuality out of the equation. It is very tricky business, the human mind, and we are still advancing in our understanding.

Many will point to a gay gene to promote the biological argument. I believe this is even thinner ice. The biological explanation of gender (man versus woman) is clearly identifiable, as is the genetics that causes people to have black or white skin. But homosexuality has not been so clearly demonstrated. To say that genetics can make men more effeminate or women more masculine is to dismiss the very people who are such, but are heterosexual. I know men who are very effeminate, but are straight, and I know men who are very masculine, but are gay. If you begin to make the biological argument, based on current science, you start to back yourself into difficult corners. If you are gay, but lack the so-called gay gene, does society have the right to label you as wrong? Do we begin to accept that their might be a criminal gene that allows us to lock up people before they have committed a crime? Short of clear genetic defects that affect the development of the human brain, attempting to link genetics to the human mind is, in my opinion, a serious mistake. And what will happen to the entire argument if science later proves that homosexuality is entirely a mental phenomenon?

This is where I think the gay community has made a mistake. They should not be attempting to tie their rights to a biological basis. I, personally, do not think it exists. And it is not necessary. The gay community is on very solid ground simply stating that they have human rights to live their lives as they wish. Religions have every right to believe what they want to believe, but have no right whatsoever to force that belief on their fellow citizens. If a Christian does not want to bake a wedding cake, but is otherwise willing to do business with gays, that seems fine by me. If a gay printer does not wish to print my crazy gays-will-destroy-civilization (again, I don't believe that!) pamphlet, but would otherwise do business with me, that also seems fine. Simple. Constitutional. Workable.

Again, the government can afford no such luxury. It must service all citizens equally according to the law. And this is where I think another mistake is being made in the current debate. You state But in terms of public policy and public access, LGBT people cannot be denied. So very true, but, the bakers in question are running a private business! No one is preventing gays from accessing government services, walking into a federal park, riding the subway, entering a public library, or driving on public roads. In my opinion, to force a private business to conduct business against their (even if irrational or disagreeable) desires, is no different from forcing a person with an irrational fear of flying to board a plane. The government has no business attempting to force citizens to adhere to any belief or thought process. Their mandate is to ensure that everyone is afforded the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. People can be stupid, they can be irrational, they can be discriminating in their thoughts, as long as it does not subvert the freedom and liberty of the next guy. In the case of the Oregon bakers, there was no subversion of the freedom or liberty of the gay couple. They were perfectly free to conduct business elsewhere. Let society vote with their feet and their dollars. If the bakers were truly discriminatory, word would get around, and eventually their only customers would be those who agreed with them, and free enterprise would have dealt them their ultimate fate.

Now that I am certain I have offended many people, I wish to re-iterate: I have no issues whatsoever with homosexuality. It does not cause any harm to society. It does not reduce the freedom or liberty of anyone. Gay persons have every right to life and liberty, pursuing their needs and desires like everyone else. I have believed this since early childhood and have never doubted it. And I look forward to the day that all of this friction can be put behind us, and we can all focus our attention on the more pressing matters facing humanity.

You respond to my argument against laws that allow discrimination of LGBT people with two core ideas; that LGBT choose to this 'lifestyle' and private businesses can discriminate against whomever they please.

Knowing people who are LGBT is not the same as knowing LGBT people. You confuse sexual expression, sexual orientation and gender identity. These are entirely separate issues. You also do not seem to be aware that by confusing these issues you are also perpetuating stereotypes about LGBT people and this is correctly regarded as being homophobic. References to gay men and effeminacy and lesbian women as butch is now a cliche; it is the received wisdom of those who seek to demonise LGBT people. Whether you say this is your intention or not is immaterial. The effect of perpetuating these assumptions is to perpetuate discrimination.

My argument against LGBT hate legislation is that the right to dignity of people with no biological choice in their orientation or gender identity trumps the rights of people who wish to discriminate against LGBT people on the basis of a set of beliefs and practices that are learned; that are not universal; and, are subjective in interpretation. Your counter to this is to question the genetic basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. You may wish to read this from the LA Times http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-genetic-homosexuality-nature-nurture-20151007-story.html. There are many similar articles and research pieces that you may consult, or not. In any case, how can you make statements about the origins of LGBT people if you are straight? You literally do not know what you are talking about and you do this in the face of people who actually are LGBT. I really think that your references to the thickness of ice is way off the mark. Should brown skinned people somehow change their skin colour to conform to apartheid regimes? Should brown eyed people change their eye colour to blue to achieve a more acceptable standard of beauty? The ridiculousness of such statements should give an indication of the notion that LGBT orientation and identity is a choice.

Why do people who support laws that allow discrimination against LGBT people on religious grounds keep talking about gay wedding cakes and other trivialities? This is a complete diversion. The legislation that discriminates against LGBT people is denying such people access to public funds and public services. It enables employers to dismiss people if they support marriage equality. It enables employers to dismiss people based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. Yet the argument is made that to protect the right of someone to refuse a business service to someone whose beliefs, something that is learned, are in opposition to their customers, then all religious based discrimination against LGBT people is justified. I won't even respond to the silliness about whether such religious beliefs are 'sincerely' held or not. There are no metrics to establish that.

The correct response to the exercise of bigotry and discrimination is naming and shaming. This is happening. The fact that there is overwhelming reaction against such bigotry and discrimination is an expression of the support that LGBT people have from non LGBT people now. It is overwhelmingly in the majority now, particularly among young people. Businesses are regulated by the State. Permits must be obtained. Compliance to standards set by the State is required. Denying accommodation in a State licensed guest house or hotel is clearly more egregious than refusing to back a cake but it is clear that the State has a responsibility to ensure equality in the treatment of all persons.

I am not persuaded by the arguments from people who 'believe' that LGBT orientation and identity is a lifestyle choice. This is clearly debunked by modern science and perpetuating this idea is to promote discrimination. I am further not persuaded by the idea that private businesses can decide who they can service or not. Such businesses are required to meet standards set by the State and I see no reason that equal treatment of all people irregardless of 'beliefs', sincerely held or not, is not in the interests of the State.

I am further not persuaded that issues faced by LGBT people should be trivialised because we are a small percentage of the population and there are bigger issues facing humanity.

Edited April 17, 2016 by lostboy

[lostboy]

Undocumented immigrants to the US have racists like Joe Arpaio to deal with. LGBT people have this guy http://www.queerty.com/awful-sheriff-threatens-to-whip-trans-women-who-use-ladies-room-with-his-wife-20160416. This guy has a gun and a badge to back up his discrimination and bigotry.

[mopar71]

You attempt to tarnish and brand those who fight discrimination against minorities with the false moral equivalence of themselves being discriminatory.

Funny little thought experiment that, isn't it.

One thing though, those people whom you claim should be able to retain and express their 'right' to not engage with people according to their 'preferences' believe that we LGBT people should not exist; that our existence is a sin; that our lives and voices should be diminished. LGBT people are people, who exist in real life and who, in western liberal democracies have an actual right to equal treatment under the law. Those people you are defending - they are propagating a belief system that is based on what? Their beliefs cannot stand against the reality of LGBT existence. To argue otherwise is inhuman. The US Constitution does not require citizens to have religion. It does not empower any religion or religious belief of one group over any other group.

You don't like LGBT people. That's up to you. But in terms of public policy and public access, LGBT people cannot be denied. It is unconstitutional in the US and immoral there and other western countries. Most people, in fact an overwhelming number of people now support LGBT rights to dignity and equality.

I think it is very clear what you are missing.

Hi lostboy

Thank you for your (almost) fair and valid reply. I hope and think I understand and respect your argument... And if I don't, it surely is a misunderstanding from my side.

I'm a Rothbardian-Libertarian, so I'm everything but a collectivist (neither right wing, nor left wing, nor whatever). My core principles are based on the NAP (Non aggression principle).

My argument of my post was mainly to show my acceptance but also the hypocrisy of artists who enjoy the very same freedoms they enthusiastically exercise but also oppose.

Please, don't throw me in the corner of individuals who "don't like LGBT people" because of that. That's completely wrong and has nothing to do with my argument - My post was food for thought and has absolutely nothing to do with my sexual orientation or preferences.

Apologies if I mischaracterised you or your position. While my post was a touch sharp, I think that I did focus my comment on your argument. I have seen similar arguments, particularly on the political threads applied to the issue of freedom of speech. In this case, I do not agree that those protesting the enactment of laws that discriminate against minorities or a minority are being hypocritical if they object to people who support such laws giving expression to their bigotry.

I believe that on this matter there is a false equivalence. We are not debating one set of principles over another. We are discussing those with a set of beliefs and behaviours that are learned in opposition to groups of people who exist and are discriminated against because of their genetic composition. I do not see any equivalence there. I see irrational discrimination against other people who live their lives according to their biology, not some belief system inculcated into people by others who have special or vested interests in doing so.

This is why I referred to your position as a Thought Experiment; something that provides some interest in an academic sense but falls down when reality hits. Reality being the fact that the elements that make a person part of a minority are not dictated by choice.

Protest at speech or actions that deprive others of their essential rights is a duty. There are such things as universal truths. I believe this is demonstrated by the experience of universal suffrage for women globally, civil rights for African Americans and now majority acceptance of LGBT equality.

I am certainly going to touch a nerve or two in this post. For that I apologize in advance, but I believe open discussion helps all who debate honestly and openly.

First, I will say that I have no bias against anyone who is gay or lesbian. I have close friends, both gay and transgender, and I think they are beautiful people and I enjoy our friendship. I have never felt anything negative towards anyone because they are gay. I was raised in a Catholic family, and I can understand their views based upon the passages of the Bible. I disagree with their interpretations, but I understand them.

Andreas2's point about protest, in my opinion, is valid. You state that Protest at speech or actions that deprive others of their essential rights is a duty. First, speech is protected. A person has every right to state the opinion that they believe being gay is wrong (speech). Just as you have the right to state your opinions and beliefs. But, they have no right to manifest violence or discrimination against someone who is gay (action). Without the right of speech, women, blacks, nor gays would have ever made any progress with their fights for equality. You simply cannot pick and choose which messages are valid and which are not. As long as the messages are peaceful and respectful, society at large will ultimately decide what is the correct answer, and with amazement (for me, anyway), eventually they always do. When I was a young boy, being openly gay was utterly unacceptable. That has changed. That is the power of speech. The ability to appeal to the intelligence and understanding of those around you. We should all cherish and defend this right, regardless of how uncomfortable it can become at times.

But in the case of the Oregon bakers, the LBGT community has taken action to harm that couple's life, via their business, in a way that I think cannot be justified. The couple simply stated that, because of their religious belief, they did not want to bake a wedding cake for a gay ceremony. They were not attempting to discriminate against gays, they were attempting to exercise their beliefs. We must accept that point, since they clearly had done business with gays prior to that event! They had no problem doing any other business with gay people. It was simply when the business applied specifically to something deeply associated with their faith, they asked the couple to do business with another baker. They did not attack them. They did not tell them they would burn in hell. They did not invite the community in to ridicule them. They simply expressed their desire to not do that specific piece of business. That is not, in my opinion, discrimination. Yet, I can easily see why others would consider it as such. I think it is the very fact that the bakers did prior business with gay patrons that favors my view of it.

Consider another scenario. I have the right to free speech. I wish to print a publication of my beliefs for others to read, in the hopes of convincing them to agree with my beliefs. I have every right to do so. I enter a print shop and ask the printer to print my publication. In my publication, I state that I believe homosexuality will ultimately destroy civilization (this is a scenario, of course, I don't really believe that). I am not advocating any action against gay people, or hatred of gay people, I am simply expressing my belief. The printer is gay. Now, do you feel the printer should be forced to print my publication? Or should he have the right to ask me to do business elsewhere?

You state: We are discussing those with a set of beliefs and behaviours that are learned in opposition to groups of people who exist and are discriminated against because of their genetic composition. I do not see any equivalence there. I see irrational discrimination against other people who live their lives according to their biology, not some belief system inculcated into people by others who have special or vested interests in doing so.

I believe you are treading on some very thin ice here. To completely dismiss the clear connection between biological reproduction and certain beliefs that disagree with homosexuality, is to almost dismiss your very own argument that homosexuality is a biological phenomenon. Furthermore, and here is where things get very sticky, many would argue that sexual preference is a learned behavior, not a biological manifestation. I have to admit that very well thought out arguments in this regard, as well as my own personal experiences, have me lead me to lean more towards the learned behavior argument. Other than the most rudimentary aspect of biological reproduction, I believe that sex in human beings is entirely a mental phenomenon. To not accept this argument requires that you explain bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, and a number of other sexual preferences, while completely carving homosexuality out of the equation. It is very tricky business, the human mind, and we are still advancing in our understanding.

Many will point to a gay gene to promote the biological argument. I believe this is even thinner ice. The biological explanation of gender (man versus woman) is clearly identifiable, as is the genetics that causes people to have black or white skin. But homosexuality has not been so clearly demonstrated. To say that genetics can make men more effeminate or women more masculine is to dismiss the very people who are such, but are heterosexual. I know men who are very effeminate, but are straight, and I know men who are very masculine, but are gay. If you begin to make the biological argument, based on current science, you start to back yourself into difficult corners. If you are gay, but lack the so-called gay gene, does society have the right to label you as wrong? Do we begin to accept that their might be a criminal gene that allows us to lock up people before they have committed a crime? Short of clear genetic defects that affect the development of the human brain, attempting to link genetics to the human mind is, in my opinion, a serious mistake. And what will happen to the entire argument if science later proves that homosexuality is entirely a mental phenomenon?

This is where I think the gay community has made a mistake. They should not be attempting to tie their rights to a biological basis. I, personally, do not think it exists. And it is not necessary. The gay community is on very solid ground simply stating that they have human rights to live their lives as they wish. Religions have every right to believe what they want to believe, but have no right whatsoever to force that belief on their fellow citizens. If a Christian does not want to bake a wedding cake, but is otherwise willing to do business with gays, that seems fine by me. If a gay printer does not wish to print my crazy gays-will-destroy-civilization (again, I don't believe that!) pamphlet, but would otherwise do business with me, that also seems fine. Simple. Constitutional. Workable.

Again, the government can afford no such luxury. It must service all citizens equally according to the law. And this is where I think another mistake is being made in the current debate. You state But in terms of public policy and public access, LGBT people cannot be denied. So very true, but, the bakers in question are running a private business! No one is preventing gays from accessing government services, walking into a federal park, riding the subway, entering a public library, or driving on public roads. In my opinion, to force a private business to conduct business against their (even if irrational or disagreeable) desires, is no different from forcing a person with an irrational fear of flying to board a plane. The government has no business attempting to force citizens to adhere to any belief or thought process. Their mandate is to ensure that everyone is afforded the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. People can be stupid, they can be irrational, they can be discriminating in their thoughts, as long as it does not subvert the freedom and liberty of the next guy. In the case of the Oregon bakers, there was no subversion of the freedom or liberty of the gay couple. They were perfectly free to conduct business elsewhere. Let society vote with their feet and their dollars. If the bakers were truly discriminatory, word would get around, and eventually their only customers would be those who agreed with them, and free enterprise would have dealt them their ultimate fate.

Now that I am certain I have offended many people, I wish to re-iterate: I have no issues whatsoever with homosexuality. It does not cause any harm to society. It does not reduce the freedom or liberty of anyone. Gay persons have every right to life and liberty, pursuing their needs and desires like everyone else. I have believed this since early childhood and have never doubted it. And I look forward to the day that all of this friction can be put behind us, and we can all focus our attention on the more pressing matters facing humanity.

That is a looooong post. I usually skip posts that long. But not this one. Well, thought out, well written. Thanks for taking the time to put it together.