Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Omerta

Gay Cakes Are A Problem

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, BwareDWare94 said:

So some people are inclined, by nature, to use the rectum, which is not a sexual organ, as a sexual organ? Right...

Sexual orientation is not natural in the same way race is, period. It's a false equivalence to the Nth degree

I doubt that they're refusing to decorate cakes for straight couples that like to do anal. Try again.

Edited by blotsfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blotsfan said:

Ok. You believe sexuality is a choice. That's dumb and wrong, but at least you've admitted your stance. Was that so hard?

There are a lot of studies that say it is not that simple. That there are some gentic predispositions, but environment and early sexual experiences play a more prominent role. 

 

Also weirdly enough the more older brothers you have the greater chance you have of being gay. Which is interesting to me because my brother is gay and is the youngest. He has 4 older brothers...interesting.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and for the record, even if it is straight up, 100% a choice. It is as valid as any other choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, blotsfan said:

I doubt that they're refusing to decorate cakes for straight couples that like to do anal. Try again.

And Anal is abhorrent. I agree. Have fun figuring out which straight couples like to get some mud on the tires, by the way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BwareDWare94 said:

And Anal is abhorrent. I agree. Have fun figuring out which straight couples like to get some mud on the tires, by the way

So not even the tip? You sound like a friend of mine who is straight who also hates the thought of anal. One way traffic, all the time lol.

 

Different strokes and all...see what I did lol.

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BwareDWare94 said:

And Anal is abhorrent. I agree. Have fun figuring out which straight couples like to get some mud on the tires, by the way

lmao you're ridiculous. What about lesbians? They (usually) don't do anal so are they good? Or is it just one man + one woman, missionary, in the dark, after marriage, for procreation, and you have to be thinking about the queen just to be safe?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I'm not the bedroom police. I'm just saying sexual preference isn't even remotely akin to race 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BwareDWare94 said:

Hey, I'm not the bedroom police. I'm just saying sexual preference isn't even remotely akin to race 

You never really refuted that beyond saying "anal icky" like that was the objection the store owners had to it (as if that were valid regardless). Gay people didn't choose to be attracted to men the same way you didn't choose to be attracted to women. While its probably not purely genetic (like ngata said), that doesn't mean its a conscious choice.

So again, why is it ok to discriminate against someone based on sexual attraction but not race?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BwareDWare94 said:

So some people are inclined, by nature, to use the rectum, which is not a sexual organ, as a sexual organ? Right...

Sexual orientation is not natural in the same way race is, period. It's a false equivalence to the Nth degree

This is 100% absolutely false.

Also if its a choice why does that matter?

This is just "gay people make me feel icky" therefore I don't mind setting the precedent.

Edited by Thanatos
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, I'd say that sexual orientation is way less of a choice than choosing to marry someone of another race. So, again why is discrimination against gay marriages ok, but discrimination against interracial marriages isn't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, blotsfan said:

In fact, I'd say that sexual orientation is way less of a choice than choosing to marry someone of another race. So, again why is discrimination against gay marriages ok, but discrimination against interracial marriages isn't?

You have to look at it from the context of the person making the argument. As I said in the beginning, the bible really doesn't have any bugaboos about black people, yes they tried to use it to justify slavery, and Jim Crow laws and segregation, that was wrong. That said, I am unaware of any Bible passage that explicitly states that you cannot marry a black person, or have sex with a black person, or even have anal sex with a black person.

 

The Bible however, does explicitly ban homosexuality. I mean technically lesbians would get a pass, because I believe it says if a Man Lies with another man, so I think women might be in the clear here. In all seriousness though, it bans homosexuality.

 

these are false equivalencies as far as the Bible is concerned, because the Bible only prohibits one. Now if you are asking beware, for him personally that only he can answer that, but from the biblical perspective only one of them is wrong.

I'm a fairly strong Christian, and I don't necessarily uphold these views. I think these are more so people who are 100% textualists, And just follow Doctrine. That being said God as I envisioned him probably does not have an issue with a gay person, that has the Fingerprints of man all over it. That being said there are other parts of the Bible that I do believe 100%. I just don't think God really gives a damn who you sleep with or how you do it just so long as you love fiercely.

As it pertains to this topic though, only one of those two is a terrible thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, you need to stop assuming Christianity is the only religion. If I truly believe that a God comes to me and says interracial marriage is wrong, and this is now my religious belief, should I be allowed to refuse service to an interracial couple? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, blotsfan said:

Again, you need to stop assuming Christianity is the only religion. If I truly believe that a God comes to me and says interracial marriage is wrong, and this is now my religious belief, should I be allowed to refuse service to an interracial couple? 

The thing is, nobody is saying that. I don't know of any texts from any of the mainstream religions, or any religions for that matter that's a interracial marriage is a terrible thing. Now I could be wrong as I'm not an expert in all religions, that being said I don't know of any that say marrying black people is explicitly prohibited.

 

If there was a Supreme Court case about that, or a UK Court decision about that then we would discuss it. That being said that's not what's in play here. I'm not sure why you keep throwing that out there, is it so you can lump homosexuality and racist together. Is it a convenient way to say all Christians are racist, I'm not really sure what you're going for here. I give both our discrimination, that I can understand, however, only one of those is a hot-button issue right now, the other one hasn't been talked about several years as far as I know.

Is there a mainstream religion, that has texts, that explicitly prohibits interracial marriage? That is a serious question, I don't know of any, but if you do I would like to know about them.

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And please don't do that silly thing where you say you just created a religion, and now interracial marriage is bad that defeats the entire purpose of having a productive discussion about this. So to address it off the top

 

You don't have a religion, you haven't created a religion, you don't have a place of worship, and you're not federally recognized as a religion, the less you don't get the protections of the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The constitution defends all religions. Not a specific list of them.

However, here are some verses used. The author has rebuttals, but there are other interpretations for the verses about being anti-gay too.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/marracbib.htm

And I keep putting them together because there is no rational reason that one should be ok and the other shouldn't. So I want bware to either say the exact specific reason (which is that he's homophobic) or more optimistically, change his opinion and support equal rights for gay people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, blotsfan said:

The constitution defends all religions. Not a specific list of them.

However, here are some verses used. The author has rebuttals, but there are other interpretations for the verses about being anti-gay too.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/marracbib.htm

And I keep putting them together because there is no rational reason that one should be ok and the other shouldn't. So I want bware to either say the exact specific reason (which is that he's homophobic) or more optimistically, change his opinion and support equal rights for gay people. 

It does protect all religions, and there is no specific list come I mean there is, and it's an extensive list, but it's not as easy as a lot of people think it is to get declared protected have a religion. Yes you can make one up, but it isn't recognized by the federal government. For instance, the Branch Davidians. They were seen as a terrorist organization, because they had outrageous believes they weren't considered a religion, didn't enjoy any of the perks of being a religion.

as to him being homophobic that's why this decision is so intriguing. Now I can't say he's homophobic, and I truly don't believe that he is. I could be wrong, as you proved earlier in the threat it's entirely possible. That being said, the decision rendered was extremely interested in the fact that they said wasn't the people they were discriminating against, it was the message of the cake that violated their religious beliefs. So in essence it kind of shifted the onus from the people themselves, to the message. Which if you're willing to make a gay couple of cake, you're just not willing to make them one that crosses their religious beliefs, I can definitely see the validity to that decision.

as an example, and I understand that it's not apples to oranges, but I believe it illustrates the point of the message. This last weekend was the Conor McGregor fight, he was fighting a Russian fellow. If I were to walk into a Russian bakery, owned and operated by Russians, and I ordered a cake with Conor McGregor's face, and saying Irish Christianity wins out, and they refuse to make it, I think that would leave us in a similar situation. If I went in there asking for a plain strawberry cake, there is probably a higher likelihood, if not certainty that they would make that cake for me. I could very well see them refusing to make me a cake like that last Friday. Now after McGregor got his face punched in, they might have made the cake is a joke, but in seriousness, it would have been the message they were disagreeing with, not necessarily my Irish heritage.

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd argue there's a big difference between "Congratulations Tom + Joe on your Wedding" and "I, the owner of this cake shop, am a proud supporter of gay marriage."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blotsfan said:

I'd argue there's a big difference between "Congratulations Tom + Joe on your Wedding" and "I, the owner of this cake shop, am a proud supporter of gay marriage."

Would you? Applying this as a general rule can be very damning in my opinion.

 

I think it was you, however I can be mistaken, but during the election didn't you say a vote for anyone other than Hillary was a vote for Trump? So even though I didn't vote for Trump, I voted for a lesser-known candidate yet I was still complicit in his victory.

 

If we apply that logic here just because you don't put two dolls making out, even a congratulations Tom and Joe is still condoning (or at least complicit) it isn't it? 

 

If it wasn't you then I apologize, but I know that is a common sentiment.

 

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voting is a personal choice. Not providing a service to the public through running a business. My point was if you didn't vote for Hillary, it meant you didn't really have a problem with trump being president since voting third party was equivalent to not voting. 

Im arguing that the US has already decided that "making a statement" of that nature is not legally protected in all circumstances. To me there is no logical reason for gay marriages to not be included. 

Also, my #HotTake: in 50 years when homophobia is a fringe belief in the US, Christians will say the arguments used against it were just as dumb as the ones you say about racism. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, blotsfan said:

Also, my #HotTake: in 50 years when homophobia is a fringe belief in the US, Christians will say the arguments used against it were just as dumb as the ones you say about racism. 

Im not sure what you mean there. I'm not sure if I should feel insulted lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I'm not insulting you. My insults are never subtle. My point is that Christians love to pretend that the interpretation of the Bible wasn't used to justify things that society has later determined was bad (or at least they explain why that was wrong). My prediction that assuming in 50 years homosexuality is as accepted as interracial marriage is now (reminder that interracial marriage didn't hit 50% approval by the the American public until the 90s), Christians will have all sorts of reasons for why the Bible doesn't actually say homosexuality is bad. However whatever the new bigotry they're pushing in 2060 is absolutely justified by the Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, the Bible also prohibits sodomy. It considers it to be a grievous sin. I can find it in Scripture if need be. 

That's not my objection to sodomy, though--it's not a natural act. The rectum is not a sexual organ.  I don't think these things should be illegal or that people should be frowned upon for it, though. Do whatever you want.  It doesn't affect me because I don't take part  in it and people can do what they want. The only point I was trying to make is that choosing how and who you have sex with is way, way, way different than your race and heritage. 

For the record, I am Catholic. But it's not about other people for me. It's a personal decision due to the fact that I simply feel better when I go to Mass regularly. And my life seems to work out better on a day-to-day basis. I had my back and forth with atheism. Perhaps I still don't believe--I'm not sure. I like the structure, the story, and the easy means to do good in this world that the church provides, and there is nothing at all like a good Priest or pastor or whatever-you-call-him/her that can give a homily/sermon that moves you on a weekly basis. There's nothing like it at all. A priest in my area has drawn me back to the church, so there's my religious stance as of right now.

Back on the ranch, we don't oppose interracial marriage because it really is just marriage. I don't oppose gay marriage, either. Some could make that assumption because I defend Jack Phillips, but I've supported gay marriage on this forum for years. 

I've been replying on Mobile until now so have not head a chance to type out what I find to be a sufficient response to blots, Than, etc. I believe Jack Phillips, due to his religious beliefs, should be allowed to refuse to design and bake a cake specifically for a gay wedding, or if we're talking about recent events, a transgender birthday. Of course I don't think he should be allowed to outright refuse service to such people, but that's not what he did. He offered to find a way that he could provide them with a product, and they could decorate it however they wanted.

This guy won't even make Halloween cakes, for pete's sake. This isn't an "I hate gay people and trans people" situation. It's not that black and white, no matter how badly politicizing the matter wants it to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Oliver made up a religion in a week and got recognized by the government, so I don't know what Ngata is going on about that its somehow a difficult thing to do. It is absolutely not.

Regardless, merely because something is not happening in reality does not mean you cannot use it as an argument if the logic is sound. That is why I can draw parallels while reading Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia that he clearly intended to be drawn, instead of merely saying "Oh I don't have a talking lion telling me what to do, so this is irrelevant to my interests."

Bware, for the record, the Bible absolutely does not say a word about anal sex. The word we translate as sodomy is strictly talking about male on male sexual contact. No idea where you're getting that from. Never even heard anyone make that argument once.

Edited by Thanatos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware that the translation didn't specify. Can we not infer that it views sodomy as a grievous sin if male-on-male sexual contact is strictly prohibited?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if you somehow think what makes God mad is sticking it in the pooper instead of two males doing it. Also the argument that its not natural would also apply to oral sex, as thats "not how its supposed to happen" as well.

Edited by Thanatos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×