That’s because it’s NOT A LIFESTYLE CHOICE! That would imply that all homosexuals live the same lifestyle, which is falsifiable simply by finding two homosexuals whose lifestyles are completely different. That shouldn’t take you very long at all, considering that there are homosexuals on this message board whose lifestyles are very different. My working class lifestyle is different from someone else’s middle class lifestyle is different from someone else’s professional-class lifestyle. Who you sleep with is not a lifestyle.
This is like talking to a wall, and it has been mentioned before but religion is a lifestyle choice.
Protected Classes have nothing to do with innateness of the quality under protection they simply state that a person can not be discriminated against based on these characteristics:
Race - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Color - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964 --> Choice or conversions are ponitless
National origin - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) - Federal: Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex - Federal: Equal Pay Act of 1963 & Civil Rights Act of 1964
Familial status (Housing, cannot discriminate for having children, exception for senior housing) --> Choice
Disability status - Federal: Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 & Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status - Federal Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 --> **Choice or at least now it is based on the existence of a volunteer force.
**
Genetic information - Federal: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
I have, and so did plenty of other people.
Yes, I know what you said. Having sex with someone is a choice; sexual orientation does not appear to be a choice any more than race is. But that’s not what I was asking. I’m asking you how you can state so blithely that racial discrimination is “a universal sin” and discriminating against gays is not. Do you acknowledge that in generations past, many religious people sincerely felt that scripture justified racial discrimination and that god had decreed white people to be superior to black people and forbade interracial marriage, for instance? This is not ancient history; state bans on interracial marriage and interracial sex were ruled unconstitutional in 1967. (Within the lifetime of the black guy who was elected president in 2008. An interracial guy whose parents’ marriage would have been illegal in 16 states. That one may never cease to amaze.) I’m guessing you believe that people who used the Bible to justify racism had it wrong, but you haven’t explained why future generations won’t use that same kind of argument toward people who hold you beliefs. (For the record, they will). You haven’t demonstrated that your interpretation is more valid than the one used by racists. That’s the problem with the argument you’re using here.
And they did. You do understand that the commitment ceremony was in 2006, right? The photographer was not forced to attend and take pictures. The courts have said that she can’t refuse to serve protected classes of people.
tax dollars become involved here, how?:dubious:
ETA: sorry, tax coins, not dollars.
So you have no forgiveness in your heart for sex offenders. How Christian of you. Sex offenders released onto society often have extreme difficulty finding a job, housing, even colleges won’t accept them.
My conclusion is merely based on the Bible which says homosexuality is wrong. Care to dispute that?
How does one make that distinction? They must cater to only Christians? Seems like this law could easily be manipulated and applied to any business.
Again, you don’t know jack about me so who gives you the authority to determine if I have not self examined? The verse clearly proves that Christians most certainly can judge. Which means you’re WRONG and I’m right. Will you admit it? Of course not.
It doesn’t. You already asked about this:
Now you know how I feel.
Becoming a photographer is a choice, and is not an expression of religious belief. If they don’t like photographing sinners, they should not have gone into business as a photographer for hire.
I will say it again. You people are burying me in replies so there are many that I simply do not have the time to read much less respond. This was one that I didn’t see.
Back off a little bit if you want a reply.
No…I have no problem with Christians, gays or anyone.
Some people choose to participate in this activity, some are born that way.
Did I say they werent forgiven? Youre not putting words in my mouth. Their crime wasnt against me. I dont think I am a part of their penance process
Those issues again, are not a part of my penance process. I cannot employ, educate, house all of them, nor is it my responsibility.
I never said it was right, care to dispute that? I said it isnt my job to judge them. You tried to dispute that, and I showed why you were wrong.
Simple
Johns Photography. A Christian Service Organization.
Pretty simple if you ask me.
No, the verse doent give you permission to judge others lives in the matter you have performed. What it does do, as I have shown in an earlier post, is allow you to judge others actions as they pertain to YOUR life.
Which means you’re WRONG and I’m right. Will you admit it? Of course not.
The Bible is a complete work. Your cherry picking a verse, and ignoring other verses that put Matthew in Context. So tell me, why does Matthew contradict this verse with
NIV Matthew 7:2
For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
(edited to remove, as I misread the post you were answering - will address subsequently, outside of edit window)
I think it’s vile to treat sex offenders as sub-human members of society. There are many who have to wear the label for life for extremely minor offenses like an 18 year old having consensual sex with a 17 year old. I am merely demonstrating the double standard. Who made you God to determine which form should be vile and illegal?
It’s not the same because anyone on the street can simply claim to be gay and receive special protection. Let’s say you want to get into that nice restaurant or rent at that apartment. Just simply threaten discrimination and you’re in. Also, if certain lawmakers get their way, you could be paid reparations as well.
It’s never wrong when a Christian’s right is being taken away. Atheists are most likely giddy about it.
You’re right - it’s not like that, for that reason, but that’s pretty much a coincidental difference.
I agree, but for different reasons already stated. The law should not waste its time and effort trying to force a resentful bigot to provide a not-particularly-vital service when copious non-bigoted alternatives exist.
An Atheist photographer with a public business in NM is not allowed to deny service to people because he does not like the fact they are Christian.
Does this mean his rights are being taken away?
Any time anything doesn’t go completely your way, you seem to cry “my rights, my rights!”, apparently without any clear idea of what particular rights you mean.
GEEPERS, your only argument here seems to be that you feel that the law should be changed so that sexual orientation is no longer a protected class.
You seem to feel that they should not be a protected class because they are sinners.
You base this on your personal interpretation of Christian scripture, an interpretation that is not shared by all Christians, and is not shared by others in the country from other faiths.
Essentially, you feel that the laws should be changed, against the will of the people, so that you would be free to discriminate against gay people because your own interpretation of Christianity tells you that this would be OK to do so.
Nitpick: In most, if not all states, it’s not statutory rape to until the age difference passes 3 years. So an 18 year old wouldn’t be able to have sex with a 15 year old. A 17 year old would be fair game, though.
Also, the database of offenders lets you know the offense committed. So you have full knowledge if the offense was, say, statutory rape as opposed to forcible rape.