We don't serve your type here

[Sergeant Thorne]

TunnelCat, I don't know why you're talking social/government theory to me when I tell you that something goes against my conscience. I think I made a very good and fair presentation of the subject, and if you don't give a ★■◆● you might just say so without wasting 3 paragraphs telling me that you as society don't give a ★■◆●. Guess what? I don't give a ★■◆● if you don't give a ★■◆●. I would love not to live in a society where I can be prosecuted for going according to my conscience, because you can be sure that the threat of legal action will not effect my final decision.

So your logic that homosexuality and gender identity is a choice, and as such, should not be afforded a protected right, is a specious argument.

I said that? Are you posting on multiple forums on any day? What has you so confused?

Religion is only protected because it was determined by our founders that government needed to stay out of the business of dictating religion (or conscience, you might say). Thus our government has no authority to do anything for or against it. But I would say it can make laws to protect religious exercise from legal action, which really is the crux of this. If there is a law by which I am prosecuted for following the dictates of my conscience based on my religion, then unless there is some overruling reason that I should not be immune to such law (i.e. my religion dictates that I must steal or kill people). such a law is not in harmony with the constitution. There you have it. [/topic] (I'm on a roll! )

[vision]

If there is a law by which I am prosecuted for following the dictates of my conscience based on my religion, then unless there is some overruling reason that I should not be immune to such law (i.e. my religion dictates that I must steal or kill people). such a law is not in harmony with the constitution. There you have it. [/topic] (I'm on a roll! )

Aaaaaaand you easily proved why we can't write religious bigotry into Arizona state law. There is that little inconvenient phrase "all men are created equal." What a pisser, right? Stupid egalitarianism influencing our beautiful laws. How dare our forefathers think such thoughts while the create a new, free country?

[Top Gun]

Before I decide to take you thoroughly to task for this bologna, TG, I'm going to point out that you have not made an argument here, but a series of protests implying falseness. Do you have anything legitimate to show that it is wrong to understand this verse as conveying God's view on homosexuality for mankind?

If taken at face value, I understand this verse as conveying God's view on homosexuality to the Israelites of 3500 years ago. I would ask you in return what legitimacy you can give to the idea that it should have any bearing on our views on homosexuality in the 21st century. See, here's the thing: a few millennia ago, people were pants-on-head stupid. They had absolutely no understanding of homosexuality as a concept beyond, "That's wrong because eww buttsecks," That particular verse is a reflection of the social context at the time. Today, however, we are happily in a much better place: we're enlightened and learned and all that good stuff. We understand that homosexuality is an ingrained preference that occurs in dozens of animal species, and that it doesn't cause any societal harm. If you want to claim that God created humanity, and homosexuality happens to be an inbuilt preference, well...you do the math.

And really, if you're going to make the claim that this verse applies universally, why are you stopping halfway? Why not advocate the death penalty for homosexual actions, just as it demands? You'd fit right in over in Uganda!

You really need to rethink this, if it even matters to you (it ought to). A little humility goes a long way. I can think of 2 reasons, right off the top of my head, that you're wrong, but since you didn't actually make an argument...

No, I can't say that the statues in Leviticus mean much of anything to me, which is why I blissfully consume scallops and wear cotton-poly blend T-shirts. Unless I was an ultra-Orthodox Jew, I don't see why they would apply to me.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Hold everything. You're saying that God commanded his people to kill people who commit homosexuality because they didn't know what you now do about homosexuality.

I'm going to shortcut all embarrassment for you and just point out that you don't believe the Bible, so you need to avoid getting into logical debates over Biblical precedent. The Bible claims to be written by a God that does not change. We change. God does not. The bottom line is that in order to interpret scripture correctly you have to account for the claims of scripture in your interpretation/understanding. When you woke up this morning, you didn't happen to accidentally switch your shirt and your pants in getting dressed, did you?

[Sergeant Thorne]

Sorry, Vision, I'm not doing anything wrong in refusing creative services to homosexuals. Therefore you have no grounds for prosecution. I have not infringed on their rights, because we're dealing with an instance where their perceived rights happen to overlap my legitimate rights, and unless I'm somehow doing them wrong (Which I'm not) the law has no basis for prosecution.

In other words, I have the right. This would mean that the law could go out of its way to protect my right.

[Top Gun]

Hold everything. You're saying that God commanded his people to kill people who commit homosexuality because they didn't know what you now do about homosexuality.

I'm going to shortcut all embarrassment for you and just point out that you don't believe the Bible, so you need to avoid getting into logical debates over Biblical precedent. The Bible claims to be written by a God that does not change. We change. God does not. The bottom line is that in order to interpret scripture correctly you have to account for the claims of scripture in your interpretation/understanding. When you woke up this morning, you didn't happen to accidentally switch your shirt and your pants in getting dressed, did you?

How else would you prefer to spin it, then? Either that statue was intended only for the ancient Israelite people, or else God is telling everyone today that we should kill homosexuals just for being so. If that were the case, then God would essentially be the embodiment of evil. So, your call.

And I hate to tell you, but the Bible isn't an internally-consistent document in and of itself, so any legitimate interpretation of it needs to take that into account. It's for good reason that one needs to consider the historical context, literary style, and audience of its various constituent books. For instance, as I've stated before, Leviticus is largely comprised of a listing of legal statutes for the ancient Israelite people. It does not apply in the same sense to modern Western democracies. If you try to treat every single verse as literal truth applying across all time, you very quickly run into the cold reality that many of said verses are factually incorrect. If you choose to persist beyond that, then you're the only one embarassing yourself.

Sorry, Vision, I'm not doing anything wrong in refusing creative services to homosexuals. Therefore you have no grounds for prosecution. I have not infringed on their rights, because we're dealing with an instance where their perceived rights happen to overlap my legitimate rights, and unless I'm somehow doing them wrong (Which I'm not) the law has no basis for prosecution.

Except you are. You don't have the "legitimate" right to infringe on their constitutionally-protected rights. Decorating a cake doesn't fall under the free exercise of religion.

[Spidey]

No one has a constitutionally protected right to force someone to work for them. Most anti discrimination laws only extend to public service businesses, and to get a license to conduce such a business, you basically have to agree to play by the rules.

Hell I’m starting to get the impression reading some of the posts here that I could grab someone at random off the street, hand them a hammer and compel them to fix my roof.

[vision]

I'm going to shortcut all embarrassment for you and just point out that you don't believe the Bible, so you need to avoid getting into logical debates over Biblical precedent.

By the way, that "you don't believe in the Bible" escape hatch you carved out for yourself doesn't work, and especially doesn't work on me. I was a devout Christian most of my life and studied to become a minister. It is precisely my studying of scripture with an open, objective mind that led me to lose faith in it. You can make crap up all day about how us non-believers "don't get it" but unfortunately you are wrong. We do get it, all too well. Luckily, it makes no difference if you are wrong about this work of historical fiction because there is no test and no grade on the bible, so believe what you want.

[Top Gun]

Also just for the record I'm still a practicing Catholic, and while I would not say that my faith is as strong as it once was, I've essentially spent my whole life learning about and discussing Bible stuffs. So yeah, I pretty much get it.

[flip]

Well, I don't think it would have ever gotten in the DNA, had it never been committed.

http://www.heartmath.org/free-services/ ... r-dna.html

I guess the question I'm asking is, can your choices change your DNA, and then is that change passed down through your bloodline? If so, then everybody is approaching this question from the wrong end (pun intended;).

http://www.ohio.edu/plantbio/staff/show ... 20TIME.pdf

[flip]

29 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!

How did it get in the blood? Maybe that law that people think is antiquated, was actually written by a Creator who knows exactly how things work.

The Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, all gone. In just 200 years, the Indians are almost completely bred out. Maybe, just maybe our wise and powerful Creator knew exactly how to keep the Israelites bloodline clean. They are still around you know?

EDIT: Chapter 7, page 103

[callmeslick]

Maybe, just maybe our wise and powerful Creator knew exactly how to keep the Israelites bloodline clean. They are still around you know?

so are Elizabethen English bloodlines(Saxis Island, Tangier Island,VA), and a host of other populations(Amish, aboriginal Asian).
I think you're stretching, Flip.

[Will Robinson]

29 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!

Just an aside here...

I fired up the iPad, opened this thread and read that quote first thing.
It struck me that if Sean Hannity had a TV show back then this would have easily been said by one of his guests on the split screen directing it at the other guest...

God was so snarky! Who said this? The book of Coulter? This is like watching the Tea Party repubs attack the old GOP members...
A poignant reminder that mere people wrote the book.

[flip]

No Slick, I was expounding . The main point (your becoming an expert at diversion) is if our choices have an effect on our DNA structures, which are then passed on, then it's an invalid argument to say that people cannot help being homosexual because it's in their DNA.

[flip]

No Will, what that verse is saying is they carry the same DNA as murderers of the prophets, therefore they are just as likely to murder to.

EDIT: That stuff gets in the blood, so that is why they would have to kill them, so that it didn't taint the bloodline. Also why Jesus had to shed His blood, so that we could become part of a royal bloodline.

The problem with letting others teach you, is that when your asked, you can only answer what you've been told. In this discussion, there is scientific evidence that choices create changes in DNA, but everyone is willing to dispute scientific evidence over an indoctrination.

[Will Robinson]

No Will, what that verse is saying is they carry the same DNA as murderers of the prophets, therefore they are just as likely to murder to. ...

I'm not even trying to judge the assertion or interpretation of the quote. I'm just realizing out loud, so to speak type, that the comments are sadly very familiar in a pedestrian human way. And if that is from the Bible, more so than deliver any insight, it reminds me who wrote it and what I know about humans trying to change their fellow humans to suit them....

Like I said, just an aside from the main point.

[flip]

I'm sure it appears that way on the surface.

EDIT: Let's just say in God's great love, instead of picking and choosing, he condemned us all. This is not to say there isn't a genetic change that happens according to our choices, we reap what we sow and people receive their due recompense for their sins, within themselves. Those are 2 scriptures paraphrased. The point now is just like Jesus said. In days of old, it was an eye for eye. Now, there is a change of order. Now we are to love our neighbors and enemies and get them to repent, which simply means, change your mind

[Sergeant Thorne]

Also just for the record I'm still a practicing Catholic, and while I would not say that my faith is as strong as it once was, I've essentially spent my whole life learning about and discussing Bible stuffs. So yeah, I pretty much get it.

Bottom line here, for you and for Vision, is that you stepped into a statement of my faith in the Bible as the word of God with your extra-Biblical ideas about the Bible to tell me that I was interpreting the MEANING OF SCRIPTURE incorrectly. I have stated in short that I am interpreting scripture correctly, by interpreting scripture with scripture, and letting the Bible have its own say about its meaning. This is logically consistent. If you deny the validity/authority of the scriptures and thus don't interpret it in accordance with the author's intent, you find yourself in a position of claiming it to mean something other than what the author does. You and the rest of the Catholic church are either very foolish, or you're smarter than God (which is very foolish), or your "faith in God" is not faith at all by definition. But the end result is that you don't give a damn about the meaning or the author, because if you believed in God then you would believe his word, and if you don't then why are you arguing against my faith as someone who does?

If you tell a child that these are the commandments of God then, and God never changes, how do you think they will conclude that God feels about it now? If you put this verse in front of a reasonable person who is familiar with the Bible, they may realize that there are Biblical reasons to understand that the law does not directly apply to you and I (but we are told in Romans? that people who are not under the law shall be judged apart from the law--they will not escape God's judgement), or that once Christ died those who believe in God were under a new covenant. But why would anyone conclude that the same God that required 2 deaths as a consequence for homosexual behavior then, now goes along with your 'new knowledge' about human behavior. You know the rumor is God actually made humans...

You're confused, and if you don't like what the Bible so clearly has to say you really would be better off making an honest argument from a legitimate representation of your position--you do not believe in the God of the Bible. You Catholics want to own the Bible, but you don't believe it so you have to "understand" it in your own special way. That is known in the Bible as deceiving and being deceived.

[flip]

13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh[a]; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever[c] you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.

I wanted to put this with your quote Thorne, to strike a balance. The only way a person is freed from the law, is if they have crucified the flesh and it's passions. I want to make this clear because this once saved always saved lie and loosely defined 'law' has been going on for awhile now. Too long. The part of the law that is done away with is circumcision, animal sacrifice.......etc. We are actually under a greater condemnation, because those people were slaves to sin and if they sinned, all they had to do was an animal sacrifice and it was counted as righteous. We, having the spirits of the Father and Son married within us are to keep the righteous requirements of the law.

8 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you[a] free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.

The Spirit of God on all flesh puts us in the realm of the spirit, the Spirit of Christ makes us children and enables us to crucify the flesh.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I totally agree with that balance. Well put.

"Spirits of the Father and Son married within us"? Isn't the concept of marriage in the Bible applied to the Church and Jesus Christ? Have I misunderstood your statement?

[flip]

Yes, we are the Body of Christ, that have the Spirit of Christ. The whole world has the Spirit of God on them. Only children who have crucified the flesh have the separated Spirit of Christ in them. So, there is a marriage in each individual member of the Body of Christ, that inducts them into that Body.

[Sergeant Thorne]

29 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!

Just an aside here...

I fired up the iPad, opened this thread and read that quote first thing.
It struck me that if Sean Hannity had a TV show back then this would have easily been said by one of his guests on the split screen directing it at the other guest...

God was so snarky! Who said this? The book of Coulter? This is like watching the Tea Party repubs attack the old GOP members...
A poignant reminder that mere people wrote the book.

Do you realize that if Jesus spoke those words in our time it would be roughly equivalent to addressing hypocritical, influential church leaders, essentially. I think it's a great quote, though I would have taken it from a clearer/more accurate translation.

29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, 30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’

31 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt.

(Note the difference in apparent meaning in verse 32)

[flip]

I see no difference. All are saying like father like son.

[flip]

On a side note, goodbye 'fatherhoods', thou shalt profane the name of My God not much longer

[flip]

Hey Thorne, I got a question for you. What are the probabilities that the beast that utters proud blasphemes and the gentiles that trample the outer court are one and the same? >

11 I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, “Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, with its worshipers. 2 But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.

13 The dragon[a] stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. 2 The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority. 3 One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast. 4 People worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast? Who can wage war against it?”

5 The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise its authority for forty-two months. 6 It opened its mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. 7 It was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them. And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. 8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

[vision]

...letting the Bible have its own say about its meaning. This is logically consistent. If you deny the validity/authority of the scriptures and thus don't interpret it in accordance with the author's intent, you find yourself in a position of claiming it to mean something other than what the author does.

This is going to be a huge news flash to Thorne and other bible enthusiasts: WORDS HAVE MEANINGS. If the bible says so-and-so should be killed for such-and-such, guess what? That means the bible endorses capital punishment and you should be seeking death to all homosexuals, adulterers, sabbath violators, etc. Top Gun is right on when he says you can't selectively choose which verses you want to follow and to what degree. Sorry, you loose the logic argument. Nice try though.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Vision, anyone with an IQ above room temperature should know better than what you just said.

[Tunnelcat]

TunnelCat, I don't know why you're talking social/government theory to me when I tell you that something goes against my conscience. I think I made a very good and fair presentation of the subject, and if you don't give a **** you might just say so without wasting 3 paragraphs telling me that you as society don't give a ****. Guess what? I don't give a **** if you don't give a ****. I would love not to live in a society where I can be prosecuted for going according to my conscience, because you can be sure that the threat of legal action will not effect my final decision.

Look ST. Yes, I agree that you have a conscience and that you wish to follow it. But when dealing with others who don't hold your beliefs, and a lot of us DON'T, at least respect them as fellow human beings when dealing with them and set aside your misconceptions and biases when interacting with them. You're not going to get cooties, or have some type of evil slime rub off on you if you do business with a gay customer. Is that so hard to do? There aren't even that many gays out there anyway.

As I said, the U.S. is NOT A THEOCRACY. You don't have to like some of those you interact with on a daily basis, you just have deal with it and pray to God for forgiveness on your own time if you think dealing with gays is so repulsive and evil. It's not like you are supporting murderers and thieves who do actual harm to others. Gays do not do harm to others or you personally, nor do they take away your religion. However, I'm guessing that they cause you revulsion, which by itself, is not a crime. You are still free to live and run your own life as you choose fit. You are still a Christian. If you still believe that gays are going to hell, you can hold on to that belief if you wish.

So your logic that homosexuality and gender identity is a choice, and as such, should not be afforded a protected right, is a specious argument.

I said that? Are you posting on multiple forums on any day? What has you so confused?

Religion is only protected because it was determined by our founders that government needed to stay out of the business of dictating religion (or conscience, you might say). Thus our government has no authority to do anything for or against it. But I would say it can make laws to protect religious exercise from legal action, which really is the crux of this. If there is a law by which I am prosecuted for following the dictates of my conscience based on my religion, then unless there is some overruling reason that I should not be immune to such law (i.e. my religion dictates that I must steal or kill people). such a law is not in harmony with the constitution. There you have it. [/topic] (I'm on a roll! )

No, I don't post on multiple forums. This is my favorite place to bang my head against the wall.

We have a conundrum then. Your exercise of religious freedom WILL violate the civil rights of another class of citizens. Which comes first? Civil Rights for all, or only a select few because their religion tells them so and is tantamount over all else? We are a free country that should not be tolerating discrimination against any law-abiding citizens. Yes, the Founding Fathers did put in protection for religion in the Constitution, because religion has had a very long history of being discriminated against by others, or even by other religions. But we've come a long way since then and new discriminatory practices have needed addressing in the Constitution in the intervening time. Now women have rights and minorities have rights, rights that didn't exist during the time the Constitution was written, because they never thought of it. Despite that glorious statement in the Declaration of Independence, "That all men are created equal", we've still had to amend the Constitution to right past wrongs against our citizens. Times have changed and people have changed. The old ways are not always the proper ways anymore. Religion must evolve and deal with the modern times.

[Spidey]

Holy Cow!

Religious rights aside…

There is no civil right to force someone to associate with you or compel them to do labor for you.

Civil rights only apply here if Thorne enters into a contract to provide public services…IE: a public service license.

By contract is the only way to compel someone to do work in the US, all else would break a very basic premise we all live by…you know…slavery and servitude…and all that.

Mind you, what I have been posting in this thread is dealing with the legal aspects of this issue…the ethical issues here are between Thorne and his conscience.

[vision]

Vision, anyone with an IQ above room temperature should know better than what you just said.

So let me get this straight, the bible doesn't actually say homosexuals should be put to death (Lev.20:13)? They simply have a "lifestyle choice" and we should leave it at that? Is that what your god instructed you to do? Please, by all means, clear up this miscommunication with your wisdom of scripture.

[Tunnelcat]

Holy Cow!

Religious rights aside…

There is no civil right to force someone to associate with you or compel them to do labor for you.

Civil rights only apply here if Thorne enters into a contract to provide public services…IE: a public service license.

By contract is the only way to compel someone to do work in the US, all else would break a very basic premise we all live by…you know…slavery and servitude…and all that.

Mind you, what I have been posting in this thread is dealing with the legal aspects of this issue…the ethical issues here are between Thorne and his conscience.

Public accommodation applies to anyone who does business in the public sector. Or am I wrong?

http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-r ... se-service

"The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved.

[Spidey]

Well…public accommodations include such things as hotels, restaurants, taxis and such, but do not include every single kind of business. Some states and cities include more types of businesses than federal law.

And as I stated before, if Thorne was to acquire a public service license he would be obligated to provide those services to the public, regardless of race, age…etc.

.........

This from an ADA site…

Public Accommodations:

Q. What are public accommodations?

A. A public accommodation is a private entity that owns, operates, leases, or leases to, a place of public accommodation. Places of public accommodation include a wide range of entities, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors' offices, pharmacies, retail stores, museums, libraries, parks, private schools, and day care centers. Private clubs and religious organizations are exempt from the ADA's title III requirements for public accommodations.

Note the absence of general labor, manufacturing, and many service businesses.

[Ferno]

Vision, anyone with an IQ above room temperature should know better than what you just said.

So let me get this straight, the bible doesn't actually say homosexuals should be put to death (Lev.20:13)? They simply have a "lifestyle choice" and we should leave it at that? Is that what your god instructed you to do? Please, by all means, clear up this miscommunication with your wisdom of scripture.

you can just hear the backtracking and excuse-making...

[Spidey]

...letting the Bible have its own say about its meaning. This is logically consistent. If you deny the validity/authority of the scriptures and thus don't interpret it in accordance with the author's intent, you find yourself in a position of claiming it to mean something other than what the author does.

This is going to be a huge news flash to Thorne and other bible enthusiasts: WORDS HAVE MEANINGS. If the bible says so-and-so should be killed for such-and-such, guess what? That means the bible endorses capital punishment and you should be seeking death to all homosexuals, adulterers, sabbath violators, etc. Top Gun is right on when he says you can't selectively choose which verses you want to follow and to what degree. Sorry, you loose the logic argument. Nice try though.

A bible literalist can’t pick and choose the verses they want to believe, but they are compelled to obey the laws of the country they live in.

So no, you can’t go around demanding the lives of gay people.

[Tunnelcat]

Well…public accommodations include such things as hotels, restaurants, taxis and such, but do not include every single kind of business. Some states and cities include more types of businesses than federal law.

And as I stated before, if Thorne was to acquire a public service license he would be obligated to provide those services to the public, regardless of race, age…etc.

.........

This from an ADA site…

Public Accommodations:

Q. What are public accommodations?

A. A public accommodation is a private entity that owns, operates, leases, or leases to, a place of public accommodation. Places of public accommodation include a wide range of entities, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors' offices, pharmacies, retail stores, museums, libraries, parks, private schools, and day care centers. Private clubs and religious organizations are exempt from the ADA's title III requirements for public accommodations.

Note the absence of general labor, manufacturing, and many service businesses.

Hmm. It looks like a loophole big enough to drive a truck through in the Civil Rights Act. So it's legal to be a discriminatory bigoted jerk in any other business not listed specifically in the Civil Rights Act. Nice. Sounds like it needs an update.

http://citizensource.com/History/20thCe ... 4/CRA2.htm

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.
(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.
(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).

SEC. 202. All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof.

[flip]

I think the point is, that people can choose to be who they are and in America you have the right to.

[Spidey]

No, it’s not a loophole…it’s called balance.

Like it or not people have a right to be bigoted jerks, and most businesses are privately owned and operated.

Just because someone earns a living inside a building with some equipment, and the government forces people to call that a “business” doesn’t remove that right.

It is the government’s job to make laws that strike a proper balance between all people’s rights.

..........................

You may have also noticed in the federal specs, “sexual orientation” is not listed.

[callmeslick]

No Slick, I was expounding . The main point (your becoming an expert at diversion) is if our choices have an effect on our DNA structures, which are then passed on, then it's an invalid argument to say that people cannot help being homosexual because it's in their DNA.

it might well be in EVERYONES DNA, Flip, and merely be a matter of supression/expression of certain gene sets. While we are near certain at this point that one's sexuality is determined at birth, the 'why' of that is not certain.

[flip]

Which then brings us back again full circle. Let's say everyone has the potential to be homosexual as you suggest, then the trigger would of course be the choice to activate that part of their DNA. Correct?

[Top Gun]

You can't "choose" to activate your own DNA. The leading line of study at this point involving homosexuality involves fetal exposure to varying levels of the hormone testosterone, which can affect how their genes are expressed. It's something that's determined long before we achieve a level of consciousness that would enable a "choice."