US Supreme Court backs business that refused service to same-sex couple

a reply to: Annee

I don't understand your comment.

Check what statistics? Do you have a link? Statistics vary depending on alot of things.

Im not even sure what we are quantifying here.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: Annee

I don't understand your comment.

Check what statistics? Do you have a link? Statistics vary depending on alot of things.

Im not even sure what we are quantifying here.

Statistics on why businesses fail.

BTW — I’ve had more than one. Learn as you go.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: Sookiechacha

And no, you can't make the world work easily for everyone alive.

Easily?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: tanstaafl
I didn't make any distinction

No, you didn't, you incorrectly ass-u-me-d that the condemnation of homosexual acts included homosexual acts between two women, when in fact they expressly didn't even though they easily could have.

as it's clear what the passages say.

Correct. It is crystal clear.

Condemnation and even the death penalty.

Yep.

It will be absurd to make distinctions.

Yeah... except, each and every one of the numerous passages that condemn it do precisely that.

Here, I'll make it easy for you. in that link, I challenge you to find me one - just one - example of where it does [b[]u]not make a crystal clear distinction that the only thing being condemned is male homosexuality, but expressly avoids condemning female homosexuali8ty, where it easily could have condemned them both simultaneously.

They expressly forbid male homosexuality, while expressly differentiating between men and women by including the word "woman" within the texts (man shall not lie with a man as with a woman

No evidence exists anywhere in the scriptures that female homosexuality is allowed, endorsed, or encouraged.

You are correct that nowhere in the scriptures does it endorse, encourage or expressly allow it - just like it doesn't endorse, encourage or expressly allow basket weaving.

You are absolutely and demonstrably 100% wrong that there is no evidence that it doesn't allow it. The proof does require some minimal capacity for rational, logical thought, so you may not be able to grasp the following, but what the hell, give it a try.

There is a legal maxim that says "Everything which is not forbidden is allowed."

The fact that every single reference in all of the Abrahamic/Biblical references condemning homosexuality condemn only male homosexuality, even going so far as using women in the texts as a reference only to make it clear they are talking about sexual acts, while clearly and expressly not condemning female homosexuality very clearly means that female homosexuality is not condemned, therefore it is allowed, and is not sinful.

Your logic is flawed or the attempts let's say to argue about matters that are not correct by any standards.

Rotflmao! As usual, you have it backwards... you are the one clutching at strawmen... and you know something else? I'm beginning to suspect that you are just jealous that women can engage in homosexual acts with impunity (not be committing a sin), but you can't.

You seem to try to prove an argument that wasn't created by myself. In fact there is no argument on whether homosexuality is condemned in Abrahamic religions. Not only it is condemned but they are calling for the death of homosexuals in some of the passages.

Let's take it one more time.

I was asked to provide some passages where homosexuality is condemned or is regarded as an abomination/sin. And I did. Someone else asked me long before you were involved in the convos.

Then Sookie made a comment and tried to make a distinction which I didn't make. After the passages I provided condemning homosexuality in this fashion, I find it absurd there could be a discussion whether male homosexuality is condemned and female homosexuality is allowed.

There is nothing in the Bible that encourages, endorses, and celebrates homosexuality.

You're clutching at the straws again.

a reply to: AlienBorg

I find it absurd there could be a discussion whether male homosexuality is condemned and female homosexuality is allowed.

Not to stray too far off the topic of constitutional rights...

Ruth and Naomi were sister wives. Lesbianism wouldn't be an issue IF it was practiced behind the veil of marriage, like with sister wives or in harems, where the husband may enjoy watching and even participating. The husband could forbid it if it offended him.

a reply to: Annee

Right. I think we can agree that businesses are difficult enough without adding more complications and hindrances by too many laws.

a reply to: Annee

Right. It would be wonderful if we could even make it work at all for everyone.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: Sookiechacha

There are standards that are easy to apply to websites. If you follow the standards, you are in compliance, and should have no fear of not following the law and being sued. Far less expensive than brick and mortar compliance.

And no, you can't make the world work easily for everyone alive.

Isn't it nice that some people create and sell a virtual structural scaffolding to people calling themselves artists, with no skill, who want to make cut and paste / drop and drag websites to sell, that are built-in ADA compliant?

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: Annee

Right. I think we can agree that businesses are difficult enough without adding more complications and hindrances by too many laws.

Equal is not a hindrance.

Prejudice and ideologies are by choice.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Are you seriously taking issue with that?

One might think you would be praising the fact that in a few short decades from requiring expensive brick and mortar retrofits to pre-compliance e-commerce platforms for the IT ignorant to market to everyone!

But no, now you seem to be full of scorn for this!

a reply to: Annee

Who is John Galt?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

You're confused again.

Not at all... You, on the other hand...

SCOTUS didn't rule that Colorado's anti-discrimination laws were unconstitutional.

I didn't say they did.

The Supreme Court doesn't have to rule a law unConstitutional for it to be unConstitutional - unless of course, you are someone who worships the power of the State.

They ruled that the would-be wedding website designer's free speech, as an expression of her religious liberties, is to be included in those state protections.

I know that.

What they should have ruled, if they had any balls, is that 'the would-be wedding website designer's free speech' Rights are inviolate per the 1st and 9th Amendments, regardless of her religious affiliations, beliefs or claims.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

Unfortunately, the law disagrees with you.

I know. Sane, rational thought is a rarity these days.

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: tanstaafl
You seem to try to prove an argument that wasn't created by myself.

You are very, very confused... or just gaslighting... I wonder which it is?

Then Sookie made a comment and tried to make a distinction which I didn't make.

You didn't make it, but when she did, you argued against it.

After the passages I provided condemning homosexuality in this fashion, I find it absurd there could be a discussion whether male homosexuality is condemned and female homosexuality is allowed.

And yet I proved, beyond any sane, rational logical doubt, that that is, indeed, what the Abrahamic texts lay down.

Whether you like it or not. Fact is fact. Reality ... is. Get over it.

There is nothing in the Bible that encourages, endorses, and celebrates homosexuality.

True. You keep repeating this obvious fact as if it was a subject of discussion. Why is that? No one, not once, has claimed otherwise.

You're clutching at the straws again.

You're... talking to yourself again.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: Annee

Who is John Galt?

Who is Tyler Durden?

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Are you seriously taking issue with that?

One might think you would be praising the fact that in a few short decades from requiring expensive brick and mortar retrofits to pre-compliance e-commerce platforms for the IT ignorant to market to everyone!

But no, now you seem to be full of scorn for this!

No, I'm not taking issue with the guys making websites templates and scaffolding for talentless website designers with no skills, to make sure they don't accidentally discriminate when trying to sell their themed cut and paste, drop and drag "art".

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: tanstaafl
You seem to try to prove an argument that wasn't created by myself.

You are very, very confused... or just gaslighting... I wonder which it is?

Then Sookie made a comment and tried to make a distinction which I didn't make.

You didn't make it, but when she did, you argued against it.

After the passages I provided condemning homosexuality in this fashion, I find it absurd there could be a discussion whether male homosexuality is condemned and female homosexuality is allowed.

And yet I proved, beyond any sane, rational logical doubt, that that is, indeed, what the Abrahamic texts lay down.

Whether you like it or not. Fact is fact. Reality ... is. Get over it.

There is nothing in the Bible that encourages, endorses, and celebrates homosexuality.

True. You keep repeating this obvious fact as if it was a subject of discussion. Why is that? No one, not once, has claimed otherwise.

You're clutching at the straws again.

You're... talking to yourself again.

Yes facts are facts. I am not saying the opposite and I think I stated facts and backed my position by showing the passages where homosexuality is condemned.

You haven't shown anything that you claimed you did. Homosexuality is condemned and I see no distinction between male and female homosexuality. Not even a passage where homosexuals are endorsed for their acts.

Clutching at the straws and getting frustrated as a result of it.

a reply to: Annee

Does he have anything to do with the idea that overburdening business kills the goose that lays the golden eggs?

Eventually, producers QUIT PRODUCING. That is who John Galt is. The first of many successful people to just throw in the towel and retire to a desert or a forest or an island while they still have something left, and screw everyone they used to provide jobs and products for.

You need to think about a world like that.

Nobody has anything because nobody can afford to build it anymore.

But hey! Aint it great? We are finally equal! Everyone is miserable!

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: Annee

Does he have anything to do with the idea that overburdening business kills the goose that lays the golden eggs?

Eventually, producers QUIT PRODUCING. That is who John Galt is. The first of many successful people to just throw in the towel and retire to a desert or a forest or an island while they still have something left, and screw everyone they used to provide jobs and products for.

You need to think about a world like that.

Nobody has anything because nobody can afford to build it anymore.

But hey! Aint it great? We are finally equal! Everyone is miserable!

Sounds like Trump. Except he’s not smart enough to leave.

Would love to see Ayn Rand and Trump in a room together.

——————-

1. Being equal
2. Treated equal

2 different things

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: tanstaafl
Homosexuality is condemned

You're like a freakin' broken record.

This will be my last response to your attempts at gaslighting.

Male homosexuality is condemned in the biblical texts. Female homosexuality is not.

If you claim otherwise, by all means, show me where it is.

Otherwise, shut the frack up about it.

and I see no distinction between male and female homosexuality.

You see no distinction between males and females?!?

So, what... you're an asexual alien?

Not even a passage where homosexuals are endorsed for their acts.

And for the - what, 4th time? - no one has ever claimed there was one.

I guess I was right, you're just jealous that females can engage in homosexual acts with impunity, but you can't.

Hey man, it's the 21st century, come out of the closet already!