mmoffitt! Georgia agrees with you!

Post #386,919 by rcareaga 2/26/14 1:57:50 AM Reply	mmoffitt! Georgia agrees with you! Be of good cheer, laddie! Peach state lawmakers are moving to free innkeepers and other devout heterosexual businessfolk from the tyranny of the Gay Agenda! A bill moving swiftly through the Georgia House of Representatives would allow business owners who believe homosexuality is a sin to openly discriminate against gay Americans by denying them employment or banning them from restaurants and hotels. Because why should a Motel 6 franchisee be compelled to rent to a couple of faggots who'll likely and literally violate the living shit (and sheets) out of the relevant passages of Leviticus, amirite? http://www.motherjon...people-out-diners cordially,
Post #386,923 by Ashton 2/26/14 6:37:06 AM Reply	Jeez, they're missing a whole new Enemy to persecute-- WTF Will these (Specialists-in-the-specious) Solons Do? ... when someone presents pictorial-evidence that, Y'know What? hypocrites: Some actual ladies acknowledge that [their very-own anus] has.. about as many erogenous zones as ... their other lady-parts seem to have. (This shall be News to ... what sort of hermit?) Can we guess When? this shall become The Next Crusade for [whatever-the-fuck these cretins latch-onto.] It is to laugh. August is a slow month: what think? Holy Cthulhu--can this retro-Bullshit-level ever be trumped? (Ummm, YES, is my guess.) I still await the shedding of clothes at Bus-stops. cf. The Year of the Jackpot one. more. time. Carrion.
Post #386,938 by boxley 2/26/14 10:49:18 AM Reply	that taint news Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #386,926 by mmoffitt 2/26/14 8:31:32 AM Reply	No, they don't. I thought I'd made this clear. I am opposed to wholesale discrimination. I don't know how many times I've said that in this thread and I'm too tired to count. What I mean by that is to refuse service of any type, for any purpose to anyone based on race, sexual orientation, religion, hair color, etc. What I'm suggesting is that when the intention of the service is one the vendor finds repugnant, the vendor be afforded the opportunity to decline (my tailor making swastika armbands and carpenter making crosses for Klan rallies is what I'm thinking of). Apparently, most here see that a distinction without difference, but that is not my view. All of you piling on me has informed my opinion some (don't misunderstand, I fully expected that and posted here because I knew you would and that I might learn something in the process). I do understand better how my position could lead to things of which I would never approve, notwithstanding my continuing uncomfortability to the legally binding rule of abandoning one's principles in the conduct of one's business in order to be afforded the opportunity to conduct business with the public. In the end, I guess I still feel that making a federal case (literally!) out of wedding pictures, cakes and flowers seems a little over the top. But my hat is off to all of you for trying to beat into my rather firm skull why doing so could be important.
Post #386,928 by crazy 2/26/14 9:18:04 AM Reply	"I am opposed to wholesale discrimination." But I approve of it at the retail level. That sums up my interpretation of what you write. Everything else is rationalization and wiggling.
Post #386,929 by mmoffitt 2/26/14 9:20:29 AM Reply	I am not surprised.
Post #386,930 by pwhysall 2/26/14 9:24:21 AM Reply	Well, that's what it is.
Post #386,934 by mmoffitt 2/26/14 9:59:52 AM Reply	I may not agree with you. But I will defend your right to be completely wrong.
Post #386,937 by pwhysall 2/26/14 10:34:43 AM Reply	You don't have to agree - - but your logic is indefensible. You wish to enable discrimination against gay people. You've wibbled and wobbled and said it's not like that and that some of your best friends are gay and oh hay religious rights and you don't want to discriminate against people except when you do. But that's the fundamental crux of it. Look at the array of opinions against you here: Me. Crazy. Folkert. Rand. AScott. Scott. Box. Alex. Ash. When that lot - who couldn't and haven't agree(d) on anything at all ever - ALL tell you you're wrong, you're fucking wrong.
Post #386,941 by drook 2/26/14 10:53:41 AM Reply	The general form of that ... When the only people who agree with you are assholes, it's time to reevaluate your opinion. -- Drew
Post #386,942 by mmoffitt 2/26/14 11:01:07 AM Reply	Again with the misstatement of my position. You wish to enable discrimination against gay people. No, I don't. I've only EVER advocated for discriminating against events. Like Klan and Neo-Nazi rallies and yes, gay weddings. Since it's much easier for you to oversimplify and put me in the religio-homophobic bucket and distort my view, by all means feel free. On the upside, your ill-founded attacks have given me some unpleasant insight into what might follow from my position. So for that, I thankee.
Post #386,944 by malraux 2/26/14 11:03:20 AM Reply	That may be your position But it's not of the baker you're supporting. He's not interested in making cakes for anything to do with gay unions at all, not just weddings, and no matter what's on the cake. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #386,945 by mmoffitt 2/26/14 11:08:31 AM Reply	Then he has an indefensible position. And THANK YOU! This is the first time anyone's acknowledged that my position is NOT that of the baker.
Post #386,956 by malraux 2/26/14 12:12:12 PM Reply	That's your problem in this thread You appear to be supporting the baker, whose position is (to me at least) clearly indefensible. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #386,955 by malraux 2/26/14 12:12:12 PM 2/26/14 12:12:36 PM Reply	El dupo. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson. Edited by malraux Feb. 26, 2014, 12:12:36 PM EST Expand All History
Post #386,957 by mmoffitt 2/26/14 12:58:20 PM Reply	-999,999 for me for clarity then.
Post #386,946 by pwhysall 2/26/14 11:10:06 AM 2/26/14 11:24:15 AM Reply	Conflation of SSM with Klan and Neo-Nazi rallies? Seriously? A gay wedding is the celebration and public statement of the love and commitment that two people share with each other. The other two, not so much. Edit: clarity. Edited by pwhysall Feb. 26, 2014, 11:24:15 AM EST Expand All History
Post #386,950 by mmoffitt 2/26/14 11:26:03 AM Reply	Reductio ad absurdum. They are all events.
Post #386,951 by pwhysall 2/26/14 11:30:31 AM Reply	Whatever. Events aren't people. Events are held by people. Gay weddings are held by gay people. If you discriminate against gay weddings, you discriminate against gay people. (Also, neither the Klan nor the neo Nazis are protected groups, so as a black man, I can tell them "no, I will not make you a cake with a burning cross on it, because you're wearing your fucking bedlinen, you loon" with impunity)
Post #386,952 by mmoffitt 2/26/14 11:46:34 AM Reply	Nitpick much? Substitute a Crips or Bloods rally then.
Post #386,954 by pwhysall 2/26/14 11:56:16 AM Reply	Re: Nitpick much? Substitute a Crips or Bloods rally then. They're not protected groups either. This isn't nitpicking, much as it'd be convenient to your argument for it to be so. Would you also support discrimination against disabled weddings, black weddings or inter-racial weddings?
Post #386,959 by mmoffitt 2/26/14 1:33:09 PM Reply	Okay, so I assumed something not proven, but likely. Namely, that a member of the Crips or the Bloods seeking some product or service for a rally would be Black - a protected class. Curious that you brought up inter-racial weddings - that is precisely what caused me to reconsider the wisdom of my position. That example caused me to conclude that my choice of the baker case with gay weddings was a bad example of the point I was trying to make: I don't think it's a good idea for the State to start dictating which events a person must support with their work products. Perhaps because I'm not religious I didn't immediately see a wedding as anything other than "just an event." I consider my own wedding "just an event" that happened more than 30 years ago and that I can scarcely remember. That's why I initially interpreted the State saying to the baker/florist/photographer "You will support this event with your work product on pain of penalty" as the first slip down a dangerous slope.
Post #386,960 by drook 2/26/14 1:56:46 PM Reply	The second reply to you in this thread pointed that out http://forum.iwethey...iwt?postid=386722 You've spent the three days since then asserting without evidence that "gay" was different from "black". -- Drew
Post #387,069 by mmoffitt 3/1/14 2:11:30 PM Reply	It's not the same thing. Sexual Orientation is plainly not the same type of thing as is race. Unless, of course, you can identify the biological basis for the establishment of sexual orientation.
Post #387,070 by Another Scott 3/1/14 2:19:24 PM Reply	Stanford study from 1995. http://news.stanford...50310Arc5328.html HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #387,077 by mmoffitt 3/1/14 3:49:29 PM 3/1/14 4:00:40 PM Reply	Read the follow-up studies over the past 20 years. It's still, at best, highly speculative that there is any relation to biology. For example, the APA (which had previously advocated for the biological case circa the time or your Stanford posting) reversed itself in 2009: There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. https://www.apa.org/...y/orientation.pdf Edit: Supported my claim. Edited by mmoffitt March 1, 2014, 04:00:40 PM EST Expand All History
Post #387,078 by Another Scott 3/1/14 4:03:06 PM Reply	Point me to a cite, please. Here's one for you - http://www.pnas.org/...03/28/10771.short Another - http://rspb.royalsoc...1/1554/2217.short Another - http://www.ncbi.nlm....v/pubmed/12836730 Not being able to explain it fully doesn't mean that the evidence isn't there. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #387,149 by mmoffitt 3/3/14 11:25:05 AM Reply	That's not how that works. You make the claim that its biology that determines gayness. I don't have to show it isn't, you have to show it is. And thusfar, you can't.
Post #387,154 by Another Scott 3/3/14 11:37:12 AM Reply	Eh? Review http://forum.iwethey...iwt?postid=387069 I answered your query. You said it wasn't good enough based on your reading of the past 20 years. I gave you more, but you still haven't answered me - a cite that says it isn't biology. The burden's on you. HTH! Cheers, Scott.
Post #387,156 by boxley 3/3/14 12:04:47 PM Reply	thats the prove there is no gawd argument :-) Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #387,174 by folkert 3/3/14 9:44:44 PM Reply	So... when did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual? If it is a choice... then when did you choose to be a heterosexual? Come now, scared to answer it? It's ok, we all know your answer. You just have to tell the truth. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #387,187 by mmoffitt 3/4/14 9:28:10 AM Reply	This is my last on this, and only because I like you & Scott Holding that homosexuality is not provably based upon biology is not the same as saying it's a choice. I do not now, nor have I ever believed it was a choice. I believe it is most likely biologically based and multi-gene. I also believe that in 1973, well before the mapping of the human genome, we cut off a line of inquiry forever that might have helped solve the riddle. In today's political climate, who is going to dare ask for funding for a study of the genes responsible for mental illness among homosexuals? What if the interactions between those genes and others give rise to homosexuality? We'll never know because we deferred to a "vote" based upon the study of 30 individuals. If it is the case that homosexuality is related to mental illness, we'll never know it because we've chosen willful blindness.
Post #387,188 by pwhysall 3/4/14 9:54:42 AM Reply	What's the hypothesis, here? Before you go off and study the genes responsible for mental illness in a homosexual population, what would attract you to this line of investigation? There's no riddle. Some people like crazy buttsecks, or drinking from the furry cup. Some people don't. We is what we is. What would you do with the answer if you got one? Tell all those poor gays that it's OK, they're just insane in the brain? You might just as profitably investigate why some colonial weirdos like Vegemite and Superior Imperial Beings prefer Marmite. And finally: if it's not a choice, why do you advocate discriminating on the basis of it?
Post #387,189 by mmoffitt 3/4/14 10:13:16 AM Reply	Re: what would attract you to this line of investigation? Because it was once classified as a mental illness. Having it striken from the list of diagnoses had absolutely nothing to do with science.
Post #387,190 by boxley 3/4/14 10:21:05 AM Reply	exactly, same as being lefthanded is no longer considered a mental illness. Should have left it in for more study Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #387,195 by mmoffitt 3/4/14 11:45:25 AM Reply	Um. Somebody did continue study: http://www.medicalne...ticles/267047.php
Post #387,192 by pwhysall 3/4/14 10:24:30 AM Reply	So you want to check whether it still is a mental illness?
Post #387,194 by drook 3/4/14 10:29:52 AM Reply	If we must keep this up, new thread please? -- Drew
Post #387,197 by crazy 3/4/14 12:55:52 PM Reply	Because if it an illness, it might be fixable or prevented Normal vs not normal line of thought gets him in trouble. But if it is an illness, he can claim he simply wants sick people to get better as a rationalization for simply wanting to oppress those that make him uncomfortable. Here, I'll run with it. There are all kinds of genetic variations that may end up being harmful to the individual, while being beneficial to the population at large. Like sickle cell anemia, which protects against malaria. In this case (the "gay" gene (or groupings which tend toward it)), a portion of the population has ended up with genes that may be individually harmful (assholes abuse them because they carry this trait), while also being beneficial to society in general (it allows the rest of us to identify the assholes).
Post #387,198 by drook 3/4/14 1:03:24 PM Reply	New. Thread. Please. -- Drew
Post #387,071 by folkert 3/1/14 2:48:49 PM Reply	So, when did you choose to be Hetero-Sexual? -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #387,073 by malraux 3/1/14 3:12:46 PM Reply	Either way, it doesn't matter. Protected class is a protected class. Religion is also a protected class, but it doesn't have a biological basis. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #387,074 by mmoffitt 3/1/14 3:25:06 PM Reply	Concur.
Post #386,953 by boxley 2/26/14 11:52:54 AM Reply	I think I get your position A FEDERAL court case over refusing to bake a cake!! cmon!!! Without thinking about it is the little things that aggregate into a miscarriage of justice. After all refusing to sit at the back of the bus is a little thing, a wedding cake refusal sort of a case. It was that single little thing that allowed America to examine how we were and start the change. It is not done yet by a long shot, but it needs to continue. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #386,948 by a6l6e6x 2/26/14 11:21:34 AM Reply	Well, we could be the Flat Earth Society! :) Alex ÂThere is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.Â -- Isaac Asimov
Post #386,949 by pwhysall 2/26/14 11:23:33 AM Reply	Flat? FLAT? Everyone knows it's hyperbolic saddle-shaped!
Post #386,939 by boxley 2/26/14 10:51:28 AM Reply	well, there goes the gay black men convention in Atlanta Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #386,963 by Ashton 2/26/14 4:55:08 PM Reply	Then ... let them eat cake! (Falsely attrib. to Marie Antoinette, last I read) oh WAIT! This-all started in the famous massacree of Feb. 2014 wherein a Baker was forced to bake. And the local population Exploded. It was said that a certain cake (deep frozen in LN and formed into shards) were weapons of choice: then the Baker was found guilty of mayhem leading to manslaughter. Posthumously. Ain"t Murica Great? (All this, just as a local cycle gang, gathered for breakfast, were asked somewhat rhetorically) Well chaps, what'll it be today.. mindless destruction or senseless violence?

Welcome to IWETHEY!