# Baker FORCED to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity brainwashing.



## Thor (Jun 3, 2014)

> A family owned bakery has been ordered to make wedding cakes for gay couples and guarantee that its staff be given comprehensive training on Colorado?s anti-discrimination laws after the state?s Civil Rights Commission determined the Christian baker violated the law by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
> 
> Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, in Lakewood, Colorado was directed to change his store policies immediately and force his staff to attend the training sessions. For the next two years, Phillips will also be required to submit quarterly reports to the commission to confirm that he has not turned away customers based on their sexual orientation.
> 
> ...





So the gaystapo now have enough pull to legally violate a man's freedom of choice. How long before gays force people to sleep with them because not sleeping with them is deemed "intolerant". This is sick. What are your thoughts on this??

I began making cakes two years ago. I'm good at it. Everyone wants me to go into business...but I don't want to. Because of things like this.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 3, 2014)

Its against the state law you troll  you don't have freedom of choice if its against the law specifically. If you run an organization you are banned from discriminating. It doesn't matter what religion you are.


----------



## Stunna (Jun 3, 2014)

Title could have been phrased better.


----------



## Bijuu Bomber (Jun 3, 2014)

This line made me laugh.



> Who knew butter cream frosting could cause such angst?


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 3, 2014)

good

get rekt, bigots

>thor the wannabe baking prodigy cruelly denied by the gaystapo

hahahahhahahahaha


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 3, 2014)

also you might want to include the link to the article


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 3, 2014)

Also, let's see your newsmax source for this article.   You can't even post in here without the link.

*edit*

How did i know it would be Fox or newsmax


----------



## SLB (Jun 3, 2014)

>can't see post
>must be thor 

alright let's give this a looksie.

edit: well denying service based on sexual orientation is still discrimination, but i will say phillips seems like a fairly honest chap. woefully ignorant, but a lot nicer than most bigots. 



> He offered to make them any other baked item they wanted.



assuming this is true that is.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Jun 3, 2014)

Thor said:


> So the gaystapo now have enough pull to legally violate a man's freedom of choice. How long before gays force people to sleep with them because not sleeping with them is deemed "intolerant". This is sick. What are your thoughts on this??
> 
> I began making cakes two years ago. I'm good at it. Everyone wants me to go into business...but I don't want to. Because of things like this.



I suppose if this was 1950s and this was about an interracial couple wanting a cake you'd support the baker who refused service to them??


----------



## Enclave (Jun 3, 2014)

Oh look, Thor being Thor.

Think about it like this, if you go in an article and replace the people being gay with people being black and suddenly it becomes obviously racist and wrong?  Yeah, that means the person is still a bigoted twat who needs legislation to tell them what is right and wrong and to force them to do right.

Discrimination is illegal.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jun 3, 2014)

I think we should take a page from Thor's avy and put this shit in the bin.

What do ya'll think?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 3, 2014)

I haven't been to the cafe in a long time, i'm assuming this guy is a regular troll these days


----------



## Thor (Jun 3, 2014)

makeoutparadise said:


> I suppose if this was 1950s and this was about an interracial couple wanting a cake you'd support the baker who refused service to them??



Stop comparing gays to blacks. You can help being gay. You don't choose your skin color.

Homosexuality is not a race. If you worship science and believe in evolution we all came from Africa, all our ancestors were Black. If all our ancestors were gay, we wouldn't' be here.


----------



## Stunna (Jun 3, 2014)

I think this thread is done.


----------



## Selina Kyle (Jun 3, 2014)

this is pathetic 

rehabilitation? really? 

the guy politely declined, and the couple could've found someone else to bake their cake.

but no, it's deemed as discrimination. 

now we're going back to the 50s where being gay is a mental disorder, except this time, it's for the religious.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jun 3, 2014)

Thor said:


> Stop comparing gays to blacks. *You can help being gay.* You don't choose your skin color.



Except.

Yknow.

Science says you're wrong. 

I'll help you back under your bridge.


----------



## SLB (Jun 3, 2014)

unreal


----------



## Enclave (Jun 3, 2014)

odango said:


> this is pathetic
> 
> rehabilitation? really?
> 
> ...



You cannot decline service based on discriminatory reasons.  It's just about the only reason you cannot use to deny somebody service.


----------



## Louis Cyphre (Jun 3, 2014)

> Faux News
> Opinion
Lord have mercy.



Thor said:


> If you worship science.




You are just jealous of our Large Hadron Collider.


----------



## Risyth (Jun 3, 2014)

>Thor

/done here


----------



## Selina Kyle (Jun 3, 2014)

Enclave said:


> You cannot decline service based on discriminatory reasons.  It's just about the only reason you cannot use to deny somebody service.



yes, and he obviously needs rehabilitation because he hates them and has mental issues. 
wasn't walking into the store on purpose enough


----------



## Vermin (Jun 3, 2014)

i don't understand why anybody thats homosexual would want to have a service from someone who is clearly anti gay

he might spit in the cakes or do....something else to them


----------



## aiyanah (Jun 3, 2014)

Thor said:


> So the gaystapo now have enough pull to legally violate a man's freedom of choice. How long before gays force people to sleep with them because not sleeping with them is deemed "intolerant". This is sick. What are your thoughts on this??
> 
> I began making cakes two years ago. I'm good at it. Everyone wants me to go into business...but I don't want to. Because of things like this.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jun 3, 2014)

[youtube]Seq7MtKJGhM[/youtube]


----------



## Luciana (Jun 3, 2014)

The title made me giggle like a school girl


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jun 3, 2014)

like _an_ school girl, Luci?


----------



## Juda (Jun 3, 2014)

I will not respect anyone who has to literally violate a person's freedom of choice! people have rights, if you're politely refused then go somewhere else, is it really that much of a hassle to do such a thing? forcing people to accept others does not help anyones case, it just creates more hate. Whats the point of having rights, something our forefathers desired, if people won't abide by? no wonder Europes laughing at us.


----------



## Blunt (Jun 3, 2014)

i could tell who made the thread just by seeing the title on the index


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 3, 2014)

Blunt said:


> i could tell who made the thread just by seeing the title on the index



same                   .


----------



## Doge (Jun 3, 2014)

Sad day when a business can't have it's own right to decide who to serve or not.  Completely puts a business's entirety into the government's hands.  Now they can say who can and who cannot be served, not the free people.

This is awful, I hope our leaders learn some sense.

The Chronicles of Cereal continue on.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jun 3, 2014)

Thor continues to want to live in the era of the 1950's when it was okay to bash homosexuals and african americans.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jun 3, 2014)

why has this shit not yet been put in the bin?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 3, 2014)

Protip; Rights stop when your right entrenches on someone else's right


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jun 3, 2014)

Inuhanyou said:


> Protip; Rights stop when your right entrenches on someone else's right



or when feels are felt.


----------



## lucky (Jun 3, 2014)

What the fuck?

Unless it's the public sector, a man should be able to turn away whoever the fuck he wants.  Gay people, fat people, rude people, or even supermodels if he damn well feels like.

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## Draffut (Jun 3, 2014)

What makes a wedding cake a gay one?

Was it just because two guys asked?  Or did they want two guys bumming on the top or something?


----------



## Doge (Jun 3, 2014)

lucky said:


> What the fuck?
> 
> Unless it's the public sector, a man should be able to turn away whoever the fuck he wants.  Gay people, fat people, rude people, or even supermodels if he damn well feels like.



Word up my brotha.

We've been stripping businesses of their rights for way too long.  It's about time we cut out the red tape and got a real president for a change.

#Reagansghost4lyfe 2conservtive5me


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jun 3, 2014)

lucky said:


> What the fuck?
> 
> Unless it's the public sector, a man should be able to turn away whoever the fuck he wants.  Gay people, fat people, rude people, or even supermodels if he damn well feels like.


Discrimination is against the law, lucky.


----------



## Island (Jun 3, 2014)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> Except.
> 
> Yknow.
> 
> ...


Hey, he's not a troll! He believes everything he posts! It says so right in his signature.


----------



## Totally not a cat (Jun 3, 2014)

lucky said:


> What the fuck?
> 
> Unless it's the public sector, a man should be able to turn away whoever the fuck he wants.  Gay people, fat people, rude people, or even supermodels if he damn well feels like.



Not if your reasons for denying a service are those of discrimination.


----------



## Doge (Jun 3, 2014)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Discrimination is against the law, lucky.



Freedom to operate as a private business isn't against the law.  Typical liberal agenda, shut down anyone you feel "offended" someone.

#TrueConservativesJackIttoReagan


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jun 3, 2014)

Doge said:


> Freedom to operate as a private business isn't against the law.  Typical liberal agenda, shut down anyone you feel "offended" someone.
> 
> #TrueConservativesJackIttoReagan


It is illegal to discriminate against race, sexuality, creed, or religion in this country. It violates civil rights.


----------



## Selina Kyle (Jun 3, 2014)

for fuck sake, the guy doesn't even hate the gays. he just declined the offer politely because of his beliefs, and this is considered discrimination. 
he didn't even say any of the racist, sexist, ageist, homophobic hate shit that most users on nf says here on daily basis.

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 3, 2014)

You can't deny someone their right of service. It doesn't matter how 'polite' you are about it 


There are people who do want to take back civil liberties on the basis of "states rights". Its almost like the civil war wasn't already over


----------



## SLB (Jun 3, 2014)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> What makes a wedding cake a gay one?
> 
> Was it just because two guys asked?  Or did they want two guys bumming on the top or something?





> Phillips politely declined, saying he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith.



seems to be solely based on the fact that the cake was for a gay couple.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 3, 2014)

odango said:


> for fuck sake, the guy doesn't even hate the gays. he just declined the offer politely because of his beliefs, and this is considered discrimination.
> he didn't even say any of the racist, sexist, ageist, homophobic hate shit that most users on nf says here on daily basis.



"it's only discrimination if he was mean about it! he might have declined someone service because they're gay, but he was polite, so it's not discrimination!"


----------



## Masaki (Jun 3, 2014)

Now don't get me wrong.  I am absolutely loving the social justice put on these bigots.  Homophobia needs to die already.

However, I know in California there are laws saying that a business has "The right to refuse business to anyone."  I'm not sure if this law is on the books in Colorado, but if it is then technically the bakery didn't do anything illegal.  Asshole moves, yes, but potentially not illegal.

Edit: Disregard.  Refusal of service does not apply to discrimination.  Yay Colorado.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 3, 2014)

for reference, 

so, newsflash, for many in this thread who need it

1. discrimination is against the law. so no, fuck your private enterprise, freedom of choice bullshit. if i hold up a liquor store, i can't defend my law-breaking by saying you're infringing upon my freedom to steal. this is against the law, too. end of.

2. you don't get a free pass on discrimination because you "believe" in it. the fact that your discrimination is part of a belief system doesn't somehow make it above criticism or redress when your beliefs break the fucking law

morons


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 3, 2014)

Masaki said:


> Now don't get me wrong.  I am absolutely loving the social justice put on these bigots.  Homophobia needs to die already.
> 
> However, I know in California there are laws saying that a business has "The right to refuse business to anyone."  I'm not sure if this law is on the books in Colorado, but if it is then technically the bakery didn't do anything illegal.  Asshole moves, yes, but potentially not illegal.



Your going to have to get a link for that one, because there are federal laws saying the exact opposite, and federal usually overrides state, even if its on the books.

And Colorado has laws of its own going against discrimination, so it would not matter to begin with.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 3, 2014)

Fucking Thor  

10/10 troll thread


----------



## Masaki (Jun 3, 2014)

Inuhanyou said:


> Your going to have to get a link for that one, because there are federal laws saying the exact opposite, and federal usually overrides state, even if its on the books.
> 
> And Colorado has laws of its own going against discrimination, so it would not matter to begin with.



My bad earlier.  Yes, if it is some sort of racial or sexual discrimination, it is straight up illegal.

If it is due to the customer being a dick, perfectly okay.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 3, 2014)

that's completely different from what we are discussing here though. That's perfectly acceptable


----------



## Thor (Jun 4, 2014)

Stop comparing a race to a mental illness.


----------



## Enclave (Jun 4, 2014)

Thor said:


> Stop comparing a race to a mental illness.



Stop being an idiotic bigot.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 4, 2014)

This guy is too obvious


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 4, 2014)

Lucaniel said:


> for reference,
> 
> so, newsflash, for many in this thread who need it
> 
> ...



Disappointing that this needed to be pointed out.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 4, 2014)

Thor is the only troll on this forum that I like  

He trolls so hard and so obviously that it just makes me laugh


----------



## Mider T (Jun 4, 2014)

Thor said:


> Stop comparing a race to a mental illness.



You do know homosexuality was taken off that list long ago right?  Discovering new things and restating our positions in light of evidence, it's what we call progress.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 4, 2014)

Thor said:


> Stop comparing gays to blacks. You can help being gay. You don't choose your skin color.



Homosexuality and Heterosexuality are genetic, just like skin color.



Thor said:


> If you worship science and believe in evolution we all came from Africa, all our ancestors were Black. If all our ancestors were gay, we wouldn't' be here.



And? If all our ancestors were male, we wouldn't be here either.  Your logical fallacy doesn't hold up.



Thor said:


> Stop comparing a race to a mental illness.



The only mental illness on this topic, is people who have superiority complexes, like you.



> Toro’s List – Homosexuality is not a choice, environmental, or nurtured and is, in fact, polyepigenetic.
> How is homosexuality natural?
> 
> Location of the prostate
> ...


----------



## Deleted member 23 (Jun 4, 2014)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Thor continues to want to live in the era of the 1950's when it was okay to bash homosexuals and african americans.


He never once based black people, you made that up/


Thor said:


> Stop comparing a race to a mental illness.


Thank you, these guys are just horrible. Being gay is wrong and the colour of your skin is genes. People choose to be gay and it's wrong. I don't understand how that sickness is even comparable to race. People in this thread are only allowing people to continue with their delusions instead of giving them the help they need.

I do good?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 4, 2014)

Trying too hard


----------



## Fiona (Jun 4, 2014)

Obvious troll is obvious Klad. 

I expect better from you


----------



## Nordstrom (Jun 4, 2014)

Thor said:


> Stop comparing a race to a mental illness.



Mental illness my ass.

Sincerely yours, Roman Catholic.



Toroxus said:


> Homosexuality and Heterosexuality are genetic, just like skin color.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I can't believe you actually named it "Toro's List" 

That aside, it seems some people don't know what freedom entails. Which is kinda sad when you think about it...


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 4, 2014)

Look everybody it's Thor, you may remember him from such places as "the wrong side of every issue ever". 

With the hard on that Thor has for threads about gays and transexuals I have to wonder if he's compensating for something.


----------



## BashFace (Jun 4, 2014)

How gay was the cake request? Like pink and purple gay or dick in ass gay?

I saw a gay painting once, graphic shit... I was very intolerant.


----------



## Raidoton (Jun 4, 2014)

Thanks for spreading the good news, Thor!


----------



## Xyloxi (Jun 4, 2014)

"Look how hetero I am as I squeeze cream into these tight, sweet buns". 

Baker pls


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jun 4, 2014)

Thor said:


> Stop comparing a race to a mental illness.



but thor

if gay is a mental illness then how is it a choice? They can't help being mentally ill.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 4, 2014)

There's no excuse for being a ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".). Nobody fucking cares if you're not man enough to get some pussy. Grow some balls and get off your arse instead of making excuses for your sorry excuse of an existence. And don't force your stupid feelings on other people like the slave trade did, that's not very nice you hypocrite.

Children are starving in africa, my greatest comrades in Israel are getting blown up by terrorists, and this is the bullshit I hear in the news, immature manchildren getting pissed off when someone doesn't BAKE THEM A CAKE. Cry me a fucking river.

Reactions: Dislike 1


----------



## Nep Nep (Jun 4, 2014)

The bible doesn't say anywhere in it to treat gays like shit. 

A simple concept seems to fail most of these Christians -> Hate the sin not the sinner.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## EJ (Jun 4, 2014)

Does anyone ever actually read Toroxus's "list".


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 4, 2014)

I think like 3 people do.


----------



## Mael (Jun 4, 2014)

Nightbringer said:


> but thor
> 
> if gay is a mental illness then how is it a choice? They can't help being mentally ill.



And we have a thread winner.


----------



## Doge (Jun 4, 2014)

Bunch of liberal trolls in here ironically shaming other people for just having conservative views.


----------



## LesExit (Jun 4, 2014)

Doge said:


> Bunch of liberal trolls in here ironically shaming other people for just having conservative views.


 lol doge



I'm honestly so confused by this though. Why can't they bake a cake? Whats the issue? Do they think God's gonna punish them? Or do they hoenstly think by baking a cake they're supporting some immoral movement or something? This is in no way different form refusing to serve someone based off the color of their skin. You can't refuse service based off of stuff like that :0 like...wtf humans? Get it together...maybe...please ?


----------



## ThunderCunt (Jun 4, 2014)

Forced to make cake doesn't sound like a solution to the problem.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Linkofone (Jun 4, 2014)

> The bible doesn't say anywhere in it to treat gays like shit.



While this is true, I still find the entire situation to be bogus. People just love to complain.

Forcing someone to do something they don't want to do just make them more hateful.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 4, 2014)

Toroxus said:


> List of Facts



Can you provide me with a link to your list for like the 100th time? I've been wanting to see the source forever.

God help this nation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## LesExit (Jun 4, 2014)

initpidzero said:


> Forced to make cake doesn't sound like a solution to the problem.


They're not being forced. If they want to discriminate against people based off of their beliefs, then they can shut down their business. Though if not, then they need to suck it up and serve their customers o___o


----------



## Louis Cyphre (Jun 4, 2014)

Kyokkai said:


> The bible doesn't say anywhere in it to treat gays like shit. .



_If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death: their blood shall be upon them_. - Leviticus 20:13

Ordering to kill them seems pretty shit to me. 
And before "but that's the old testament" bullshit, Romans have a similar message.
Actually, Romans go further and explicitly put homosexuality in the same category as murder, because why not.


----------



## ThunderCunt (Jun 4, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Can you provide me with a link to your list for like the 100th time? I've been wanting to see the source forever.
> 
> God help this nation.


What would you do with the source though JSJ?


----------



## Scila9 (Jun 4, 2014)

Why did they want him to make the cake after finding out he was anti-gay? Was his place the only one available to them or something? I'd of been like "Psh, fine, we'll take our business elsewhere dickhead"


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 4, 2014)

initpidzero said:


> What would you do with the source though JSJ?



He has been posting that list now for over a year and a half and has never once posted the lists source. I just want to validate where it come from and if the study that was done was not bias. 

I believe his facts but I just want to know where they came from.


----------



## Draffut (Jun 4, 2014)

Thor said:


> Stop comparing a race to a mental illness.



I never mentioned religion.



klad said:


> People choose to be gay and it's wrong.



They do?  What specific day did you choose to no longer be aroused by having penises in your asshole?


----------



## Risyth (Jun 4, 2014)

And what's the Cafe without their daily dose of pointless religious arguments?


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 4, 2014)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> They do?  What specific day did you choose to no longer be aroused by having penises in your asshole?



The day I said I'd rather stick my penis in a vagina.


----------



## Risyth (Jun 4, 2014)

Not a really good comeback....


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Jun 4, 2014)

Hope the baker enjoys his salty load


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 4, 2014)

Risyth said:


> Not a really good comeback....



Not really a come back just telling him I choose vagina instead of asshole.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 4, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Not really a come back just telling him I choose vagina instead of asshole.



You never did anal with a chick? You are missing out.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 4, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> You never did anal with a chick? You are missing out.



Nah brah I'm good.


----------



## Canute87 (Jun 4, 2014)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> What makes a wedding cake a gay one?
> 
> Was it just because two guys asked?  Or did they want two guys bumming on the top or something?



Think it was based on who asked.

It's not like they were asking him to put 2 naked guys having sex on the cake

He would just be putting two grooms together which he never really had to do.

Just bake the cake at least instead of having to go through all that trouble of "sensitivity" training.


----------



## Doge (Jun 4, 2014)

Dammit JSJ and Thor keep stealing my thunder.  I thought I'd have to teach all these politically correct A-holes that being gay is scientifically proven as a choice due to environmental factors and that businesses need their deregulation to survive.

Just shoot me already, oh wait you can't you confiscated your own gun.


----------



## Canute87 (Jun 4, 2014)

Doge said:


> Dammit JSJ and Thor keep stealing my thunder.  I thought I'd have to teach all these politically correct A-holes that being gay is scientifically proven as a choice due to environmental factors and that businesses need their deregulation to survive.
> 
> Just shoot me already, oh wait you can't you confiscated your own gun.



Science can't really prove it for every single case.


----------



## Donquixote Doflamingo (Jun 4, 2014)

meh just make the cake.

And charge them extra for being gay, everyones happy.


----------



## Risyth (Jun 4, 2014)

Kind of funny at any outrage on this story in hindsight.

"Baker FORCED to not discriminate."


----------



## Draffut (Jun 4, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> The day I said I'd rather stick my penis in a vagina.



You would rather?  So you would happily stick it in a man's asshole, but you prefer a vagina?

I am pretty sure you are bisexual.

Probably why you have so many politicians, religious figures, and other people spouting 'homosexuality is a choice', while getting caught with gay prostitutes and shit.  They are really bisexual and don't understand that isn't how most people are.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 4, 2014)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> You would rather?  So you would happily stick it in a man's asshole, but you prefer a vagina?
> 
> I am pretty sure you are bisexual.
> 
> Probably why you have so many politicians, religious figures, and other people spouting 'homosexuality is a choice', while getting caught with gay prostitutes and shit.  They are really bisexual and don't understand that isn't how most people are.



Then that proves it even more doesn't it? Its a choice. 
I don't know any guy who hasn't had gay thoughts just how you act on them matters.


----------



## Sherlōck (Jun 4, 2014)

Risyth said:


> Kind of funny at any outrage on this story in hindsight.
> 
> *"Baker FORCED to not discriminate."*



Its a national tragedy.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 4, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Then that proves it even more doesn't it? Its a choice.
> I don't know any guy who hasn't had gay thoughts just how you act on them matters.



I never had gay thoughts you sexy beast.


----------



## Sherlōck (Jun 4, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Then that proves it even more doesn't it? Its a choice.
> *I don't know any guy who hasn't had gay thoughts just how you act on them matters.*



You gotta stop hanging around with gay people all the time then.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 4, 2014)

Sherlōck said:


> You gotta stop hanging around with gay people all the time then.



Guess I'll stop talking to every guy because anybody who has said they never had is lying.


----------



## Sherlōck (Jun 4, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Guess I'll stop talking to every guy because anybody who has said they never had is lying.



That's some top level analysis.


----------



## Donquixote Doflamingo (Jun 4, 2014)

Sherlōck said:


> You gotta stop hanging around with gay people all the time then.



I have had gay thoughts. 

And i assure you no man has yet to get me whats the word? Aroused.

But i have also had certain thoughts about a lot of things so im not going to assert that my experiences are normal.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 4, 2014)

Sherlōck said:


> That's some top level analysis.



I know right? 

This is only common sense.


----------



## Draffut (Jun 4, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Guess I'll stop talking to every guy because anybody who has said they never had is lying.



First off, that's silly.  It's like saying imagining what would happen if someone died makes you a murderer.

I guess the question is, would you get aroused by those gay thoughts.  In your case, you said that you would, which is why I suspect you are bisexual.

On the other hand,  thoughts like that creep me out, they don't arouse me.  I don't even like seeing two men kissing.  

Unlike you, I've never gotten a raging hardon from a gay fantasy and had to go "No wait, I prefer women damnit!".

I have never had to entertain the idea of gay sex, because I am personally adverse to it.  And hate to tell you, but most people are in this camp.  Even gay people are, just on the other side of the coin.  If you are socializing with lots of people who tell you they get aroused from gay fantasies, all your friends are either gay or bisexual.


----------



## Raidoton (Jun 4, 2014)

How stupid do you have to be to think that any sort of attraction is a choice?


----------



## Pliskin (Jun 4, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> I don't know any guy who hasn't had gay thoughts just how you act on them matters.



JSJ, having adventures in Narnia. Though I guess that fits the stereotype of the anti-gay conservative getting caught with a male prostitute.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 4, 2014)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> First off, that's silly.  It's like saying imagining what would happen if someone died makes you a murderer.


No that's a normal thought again its if you act on that thought.



> I guess the question is, would you get aroused by those gay thoughts.  In your case, you said that you would, which is why I suspect you are bisexual.



Don't believe I said it arouses me just that I've had the thought and go "WTF I like girls what is wrong with me." Again I'd be bi if I acted on those thoughts but I don't.



> On the other hand,  thoughts like that creep me out, they don't arouse me.  I don't even like seeing two men kissing.



Same here but I still choose not to do it cause you and I find it gross.



> Unlike you, I've never gotten a raging hardon from a gay fantasy and had to go "No wait, I prefer women damnit!".



Good thing I've never got a raging hardon for that type of thing.



> I have never had to entertain the idea of gay sex, because I am personally adverse to it.  And hate to tell you, but most people are in this camp.  Even gay people are, just on the other side of the coin.  If you are socializing with lots of people who tell you they get aroused from gay fantasies, all your friends are either gay or bisexual.



 No I just know a lot of people that have had those thoughts before whether they are guys or girls. Yet they never choose to act on them. That doesn't make them gay or bi or whatever you want to call it. I call it you resisting the sinful urges in our human minds and bodies.


----------



## Xyloxi (Jun 4, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Then that proves it even more doesn't it? Its a choice.
> I don't know any guy who hasn't had gay thoughts just how you act on them matters.



Having gay thoughts makes you at least a little bit queer.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 4, 2014)

Xyloxi said:


> Having gay thoughts makes you at least a little bit queer.



Then me wanting to kill someone makes me a little bit of a murderer? I think not.


----------



## EJ (Jun 4, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Then me wanting to kill someone makes me a little bit of a murderer? I think not.



A murderer is someone who has committed the act of murdering someone.

Gay is the attraction to the same sex. You don't have to kiss or touch someone of the same sex to be considered gay.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 4, 2014)

Flow said:


> A murderer is someone who has committed the act of murdering someone.
> 
> Gay is the attraction to the same sex. You don't have to kiss or touch someone of the same sex to be considered gay.



Yes then thinking about it and not acting on it doesn't make me one.

Having a gay thought and not being attracted to it doesn't make you gay.


----------



## Xyloxi (Jun 4, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Then me wanting to kill someone makes me a little bit of a murderer? I think not.



Straight people are straight even if they don't do anything with the opposite sex.


----------



## Vermin (Jun 4, 2014)

is this seriously turning into a debate about what makes a person gay


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 4, 2014)

zyken said:


> is this seriously turning into a debate about what makes a person gay



What's wrong with debating?


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Jun 4, 2014)

Isn't this old news or it happened again ? Cause I clearly remember tackling on that issue with someone with a Madara avatar a few months ago .


----------



## EJ (Jun 4, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Yes then thinking about it and not acting on it doesn't make me one.



If someone is having gay thoughts and they are aroused by it then they are gay. 

If someone is constantly having gay thoughts and constantly saying to themselves "Ew, no I'd never do that" then a lot of times they are fighting something deep within them.


----------



## Mael (Jun 4, 2014)

So when are we going to break into Freud?


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 4, 2014)

zyken said:


> is this seriously turning into a debate about what makes a person gay



Oh come on that's what it always turns into.



Flow said:


> If someone is having gay thoughts and they are aroused by it then they are gay.
> 
> If someone is constantly having gay thoughts and constantly saying to themselves "Ew, no I'd never do that" then a lot of times they are fighting something deep within them.



Yeah maybe... Sin?


----------



## EJ (Jun 4, 2014)

That's your own personal belief.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jun 4, 2014)

JSJ don't fight your urges.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 4, 2014)

Danger Doom said:


> JSJ don't fight your urges.



Go answer my questions in the other thread.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 4, 2014)

The most anti gays are usually the ones who are fighting their instincts the most  cause they are unconsciously shaming themselves


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 4, 2014)

Inuhanyou said:


> The most anti gays are usually the ones who are fighting their instincts the most  cause they are unconsciously shaming themselves



Guess your right I'll go fuck Channing Tatum now.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jun 4, 2014)

He was forced to obey anti-discrimination laws! The humanity! This guy is being treated worse than the Jews during the Holocaust!!


----------



## Doge (Jun 4, 2014)

Alright seriously guys, enough of the science denialism.  Reports are in and it's SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN gay people are gay because of their environment.  Stop trying to push the LGBT agenda and try to ruin business just because you can't handle the free market environment.

So many libtards in here who can't handle truth.  Always sticking to idealism.

Suck my Red, White, and Republican dick.


----------



## Draffut (Jun 4, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Don't believe I said it arouses me just that I've had the thought and go "WTF I like girls what is wrong with me."



I very specifically stated:  

"What specific day did you choose to no longer be* aroused* by having penises in your asshole?"

To which you responded:

"The day I said I'd *rather* stick my penis in a vagina."

Which means, you were aroused by it, you would just prefer a vagina.  Don't go moving the goalpost on me now.



> Again I'd be bi if I acted on those thoughts but I don't.





"sexually attracted to both men and women"

You don't have to constantly have sex with both men and woman to be bisexual.  Apparently you are, by definition, bisexual.



> Same here but I still choose not to do it cause you and I find it gross.
> 
> Good thing I've never got a raging hardon for that type of thing.



You said above that you prefer women, but it still arouses you.  That doesn't sound like you find it that gross.  Unless you find having sex with women gross too, and nasty sex is your thing or something.



> No I just know a lot of people that have had those thoughts before whether they are guys or girls. Yet they never choose to act on them. That doesn't make them gay or bi or whatever you want to call it. I call it you resisting the sinful urges in our human minds and bodies.



Actually, if they get as aroused as you do, it does make them bisexual.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 4, 2014)

Guess we're all gay! Lets all have a huge sucking, slurping, spitting, moaning, and groaning orgy guys!


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jun 4, 2014)

Yeah, because that's the point CBJ was making.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 4, 2014)

Onomatopoeia said:


> Yeah, because that's the point CBJ was making.



I'm having thoughts guys! I NEED TO SUCK A DICK!


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jun 4, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Go answer my questions in the other thread.



No I'm not interested but thanks for the offer.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 4, 2014)

Danger Doom said:


> No I'm not interested but thanks for the offer.



Can you suck me then? My thoughts of your bitch ass lips around my shaft is really turning me on...


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jun 4, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Can you suck me then? My thoughts of your bitch ass lips around my shaft is really turning me on...



You do get arouse when you think of men.


----------



## Draffut (Jun 4, 2014)

Onomatopoeia said:


> Yeah, because that's the point CBJ was making.



I guess the point is that noone chooses what gets them aroused.  You are naturally sexually interested in specific things.  Acting on those interests is a different matter, but what actually gets you up is not very negotiable.  And it does change (I am getting much more into MILF's as I get older) but it's still not a choice, that's just what makes you hard.

To claim that it is purely a choice, you would have to say that every person finds everything sexually arousing by default, then they just pick their favorites from that list.  You would be into BBW, Snuff, Hentai, Children, Dinosaurs, Rape, Transgendered, Scat etc. but all just to varying degrees.  Maybe you are only slightly into children, but really into grannies.   But that choice of children is still there if you really wanted.  (in which case, stay away from my kids)

Otherwise you are making some weird argument like "Well, you can choose to be gay, but being into fat chicks is hard coded."


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 4, 2014)

Danger Doom said:


> You do get arouse when you think of men.



I know bro just thinking about you turns me on.


----------



## baconbits (Jun 4, 2014)

makeoutparadise said:


> I suppose if this was 1950s and this was about an interracial couple wanting a cake you'd support the baker who refused service to them??



Why not?  Just because I think something is terribly wrong does not mean a person shouldn't have the freedom to do it.



Inuhanyou said:


> Protip; Rights stop when your right entrenches on someone else's right



Protip: you don't have a right to make someone bake you a cake.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 4, 2014)

baconbits said:


> Why not?  Just because I think something is terribly wrong does not mean a person shouldn't have the freedom to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Protip: you don't have a right to make someone bake you a cake.



I'm surprised you're going along with something ignorant. So tell me in the bible, does it teach you to discriminate others? Because at this point that's no longer a religion. You're blindly following a cult.


----------



## soulnova (Jun 4, 2014)

Thor said:


> Stop comparing gays to blacks. You can help being gay. You don't choose your skin color.










Bisexual are in between. xD


----------



## Island (Jun 4, 2014)

Wow, this thread is going places.



baconbits said:


> Protip: you don't have a right to make someone bake you a cake.


No, but the government does. If you own a business within the United States, you have to obey its laws. Its laws tell you that you can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 4, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> I'm surprised you're going along with something ignorant. So tell me in the bible, does it teach you to discriminate others? Because at this point that's no longer a religion. You're blindly following a cult.



Except refusing to bake a cake isn't discriminating someone. Its not like the owners said anything wrong to them other then "No".


----------



## Raidoton (Jun 4, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Except refusing to bake a cake isn't discriminating someone. Its not like the owners said anything wrong to them other then "No".


You should check the definition of discrimination...


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 4, 2014)

Raidoton said:


> You should check the definition of discrimination...



dis?crim?i?na?tion
noun

noun: discrimination; plural noun: discriminations
1.the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.


Nothing about being a homo...


----------



## Draffut (Jun 4, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> dis?crim?i?na?tion
> noun
> 
> noun: discrimination; plural noun: discriminations
> ...



especially ≠ exclusively


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 4, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> dis?crim?i?na?tion
> noun
> 
> noun: discrimination; plural noun: discriminations
> ...



Wikipedia:



> Discrimination is action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice. This includes treatment of an individual or group based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated".[1] It involves the group's initial reaction or interaction, influencing the individual's actual behavior towards the group or the group leader, restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to another group, leading to the exclusion of the individual or entities based on logical or irrational decision making.[2]


----------



## EJ (Jun 4, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Except refusing to bake a cake isn't discriminating someone. Its not like the owners said anything wrong to them other then "No".



If the situation got this serious:



> A family owned bakery has been ordered to make wedding cakes for gay couples and guarantee that its staff be given comprehensive trainingon Colorado?s anti-discrimination laws after the state?s Civil Rights Commission determined the Christian baker violated the law by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
> 
> Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, in Lakewood, Colorado was directed to change his store policies immediately and force his staff to attend the training sessions. For the next two years, Phillips will also be required to submit quarterly reports to the commission to confirmthat he has not turned away customers based on their sexual orientation.



I doubt that there wasn't more to the story besides him just saying no.


----------



## Vermin (Jun 4, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> What's wrong with debating?


nothing at all

it just happens in every thread that has this topic...


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jun 4, 2014)

Thor said:


> Stop comparing gays to blacks. You can help being gay. You don't choose your skin color.


Holy crap you're wrong about so many things and are generally incompetent.

You don't choose to be gay any more than you choose to be straight dumbass. If you could choose to be part of the majority and not get all that terrible shit from family friends and society, of course you would. Use logic for once in your life.


Thor said:


> Homosexuality is not a race. If you worship science and believe in evolution we all came from Africa, all our ancestors were Black. If all our ancestors were gay, we wouldn't' be here.


Homosexuality isn't a race. Yes. But race isn't the only factor that can make a person a minority. Religion for one. Society has deemed that there be protections for minority groups against discrimination.

Btw, If you believe in evolution, you also would note that being that all gay children come from straight parents being gay isn't the result of a single biological factor which could be weeded out.

Even if every single gay person on earth was murdered and society was such that only heterosexual relationships were condoned and taught in your nazi fantasy land, the next generation, oh hey, there'd be a new batch of gay people.

Basically its a cocktail of biological factors which in conjunction result in gay. Its not something that evolution can breed out.


----------



## Griever (Jun 4, 2014)

don't see why it's a big deal. if individuals have the right to chose what businesses they support with their money then the opposite should also be true, with businesses choosing who's money they want to take.

wouldn't be a big problem regardless considering in most cases; money trumps personal morals. 
I'd bet more on greed than law, in this case.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 4, 2014)

One of the few things I learned from this thread is that some people in the Cafe support discrimination and inequality so long as its only against a certain group of people


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 4, 2014)

Griever said:


> don't see why it's a big deal. if individuals have the right to chose what businesses they support with their money then the opposite should also be true, with businesses choosing who's money they want to take.
> 
> wouldn't be a big problem regardless considering in most cases; money trumps personal morals.
> I'd bet more on greed than law, in this case.



That's utterly retarded. The two situations aren't even close to being equivalent to another.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 4, 2014)

Griever said:


> don't see why it's a big deal. if individuals have the right to chose what businesses they support with their money then the opposite should also be true, with businesses choosing who's money they want to take.
> 
> wouldn't be a big problem regardless considering in most cases; money trumps personal morals.
> I'd bet more on greed than law, in this case.



You can't do that because it would be discrimination. I literally can't understand what part of that some people in this thread are missing. 

If you offer a public service, you have to offer it to the *PUBLIC*. 

Not just the part of the public you approve of.


----------



## Griever (Jun 4, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> That's utterly retarded. The two situations aren't even close to being equivalent to another.



Y'know. Starting all your arguments off with a "that's stupid" or "that's retarded" or any other variant gets pretty old. why not try and add some flavor to your posts?. 

Anyways. i see it as being quite similar. if you disagree, whatever.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 4, 2014)

Griever said:


> don't see why it's a big deal. if individuals have the right to chose what businesses they support with their money then the opposite should also be true, with businesses choosing who's money they want to take.
> 
> wouldn't be a big problem regardless considering in most cases; money trumps personal morals.
> I'd bet more on greed than law, in this case.



Uh....no. Because then you basically say civil rights are out the window because businesses can reject anyone for any reason.

Businesses DON'T have the right to reject people based on discriminatory terms, that's the whole point.

And what with this "money trumps personal morals" claptrap. You have a terrible outlook on life with that attitude.

Its not about disagreeing, its about your views objectively being ridiculous in today's society especially


----------



## KFC (Jun 4, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Yes then thinking about it and not acting on it doesn't make me one.
> 
> Having a gay thought and not being attracted to it doesn't make you gay.



No, thinking about what gay sex could possibly be like doesn't make you gay. However, if you get aroused in your own mind at the thought of this gay sex, then you are to some degree gay/bisexual, because otherwise you wouldn't get aroused.

Now, simply saying that you're at least some degree of gay doesn't mean that you go around having sex with lots and lots of guys. You can be bisexual, without ever having sex with a man. You're still technically bisexual because of the arousal that you get from the idea of gay sex, but you simply don't actually do anything with another man.

I mean, really nothing to be worried about. None of this "repressing our sinful desires" bullshit is really necessary. You're attracted to what/who you're attracted to, simple as that. It was the social construct of sin/sex shaming that has made homosexuality, as both a practice and a thought, something that is shunned by some people.


----------



## Griever (Jun 4, 2014)

Inuhanyou said:


> Uh....no. Because then you basically say civil rights are out the window because businesses can reject anyone for any reason.
> 
> Businesses DON'T have the right to reject people based on discriminatory terms, that's the whole point.
> 
> And what with this "money trumps personal morals" claptrap. You have a terrible outlook on life with that attitude.



Hey, what can i say?, i'm a cynic. Which is why i don't give a darn about this. since in my view, greed is a better motivator than law.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 4, 2014)

Griever said:


> Y'know. Starting all your arguments off with a "that's stupid" or "that's retarded" or any other variant gets pretty old. why not try and add some flavor to your posts?.
> 
> Anyways. i see it as being quite similar. if you disagree, whatever.



Flavor, huh? Well it's retarded. Why? *Because* we have had a thing called *anti-discrimination laws*. Do you know a little thing called the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, that exactly touched upon this issue? "Whites only" "No Coloreds Allowed"? Ring a bell? Remember how discriminating on such basis was deemed illegal? Do you recall something further down the road that refers to uh, "protected classes"? Of which recently sexual orientation fell under federally and in Colorado on a state level? It doesn't really matter jack shit how you see it, because it's clear you don't understand it. Businesses offer their services to the public, they therefore are subject to laws regarding the public.


----------



## Random Stranger (Jun 4, 2014)

How do stuff like Women Only Gyms etc fit in these anti-discrimination laws? I mean obviously discrimination is allowed in public services...to some degree at least.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 4, 2014)

Random Stranger said:


> How do stuff like Women Only Gyms etc fit in these anti-discrimination laws? I mean obviously discrimination is allowed in public services...to some degree at least.



Thats for more about the privacy and protection of women who want to be able to go to a gym and be able to work out without be oogled at or hit on or just be some object for guys to stare at. 

I love that there is a Womens Fitness gyms so close to my apartment, otherwise my only option would have been the campus gym, which I more than likely would not have used due to the high volume of sweaty frat guys. 

I understand the reasoning for your statement but the two are in no way similar.


----------



## Griever (Jun 4, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Flavor, huh? Well it's retarded. Why? *Because* we have had a thing called *anti-discrimination laws*. Do you know a little thing called the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, that exactly touched upon this issue? "Whites only" "No Coloreds Allowed"? Ring a bell? Remember how discriminating on such basis was deemed illegal? Do you recall something further down the road that refers to uh, "protected classes"? Of which recently sexual orientation fell under federally and in Colorado on a state level? It doesn't really matter jack shit how you see it, because it's clear you don't understand it. Businesses offer their services to the public, they therefore are subject to laws regarding the public.



And at that time it was a complete necessity as it was a huge and large scale problem. 
I haven't seen this become a large scale problem, only in small, isolated incidents, if it did become a big problem that demanded action and I where proven wrong. Then i would gladly support legal action against it. 

gotta let go of it at some point.



Inuhanyou said:


> Its not about disagreeing, its about your views objectively being ridiculous in today's society especially



My "view" is basically that Greed would even it out, to the point where it wouldn't be a very wide-spread problem.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 4, 2014)

Fiona said:


> Thats for more about the privacy and protection of women who want to be able to go to a gym and be able to work out without be oogled at or hit on or just be some object for guys to stare at.



Thank god there is no such things as lesbians and butch women who look at more feminine women especially when they are working out.


----------



## EJ (Jun 4, 2014)

^ There are more complaints about guys doing it though.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 4, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> Thank god there is no such things as lesbians and butch women who look at more feminine women especially when they are working out.





Flow said:


> ^ There are more complaints about guys doing it though.



                                                            .


----------



## Totally not a cat (Jun 4, 2014)

*Looks away* *5 new pages*
Guys, let's not forget who the OP is


----------



## Random Stranger (Jun 4, 2014)

Fiona said:


> Thats for more about the privacy and protection of women who want to be able to go to a gym and be able to work out without be oogled at or hit on or just be some object for guys to stare at.
> 
> I love that there is a Womens Fitness gyms so close to my apartment, otherwise my only option would have been the campus gym, which I more than likely would not have used due to the high volume of sweaty frat guys.
> 
> I understand the reasoning for your statement but the two are in no way similar.


I wouldn't go as far as to say that they are in no way similar, in fact I'd say they are more similar than they are not:

Similar:
- both are blatant attitudes of prejudice and discrimination
- Women Only Gyms reasons for not servicing men are demonizing (all men are horn dogs etc) to men and effect them negatively both by not servicing them and by their reasons, this baker is it to gays.  

Non-similar:
Women Only Gyms are legally and socially allowed, baker isn't.


----------



## Enclave (Jun 4, 2014)

Fiona said:


> Thats for more about the privacy and protection of women who want to be able to go to a gym and be able to work out without be oogled at or hit on or just be some object for guys to stare at.
> 
> I love that there is a Womens Fitness gyms so close to my apartment, otherwise my only option would have been the campus gym, which I more than likely would not have used due to the high volume of sweaty frat guys.
> 
> I understand the reasoning for your statement but the two are in no way similar.



Not really different actually.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 4, 2014)

Well to me its different. 

I am biased though in that I use the women only gyms for the exact reasons that they exist.


----------



## EJ (Jun 4, 2014)

Random Stranger said:


> I wouldn't go as far as to say that they are in no way similar, in fact I'd say they are more similar than they are not:
> 
> Similar:
> - both are blatant attitudes of prejudice and discrimination
> ...



Not that they are entirely similar, but do you believe restrooms should be open to both genders?


----------



## Random Stranger (Jun 4, 2014)

Flow said:


> Not that they are entirely similar, but do you believe restrooms should be open to both genders?


Restrooms come in pairs (men and women). And in cases that there is only one restroom it is usually unisex, so I dont think they are exactly comparable. A facility offering only a single Women Only restroom is more comparable.


----------



## EJ (Jun 4, 2014)

Would you rather see unisex restrooms?


----------



## Xyloxi (Jun 4, 2014)

Flow said:


> Would you rather see unisex restrooms?



In sports arenas, yes. As the queue for the male toilets is always ridiculously long. That and trans* people have to poo somewhere.


----------



## EJ (Jun 4, 2014)

They definitely need to put more stalls in the restrooms.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 4, 2014)

Griever said:


> And at that time it was a complete necessity as it was a huge and large scale problem.
> I haven't seen this become a large scale problem, only in small, isolated incidents, if it did become a big problem that demanded action and I where proven wrong. Then i would gladly support legal action against it.
> 
> gotta let go of it at some point.



Ridiculous. The scale does not change the nature of the problem, which civil rights laws address.


----------



## Random Stranger (Jun 4, 2014)

Flow said:


> Would you rather see unisex restrooms?


Tell Ari that after all this time my love for her still burns strong. Also tell her to give me her Skype.


----------



## EJ (Jun 4, 2014)

Were you going to answer my question?


----------



## Random Stranger (Jun 4, 2014)

Are you going to convey my message to Ari?


----------



## Griever (Jun 4, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Ridiculous. The scale does not change the nature of the problem, which civil rights laws address.



The scale has everything to do with it. between the need to demand people treat each other right and not. 

see where i'm going with this?.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 4, 2014)

Griever said:


> The scale has everything to do with it. between the need to demand people treat each other right and not.
> 
> see where i'm going with this?.



Im not sure anyone here knows where you are going with this. 

Discrimination is wrong no matter the scale.


----------



## Totally not a cat (Jun 4, 2014)

Not being the greatest asshat you possibly could doesn't make you a good person, and in this case, it doesn't justify discrimination either. There's not much else to it.


----------



## Griever (Jun 4, 2014)

Fiona said:


> Im not sure anyone here knows where you are going with this.
> 
> Discrimination is wrong no matter the scale.



If the issue has to be forced by law, then there is not much meaning in it. You are not making the problem go away and at worst you're just fostering resentment 

Changing the way people perceive a certain group of people. is a process, it does not happen over night. and for that change to fully settle people need to have their breathing room and not feel they are being forced. because if they feel they are being forced; They'll get defensive and when they get defensive they will dig their heals into the ground.


----------



## Risyth (Jun 4, 2014)

Griever said:


> If the issue has to be forced by law, then there is not much meaning in it. You are not making the problem go away and at worst you're just fostering resentment
> 
> Changing the way people perceive a certain group of people. is a process, it does not happen over night. and for that change to fully settle people need to have their breathing room and not feel they are being force. because if they feel they are being forced; They'll get defensive and when they get defensive they will dig their heals into the ground.



And you're saying that guy would change overtime, and that it'd justify letting him discriminate until then anyway? His beliefs aren't nearly as flimsy as you're implying they are.

MLK wrote his Birmingham jail letter to people with your logic, you know.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 4, 2014)

Griever said:


> If the issue has to be forced by law, then there is not much meaning in it. You are not making the problem go away and at worst you're just fostering resentment
> 
> Changing the way people perceive a certain group of people. is a process, it does not happen over night. and for that change to fully settle people need to have their breathing room and not feel they are being force. because if they feel they are being forced; They'll get defensive and when they get defensive they will dig their heals into the ground.



That's absolutely idiotic. Law has been an effective measure in addressing the issues of prejudice and discrimination, and done much in people's attitudes toward it. The Civil Rights movement did much in discouraging the rampant prejudices held by society, as being forced to actually engage and interact with the oppressed forced people to acknowledge their humanity. It allowed people empathy that could not have been possible keeping the groups separate from each other. 

You do not know shit of what you're talking about. If this were the rationale people used we'd still be racially segregated. Breaking down that institution through law has done much to discourage the attitudes that fed it to begin with. The same with homosexuality. By acknowledging those whom are such as a protected class that have their rights, by bringing who they are to the public circle people are forced to see that they are human beings fundamentally no different from themselves. When a government recognizes the humanity of a group of people by law, and the rights of a group by law, it plays a strong factor in having society recognize the humanity of that group and the rights of that group and in turn, dissipating the prejudices surrounding them.


----------



## Griever (Jun 4, 2014)

Risyth said:


> And you're saying that guy would change overtime, and that it'd justify letting him discriminate until then anyway? His beliefs aren't nearly as flimsy as you're implying they are.
> 
> MLK wrote his Birmingham jail letter to people with your logic, you know.



That's not what i'm saying re-read.



Seto Kaiba said:


> That's absolutely idiotic. Law has been an effective measure in addressing the issues of prejudice and discrimination, and done much in people's attitudes toward it. The Civil Rights movement did much in discouraging the rampant prejudices held by society, as being forced to actually engage and interact with the oppressed forced people to acknowledge their humanity. It allowed people empathy that could not have been possible keeping the groups separate from each other.
> 
> You do not know shit of what you're talking about. If this were the rationale people used we'd still be racially segregated. Breaking down that institution through law has done much to discourage the attitudes that fed it to begin with. The same with homosexuality. By acknowledging those whom are such as a protected class that have their rights, by bringing who they are to the public circle people are forced to see that they are human beings fundamentally no different from themselves. When a government recognizes the humanity of a group of people by law, and the rights of a group by law, it plays a strong factor in having society recognize the humanity of that group and the rights of that group and in turn, dissipating the prejudices surrounding them.



We are not talking about the Civil rights movement, which i already agreed was a necessity.  

This is a different time and a different situation in a society that is not segregated and is not  completely homophobic, with many other outlets at our disposal. Which using said outlets is what i am advocating not sitting back and twiddling our thumbs.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 4, 2014)

Griever said:


> That's not what i'm saying re-read.



By implication it's what you'd be allowing.


----------



## Risyth (Jun 4, 2014)

Worst rebuttal of all time.


----------



## Griever (Jun 4, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> By implication it's what you'd be allowing.



No it wouldn't. Because i said clearly "process". Process implies stages of action towards a certain goal.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 4, 2014)

Griever said:


> No it wouldn't. Because i said clearly "process". Process implies stages of action towards a certain goal.



Which means you would allow those to continue their discriminatory practices until they either don't feel like it anymore, or some reason have a crisis of conscience. 



> We are not talking about the Civil rights movement, which i already agreed was a necessity.
> 
> This is a different time and a different situation in a society that is not segregated and is not completely homophobic, with many other outlets at our disposal. Which using said outlets is what i am advocating not sitting back and twiddling our thumbs.



The law is "twiddling our thumbs"? I would think using the law is quite proactive. Furthermore, the different times does not change the nature of discrimination and bigotry.


----------



## Risyth (Jun 4, 2014)

Griever said:


> No it wouldn't. Because i said clearly "process". Process implies stages of action towards a certain goal.



_And you're saying that guy would change overtime* [through the naively idealistic process you're hoping for]*, and that it'd justify letting him discriminate until then anyway? His beliefs aren't nearly as flimsy as you're implying they are.

MLK wrote his Birmingham jail letter to people with your logic, you know._


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 4, 2014)

Griever said:


> If the issue has to be forced by law, then there is not much meaning in it. You are not making the problem go away and at worst you're just fostering resentment
> 
> Changing the way people perceive a certain group of people. is a process, it does not happen over night. and for that change to fully settle people need to have their breathing room and not feel they are being forced. because if they feel they are being forced; They'll get defensive and when they get defensive they will dig their heals into the ground.



bah

people can adjust to most things, including anti-discrimination laws. the issue should be forced by the law. this soft option attitude of trying to _persuade_ people to not be bigoted shitbags is not actually practical. how exactly do you achieve this? show a bunch of PBS specials to convince the american public that gays are people too?

all rhetoric like this does is cement the status quo. force the changes with the law. screw whatever "resentment" it fosters. this isn't a battle for the mind of america. this is just a battle to let gay people live as equal members of society. if some people get upset about that, that's okay - they just aren't allowed to express it in a way that prevents gay people from living free and equal lives


----------



## Griever (Jun 4, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Which means you would allow those to continue their discriminatory practices until they either don't feel like it anymore, or some reason have a crisis of conscience.



tell me how forcing people to serve food to those they clearly don't like, is preferable?. 

And no, that would be 'inaction' which again is not what i'm advocating.



> The law is "twiddling our thumbs"? I would think using the law is quite proactive. Furthermore, the different times does not change the nature of discrimination and bigotry.



No, that was in response to you and others thinking i am advocating inaction (letting it runs its course) ie twiddling our thumbs. the statement had nothing to do with law.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 4, 2014)

Griever said:


> tell me how forcing people to serve food to those they clearly don't like, is preferable?.



Why is forcing people to treat fellow human beings equally preferable? 

Hmm let me think.........................


----------



## Enclave (Jun 4, 2014)

Fiona said:


> Well to me its different.
> 
> I am biased though in that I use the women only gyms for the exact reasons that they exist.



Oh I'm sure you use women only gyms for the exact reason they exist, that doesn't suddenly mean though that they are not discriminatory.

There's a reason some States have made them not allowed and others tackled it by saying that mens only services are also allowed.  It's the only way it's non-discriminatory.

Thing is, whenever a men's only club of some kind is made?  Shit hits the fan.

All things being equal?  Either there can be no women only clubs or mens only clubs must be allowed.  There's no middle ground there.



Griever said:


> If the issue has to be forced by law, then there is not much meaning in it. You are not making the problem go away and at worst you're just fostering resentment
> 
> Changing the way people perceive a certain group of people. is a process, it does not happen over night. and for that change to fully settle people need to have their breathing room and not feel they are being forced. because if they feel they are being forced; They'll get defensive and when they get defensive they will dig their heals into the ground.



History has shown that the best way to get people to change is in fact to get the law involved to force change.  Just ignoring it and expecting change?  Doesn't tend to do much at all.


----------



## Griever (Jun 4, 2014)

Fiona said:


> Why is forcing people to treat fellow human beings equally preferable?
> 
> Hmm let me think.........................



No. Forcing people to "serve food" something that is easy to contaminate.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 4, 2014)

Yay, homosexuality being forced on someone else despite their constitutional rights.


People should be able to choose their customer base not accept whomever comes out of the woodwork, they should have the ability to turn someone down if their values are fundamentally different as in this case(only if there is another business of similar nature nearby. IE a gay person trying to get gas can't be turned down if he is 1. In dire need, or 2. there isn't a nearby gas station, but someone can't be sent off to multiple businesses and get a run around(1 could say that they are in need of gas, everytime I pay for gas I say "I need "however much" on pump "whatever') but in this case a wedding is planned for a long time and one should be able to find a suitable baker. 


I also think its bullshit if churches have to hold gay ceremonies. Just because they don't agree with your ideals doesn't give you the right to defile their sanctity. 

They should've just accepted that those people "kindly" declined their business instead of throwing them out while yelling all kinds of gay slurs. Its mutual respect, the Christians didn't agree with the gays' ideology, yet the gays can't accept the Christians ideology and move on after the fact while the actions them self were not detrimental to the gays' but to the kind Christians. Also I didn't read all of the article, but nonetheless- What if they wanted two men on the cake holding hands or displaying some other form of affection? That would go clear against their ideology that they base their life on, thats fucked up.




I don't care, continue the assault on Christians. Mark my words though, it will end badly some people will accept color, they will not accept same sex unions. You think the south was pissed off about integration and civil rights? That shit won't compare to the uproar that will be caused in the South...People will riot and destruction will ensue if its taken to far. Especially if its at the cost of their constitutional rights and going against their religion...thats worse than taking the citizens' guns away. Also alot of minorities do not agree with homosexuality, its not just the evil white men that don't like homosexuals.


----------



## Risyth (Jun 4, 2014)

This thread just went to 11.


----------



## Gunners (Jun 4, 2014)

Why would you want to be served by someone who harbours malice towards you? I don't think people address issues in a practical manner. 

The failure to provide a service is a result of the prejudices held on to; forcing people to provide a service will do little to remove that prejudice, and there is every possibility that their prejudice will manifest in a different manner. 

You need to remove the prejudices from the individual, or remove them from positions where they have an influence. In other words teach those capable of learning; boycott or fire those who are too stubborn to change. 

The approach is also why I think people are getting lazier. You'd think with the increase in gay marriage, more people would get the bright idea of starting and greatly promoting a chain of wedding shops rooted in open acceptance. You know, start putting money in the hands of people who share the same values, as opposed to supporting bigoted shits.


----------



## Ceria (Jun 4, 2014)

What a fucked up world we live in, how can you force someone to serve someone they choose not to? 

Making a business owner service a customer he chooses not to is pretty damn tyrannical. 

I can't believe a judge didn't throw this insanity out.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 4, 2014)

Gunners said:


> Why would you want to be served by someone who harbours malice towards you? I don't think people address issues in a practical manner.
> 
> The failure to provide a service is a result of the prejudices held on to; forcing people to provide a service will do little to remove that prejudice, and there is every possibility that their prejudice will manifest in a different manner.
> 
> ...



Taking legal action *isn't* going to send a message that such discriminatory practices are unacceptable?

Most businesses like these are boycotted, some even losing business to the point where they have to shut down. This case would probably be no different.


----------



## Risyth (Jun 4, 2014)

Ceria said:


> What a fucked up world we live in, how can you force someone to serve someone they choose not to?
> 
> Making a business owner service a customer he chooses not to is pretty damn tyrannical.
> 
> I can't believe a judge didn't throw this insanity out.



This is nothing new at all.




> Taking legal action isn't going to send a message that such discriminatory practices are unacceptable?


@Seto Kaiba: Good point. When it all comes down to it, private businesses aren't immune to state laws.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 4, 2014)

Enclave said:


> Oh I'm sure you use women only gyms for the exact reason they exist, that doesn't suddenly mean though that they are not discriminatory.


They are clearly discriminatory, just like Black Colleges, Women hospitals, Minority organizations, and a slew of other things...but yet Ole Miss can't be an all White college(even though its Historically white by definition, and that its the same principle on why all black colleges are allowed). That evil white son of bitch...man I tell you we are the scum of this planet. We take others land masses, we enslave them and defile their civilizations...Which to my understanding is Human Nature not White Man Nature(if there is even such a thing).



> There's a reason some States have made them not allowed and others tackled it by saying that mens only services are also allowed.  It's the only way it's non-discriminatory.
> 
> Thing is, whenever a men's only club of some kind is made?  Shit hits the fan.
> 
> All things being equal?  Either there can be no women only clubs or mens only clubs must be allowed.  There's no middle ground there.


Thing will never be equal eventually use white men while be slaves to the minorities. You have all these things to help women integrate into fields of studies yet what they don't understand is that the men need help to even think about certain fields of study. They are under the assumption that just because women have a low amount of jobs in certain fields means that they "need" to be placed more throughout that field. Yet for generations on end women have stayed at the house and kept it in order while the men went and worked in various fields. Just last year for the hell of it I went to grant/scholarship place to see which ones were available throughout the year, Its was fucking sad how much white men are discriminated against, every minority had hundreds, white men...not over 10, and the people there told me to put down that I am part Native American and that will greatly increase my odds.

This isn't a fair country, never has, never will. We do what suits the masses while appealing to the minority.


> History has shown that the best way to get people to change is in fact to get the law involved to force change.  Just ignoring it and expecting change?  Doesn't tend to do much at all.


Yet history has also shown and quite recently across the world that people will not be happy and enforcing the law to certain extents could incite anger on a large scale.

You can't just run over people and defile their religion to conform to your ideology which goes against the nature of their religion. I wonder how well this will go for a propaganda tool for the Taliban. "Look at America, they dishonor god in every way possible just as Sodom and Gomorrah" 

Then think about extreme Christians who are ready to kill for their religion and its values if need be. And they are coupled with extreme Americans who believe whole heartly with the Constitution and think that the government is becoming too large and too enforcing. America is already headed to a revolt of some sort, its best not to add fuel until you kill the fire.


----------



## Juda (Jun 4, 2014)

I agree, after reading some of these comments that if you open a business to the public and for the public and expect them to buy from you, then you must tolerate whomever comes through your door. 

But, what fcks me over is that you must be "forced" . How can we evolve and no longer have discrimination if your "forcing" people to change? before, Klu Klux Klan members were in the millions! but years later, it was reduced to mere thousands because of "laws" . Just because you make laws to prevent people to do things does not mean they won't do it. You do not need to be in the KKK to hate certain groups of people. because no matter how many "laws" are made, sht won't change as long as people aren't willing to realize that things takes time! you cannot expect people to agree with you fully after a few years, thats just nonesense. 

Homosexuality can be tolerated as long as people are given time to realize they're people to. Time to understand that they're humans like you and I. Fcking forcing someone out of there free will just makes things worst then it already is.


----------



## Risyth (Jun 4, 2014)

@IchLiebe: Whether you're a Christian or not, please stop debasing Christianity with your prejudices. Thanks.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 4, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> Yay, homosexuality being forced on someone else despite their constitutional rights.



Since when did discrimination become a constitutional right?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 4, 2014)

Pretty sure the civil rights era was specifically debunking discrimination as a civil right. So no, your wrong. I can't understand there are people actually serious about such an ass backward notion. It makes me sick


----------



## Island (Jun 4, 2014)

Juda said:


> But, what fcks me over is that you must be "forced" . How can we evolve and no longer have discrimination if your "forcing" people to change? before, Klu Klux Klan members were in the millions! but years later, it was reduced to mere thousands because of "laws" . *Just because you make laws to prevent people to do things does not mean they won't do it.* You do not need to be in the KKK to hate certain groups of people. because no matter how many "laws" are made, sht won't change as long as people aren't willing to realize that things takes time! you cannot expect people to agree with you fully after a few years, thats just nonesense.


Yes, but there's a tendency for people to stop doing things that are bigoted _and_ against the law. I don't know about you, but I haven't seen any serfs around lately or stoned somebody because they believe something different than I do. Do you know why that is? Because these practices were outlawed, and people began to realize that they were outlawed because they were backwards and bigoted.

There's a _huge_ historical precedent for laws successfully doing away with discriminatory actions before society at large realizes that the change is necessary.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 4, 2014)

I mean I am used to ichi saying stupid things, but thats ridiculous even by his standards


----------



## Jagger (Jun 4, 2014)

I don't really understand why the baker should decline his own clients in the first place unless they were being offensive or impatient.

Seriously, don't you need the money in the first place?


----------



## Risyth (Jun 4, 2014)

Jagger said:


> I don't really understand why the baker should decline his own clients in the first place unless they were being offensive or impatient.
> 
> Seriously, don't you need the money in the first place?



Never underestimate the inflexibility of one's religious beliefs.


----------



## Jagger (Jun 4, 2014)

I'm aware of that as well, but I just see it as ilogical.

Leaving religious beliefs aside, the person worked in the store to earn money (and maybe enjoyed baking in the first place), so why would he reject someone that is requesting an order?


----------



## Risyth (Jun 4, 2014)

Jagger said:


> I'm aware of that as well, but I just see it as ilogical.
> 
> Leaving religious beliefs aside, the person worked in the store to earn money (and maybe enjoyed baking in the first place), so why would he reject someone that is requesting an order?



Because he doesn't believe in their sexual lifestyle. There's really no more to it than that.

Stupid, isn't it?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 4, 2014)

Apparently you should be able to look into someone else's personal life and judge whether they are or are not deserving of being treated equally in the eyes of the law


----------



## Gin (Jun 4, 2014)

eh, some people don't agree with gay marriage

they didn't want to bake a cake _specifically for_ a gay wedding, as I guess they thought they'd be contributing to it

it doesn't sound like they would have turned away gay customers asking for a regular cake

but on the other hand the law's the law I guess


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 4, 2014)

Frost said:


> eh, some people don't agree with gay marriage
> 
> they didn't want to bake a cake _specifically for_ a gay wedding, as I guess they thought they'd be contributing to it
> 
> ...



your name is frost and you're commenting on an article about cake

yummy


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jun 4, 2014)

I wonder how life would be if people had the right to refuse their services to anyone they feel like 

I.e

1) Police Officer: " Sorry Jamal due to my personal beliefs I won't be able to assist you this evening."


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 4, 2014)

We've already had a world like that, i don't think we need to go back


----------



## Gino (Jun 4, 2014)

What I learned in this thread what does being black ,gay or an p*d*p**** have in common discrimination therefore it's the same thing.


----------



## Gin (Jun 4, 2014)

Lucaniel said:


> your name is frost and you're commenting on an article about cake
> 
> yummy




knew this thread looked familiar


----------



## santanico (Jun 4, 2014)

Thor said:


> So the gaystapo now have enough pull to legally violate a man's freedom of choice. How long before gays force people to sleep with them because not sleeping with them is deemed "intolerant". This is sick. What are your thoughts on this??
> 
> I began making cakes two years ago. I'm good at it. Everyone wants me to go into business...but I don't want to. Because of things like this.



baaaaaaaaaaaaww you poor thing


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 4, 2014)

@Risyth- I know what Christianity preaches, and what its values are. I live in the bible belt, went to church for most of my life. Just because certain Christians go against their values and accept heresy doesn't mean that it is justified within their religion. They can't just change the rules only God can.


@Fiona- I was talking about Religious Freedom and you most definitely know that. Just like certain exemptions from ObamaCare and certain policies based on their religious ideologies. We go to great lengths in this country to ensure religious freedom yet it must be thrown to the side for 2-5% of the population because their entire ideology is a sin(Crime against God). And don't say the actions are what counts, if you preach for homosexuality I would assume that it is the same as committing an act of that nature. If I preached terrorism and funded terrorism, is that not the same as committing terrorism in the government's eyes'?


@Juda- They realize they are human when they entered through the door. To say that they need time to accept that they are human is null when they have accepted the fact that every homosexual is in fact...HUMAN, as far as we know.

@Jagger- Maybe he is able to afford declining a customer(what if he already had orders on that day and couldn't fill the order(I know that is not the case just saying hypothetically since we have no idea how much money they have to begin with) when compared to the treasures he will be rewarded with in the afterlife. Follow God's rules and this world will hold no claim, nothing is forever but eternity in heaven or hell. Just look at Job as an example, people will move past earthly punishments and travesties.


@Inuyahana- Its not about discrimination. YOu shouldn't discriminate against someone based on their inherent qualities or looks, but you should be able to based on their ideology and lifestyle if it goes against everything you live your life for. How hard is this to comprehend? If someone is against violence then they will stop business with a tyrant, if they like violence they will do business with the tyrant.

Its human nature.

Most of America hold onto to two things until death be damned, the Bible and the Constitution(which it gets altered through fancy speaking). But people trust in the bible above everything, they fear God above government.



And at whomever asked about if they are a public institution/store/etc. then they should accept any of the public? Well homeless people are discriminated against everyday then. And would putting a religious sign outside your door more or less show where you align your views and values with?


----------



## Risyth (Jun 4, 2014)

Danger Doom said:


> I wonder how life would be if people had the right to refuse their services to anyone they feel like
> 
> I.e
> 
> 1) Police Officer: " Sorry Jamal due to my personal beliefs I won't be able to assist you this evening."



That's a strawman.


----------



## Raidoton (Jun 4, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> @Fiona- I was talking about Religious Freedom and you most definitely know that. Just like certain exemptions from ObamaCare and certain policies based on their religious ideologies. We go to great lengths in this country to ensure religious freedom yet it must be thrown to the side for 2-5% of the population because their entire ideology is a sin(Crime against God). And don't say the actions are what counts, if you preach for homosexuality I would assume that it is the same as committing an act of that nature. If I preached terrorism and funded terrorism, is that not the same as committing terrorism in the government's eyes'?


Religious freedom ends where it breaks the law. It's that simple...



IchLiebe said:


> @Inuyahana- Its not about discrimination. YOu shouldn't discriminate against someone based on their inherent qualities or looks, but you should be able to based on their ideology and lifestyle if it goes against everything you live your life for. How hard is this to comprehend?


How hard is it for you to comprehend that you can justify any discrimination by this?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 4, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> Most of America hold onto to two things until death be damned, the Bible and the Constitution(which it gets altered through fancy speaking). But people trust in the bible above everything, they fear God above government.



If its one thing i can't stand, its putting your views in everyone else's mouth. We're not a 'family' here pal, as nice as it would be. Not everyone believes in the same ass backwards stuff your kind of person does.

As much as ignorance is loud and boisterous, its not the majority.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jun 4, 2014)

And Ichileibe, there is clear _separation of Church and State_. Only in the Bible Belt, where you come from, people thing that should change so they can continue to discriminate and hate people due to their 'religious beliefs'.


----------



## eHav (Jun 4, 2014)

Risyth said:


> Because he doesn't believe in their sexual lifestyle. There's really no more to it than that.
> 
> Stupid, isn't it?



its about as stupid as forcing someone to bake a cake for something that goes against their beliefs.

i bet if he was refusing to bake a cake for some known p*d*p**** out of jail no one would be complaining about it and advocating the pedophiles right to get his cake


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jun 4, 2014)

Hahahaha, so the United Church of Christ, which not only accepts Gays and Gay marriage, but protects their rights, is a heretical sect? Ichiliebe, if anything Evangelicals and Fundies such as yourself are the heretics who refused to move with the times.



eHav said:


> its about as stupid as forcing someone to bake a cake for something that goes against their beliefs.
> 
> i bet if he was refusing to bake a cake for some known p*d*p**** out of jail no one would be complaining about it and advocating the pedophiles right to get his cake


Yah never heard of NAMBLA have ya?


----------



## Krory (Jun 4, 2014)

The important question - that I don't know if it was answered yet - is was the wedding cake in the shape of a penis?


----------



## Risyth (Jun 4, 2014)

> @Risyth- I know what Christianity preaches, and what its values are. I live in the bible belt, went to church for most of my life. Just because certain Christians go against their values and accept heresy doesn't mean that it is justified within their religion. They can't just change the rules only God can.


Going to church means nothing. Do you know how many people go to church and aren't true? The same thing happens in the Bible itself. Not all churches are true, either. And where you live doesn't matter if it's not Heaven. Such boastings aren't at all admirable or modest.

Christianity is the acceptance of Jesus' place in the Trinity, his life, rebirth, and doctrines. I didn't know any of his doctrines involved discrimination against homosexuals. I thought only God dealt out whatever punishments there were to deal out.

"Heresy" you said.


But that's all I'll say about that. Unless you can quote a passage that contradicts my rationale, of course.


----------



## Risyth (Jun 4, 2014)

eHav said:


> its about as stupid as forcing someone to bake a cake for something that goes against their beliefs.
> 
> i bet if he was refusing to bake a cake for some known p*d*p**** out of jail no one would be complaining about it and advocating the pedophiles right to get his cake


That's completely irrelevant to what I'd said.

I was referring to his losing money and general customer satisfaction for the sake of misguided and hypocritical beliefs. His reputation's awful because he's prejudiced. 

Now that's very Christian.


Regardless, he broke the law, so that's all that matters. If the law changed, who knows what my opinion on it would be? But who cares what my opinion would be anyway? I never gave it here. I'm thinking objectively.

He's lucky he's being forced to serve them instead of serve time in prison. I don't know what the law entails as punishment for not following it, but it could've been much worse for him.


----------



## Ceria (Jun 4, 2014)

Risyth said:


> This is nothing new at all.



I don't care about whether or not the baker discriminated the gay couple. 

What i have trouble with is the audacity of someone coming into another person's business and tell them they have to serve them.


----------



## Gino (Jun 4, 2014)

Honestly I'm still trying to figure out how the the couple got away with trolling of this magnitude I applaud them.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 4, 2014)

Religious Freedom does not mean you get to discriminate whoever you want based on said religion.


----------



## Gino (Jun 4, 2014)

Fiona said:


> Religious Freedom does not mean you get to discriminate whoever you want based on said religion.



So what's going to be done to actually solve this problem? The solution presented in the article isn't actually an solution it will more then likely........make things worse.


Hence we keep having these threads pop up over and over again.


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 4, 2014)

Fiona said:


> Since when did discrimination become a constitutional right?


Ever since you drove the British out of your country. You chose to boycott tea from the British. As a tea merchant, I feel oppressed by straight white American males. What so bad about British tea? Think of the poor teabags as they fell into the water. They never got to experience their goal of life.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 4, 2014)

eHav said:


> its about as stupid as forcing someone to bake a cake for something that goes against their beliefs.
> 
> i bet if he was refusing to bake a cake for some known p*d*p**** out of jail no one would be complaining about it and advocating the pedophiles right to get his cake



I am amazed at the number of people here that seem to find the concept of anti-discrimination laws too much to grasp. If you offer a service to the public, you are subject to public laws. 

What the fuck would pedophilia have in relevance to the cake? What a dumbass response. Always goes to that with people like you too.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 4, 2014)

Its like the same kind people who say that freedom of speech means they can basically be an asshole to anyone they want without social repercussions. If you get fired from your job, its not a denial of your freedom of speech. 

Just like being punished for going against the law doesn't mean its a denial of your 'rights'. Whatever that means.


----------



## Krory (Jun 4, 2014)

>MFW people claiming the baker refused to serve a gay couple when he just said he wouldn't make a wedding cake but would literally make _anything else_... did not dismiss the customers, tell them to leave, refuse to make anything for them. Just a wedding cake


----------



## Gino (Jun 4, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> What the fuck would pedophilia have in relevance to the cake? What a dumbass response. Always goes to that with people like you too.




You got a smart mouth I'll give you that.

Obviously I wasn't talking about cake in that response idiot.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 4, 2014)

Its the same thing Krory. Denial of service is denial of service. He denied making them a cake even though it is against the law to do so. If he wasn't going to make it, he better have some other workers up in that place making it.


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 4, 2014)

I need equality because Windows refuses to run my Linux programs. It's a crying shame in this day and age that not every operating system tolerates other platforms.


----------



## EJ (Jun 4, 2014)

What's going on now?


----------



## Krory (Jun 4, 2014)

Inuhanyou said:


> Its the same thing Krory. Denial of service is denial of service. He denied making them a cake even though it is against the law to do so. If he wasn't going to make it, he better have some other workers up in that place making it.



Not only did he not deny service, he still tried to _offer_ his service.

This is like causing hell because I can't get pork roll at the Jewish deli nearby. I can buy anything else but I want pork roll - but no, it's those damn Jews that need sensitivity training for not carrying my damn meat.


----------



## eHav (Jun 4, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I am amazed at the number of people here that seem to find the concept of anti-discrimination laws too much to grasp. If you offer a service to the public, you are subject to public laws.
> 
> What the fuck would pedophilia have in relevance to the cake? What a dumbass response. Always goes to that with people like you too.



its about as valid as someone not wanting to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding. would you be here white knighting the p*d*p**** if he was the one discriminated against? probably not.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 4, 2014)

krory said:


> Not only did he not deny service, he still tried to _offer_ his service.
> 
> This is like causing hell because I can't get pork roll at the Jewish deli nearby.



you can't get pork roll at a jewish deli because they wouldn't stock it

the bakery makes wedding cakes

so no, it's not like that


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 4, 2014)

eHav said:


> its about as valid as someone not wanting to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding. would you be here white knighting the p*d*p**** if he was the one discriminated against? probably not.



You're making a moronic response here. What relevance does that have to the desire to purchase a cake from the baker?


----------



## Fiona (Jun 4, 2014)

If you offer a public service. 

You have to offer the service to the entire public. 

Not just the part that you approve of. 

You can't discriminate against certain people for any reason. 

Thats the entire point of equality.

i don't even understand why this is being debated.


----------



## EJ (Jun 4, 2014)

Oh _lord_. :rofl


----------



## eHav (Jun 4, 2014)

should a jewish baker bake a cake with a swastika on it? should an "afro american" baker bake a cake depicting slavery? would those be forced by law to bake the cakes?


----------



## Gino (Jun 4, 2014)

Flow said:


> What's going on now?


People sensitive as hell right now so of course actual solutions to this  continuing problem are not being posted people just wanna whine man....


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 4, 2014)

krory said:


> Not only did he not deny service, he still tried to _offer_ his service.
> 
> This is like causing hell because I can't get pork roll at the Jewish deli nearby. I can buy anything else but I want pork roll - but no, it's those damn Jews that need sensitivity training for not carrying my damn meat.



They wanted a wedding cake Krory. That's all they wanted. He sells wedding cakes at his store. He refuses to give them their order of a wedding cake. He denies them his service. That's all there is to it.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Jun 4, 2014)

I'm sure it will be a terrific, heartfelt wedding cake.


----------



## Risyth (Jun 4, 2014)

@Fiona/Seto Kaiba: Let's not extrapolate. It was merely against the law, what he did. This is still a privately owned business.

I don't see any federal tags applied to it.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 4, 2014)

eHav said:


> should a jewish baker bake a cake with a swastica on it? should an "afro american" baker bake a cake depicting slavery? would those be forced by law to bake the cakes?



a swastika is a symbol of nazism, recognised as a hate movement 

slavery is illegal and using it to aggravate black people would be recognised as a racism and possibly as a hate crime

i hope you can see how that's different from gay people wanting a wedding cake. not a wedding cake with two dudes 69-ing on it, just a normal wedding cake


----------



## eHav (Jun 4, 2014)

Lucaniel said:


> a swastika is a symbol of nazism, recognised as a hate movement
> 
> slavery is illegal and using it to aggravate black people would be recognised as a racism and possibly as a hate crime
> 
> i hope you can see how that's different from gay people wanting a wedding cake. not a wedding cake with two dudes 69-ing on it, just a normal wedding cake



so are pictures of slavery outlawed? are swastikas outlawed?


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 4, 2014)

eHav said:


> so are pictures of slavery outlawed? are swastikas outlawed?



using a swastika to aggravate a jew is probably outlawed, same as using a picture of slavery to aggravate a black person


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jun 4, 2014)

eHav said:


> should a jewish baker bake a cake with a swastika on it? should an "afro american" baker bake a cake depicting slavery? would those be forced by law to bake the cakes?



Not the same at all you fucking idiot.

A jewish baker should bake an otherwise normal cake for a non-jew. An African american baker should bake a cake for any racial group, etc.

This cake did not feature two men engaging in anal sex or anything retarded, it's for a goddamn wedding. Making comparisons about cakes featuring slavery or Swastikas on it isn't valid because this cake had no such features. 

Finally comparing slavery and Nazis to homosexuals is just about the worst you can get.


----------



## EJ (Jun 4, 2014)

eHav said:


> so are pictures of slavery outlawed? are swastikas outlawed?



Did you think before you typed this?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 4, 2014)

eHav said:


> so are pictures of slavery outlawed? are swastikas outlawed?



Because neither movements are under protected classes. Hate groups don't fall under that. A pro-slavery and neo-nazi group would clearly be a hate group.


----------



## eHav (Jun 4, 2014)

Lucaniel said:


> using a swastika to aggravate a jew is probably outlawed, same as using a picture of slavery to aggravate a black person


how do you prove that was the intention of the cake?



Nightbringer said:


> Not the same at all you fucking idiot.
> 
> A jewish baker should bake an otherwise normal cake for a non-jew. An African american baker should bake a cake for any racial group, etc.
> 
> ...



its a comparison of how offensive it would be to the baker, retard.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 4, 2014)

eHav said:


> how you you prove that was the intention of the cake?



because the bakers were jewish and black, respectively


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Jun 4, 2014)

That's not how protected classes work. Those most likely to get angry about those representations, black and Jews, are protected classes and enjoy a higher level of special legal protection than homosexuals.


----------



## Krory (Jun 4, 2014)

Next thing, they're going to start rounding up all the Christians in Colorado and forcing them to attend gay weddings.

You know... for "sensitivity training."


----------



## eHav (Jun 4, 2014)

Lucaniel said:


> because the bakers were jewish and black, respectively



you cant tell that over a phone order.

the point still stands, they are forcing someone to do something offensive to them to please the gay couple that was offended by not getting their cake.
its ridiculous


----------



## Fiona (Jun 4, 2014)

eHav said:


> should a jewish baker bake a cake with a swastika on it? should an "afro american" baker bake a cake depicting slavery? would those be forced by law to bake the cakes?



Um did you seriously just compare how a person of Jewish decent would feel having to make a cake depicting the symbol used by the people who committed genocide against their people to two guys wanting to buy a wedding cake for their wedding?


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 4, 2014)

eHav said:


> you cant tell that over a phone order.



then the order would be refused and that refusal would be upheld



> the point still stands



no, it doesn't


----------



## ~Greed~ (Jun 4, 2014)

Masaki said:


> However, I know in California there are laws saying that a business has "The right to refuse business to anyone."  I'm not sure if this law is on the books in Colorado, but if it is then technically the bakery didn't do anything illegal.  Asshole moves, yes, but potentially not illegal.



NY is the same. Discrimination laws may over-ride it, but denying service is completely legal under normal circumstances. I've done it before, but only because said customers were douchebags.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 4, 2014)

eHav said:


> the point still stands, they are forcing someone to do something offensive to them to please the gay couple that was offended by not getting their cake.
> its ridiculous



the difference is the validity of the offense

six million jews died in the holocaust

tens of millions of black people lived in servitude due to slavery

thanks to gay people, christians suffered...?? nothing

so do you see how brain-meltingly stupid your comparison is?


----------



## eHav (Jun 4, 2014)

Fiona said:


> Um did you seriously just compare how a person of Jewish decent would feel having to make a cake depicting the symbol used by the people who committed genocide against their people to two guys wanting to buy a wedding cake for their wedding?



are you any of the 2? are you some religious fanatic, or a jewish whose family went through the holocaust? how they feel is entirely subjective and equally valid. isnt that how feels go nowdays? gays can get offended by the dumbest shit and its fine, but when its a religious person getting offended tough luck? 

it really shows how inverted things have become, when the though of offending a minority leads people to over privilege them just so they dont look bad in front of the rest.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 4, 2014)

Othinus said:


> NY is the same. Discrimination laws may over-ride it, but denying service is completely legal under normal circumstances. I've done it before, but only because said customers were douchebags.



As said earlier, that's completely different and totally acceptable circumstances. Discriminatory cases are non negotiable under the law, such as this case.


----------



## eHav (Jun 4, 2014)

Lucaniel said:


> the difference is the validity of the offense
> 
> six million jews died in the holocaust
> 
> ...



it doesnt matter, how it affects each one is subjective

i can value the loss of a dog higher than some people would value the loss of their family


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jun 4, 2014)

Can someone ban Krory please?


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 4, 2014)

like, i could decide tomorrow that i believe in zorblax, the supreme governor of the universe, and he really hates short people because they should be weeded out by normal selection

then - in my capacity as cashier at a 7/11 - i could refuse to sell a short dude mountain dew because i believe in the majesty of zorblax 

that would become a national incident because apparently it's horrible to make me sell a short dude mountain dew. i am being denied my choice by the evil gubment thought police, and i am being reprogrammed according to their liberal pro-manlet agendas

then an idiot like you would wail online, on my behalf, comparing making a zorblaxian sell soda to a manlet, to making a black person write out a manifesto in support of segregation for david duke

see?


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jun 4, 2014)

dude stop.

you just implied that homosexual people have in the past, commited genocide and or enslaves entire populations of religious peoples. That's legit what you just said.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 4, 2014)

eHav said:


> it doesnt matter, how it affects each one is subjective


no, it definitely matters


----------



## Gino (Jun 4, 2014)

Comedy fucking gold.......


----------



## Ceria (Jun 4, 2014)

Fiona said:


> If you offer a public service.
> 
> You have to offer the service to the entire public.
> 
> ...



This is where i have a problem with it, why wouldn't a gay couple just take their business elsewhere to someone who would want to serve them? 

As for the having to offer a service to everyone there are limitations to that concept. Say a person enters a dealership wanting to have their car serviced, but that dealership only works on chevy's and they have a honda, that customer can't force them to service their car, the dealership has neither the training, tools nor parts to service hondas. It makes more sense to go to a honda dealer. 

It's plainly obvious he doesn't support gay marriage, so why try to force him into supporting it by forcing him to make a cake for a gay couple instead of finding a pro gay baker? 

I can't help but see that couple as being assholes, instead of going to a bakery that supports gays you pick the one that doesn't and sue him so that he's forced to make you a cake. 

That's extremely childish.


----------



## eHav (Jun 4, 2014)

Lucaniel said:


> like, i could decide tomorrow that i believe in zorblax, the supreme governor of the universe, and he really hates short people because they should be weeded out by normal selection
> 
> then - in my capacity as cashier at a 7/11 - i could refuse to sell a short dude mountain dew because i believe in the majesty of zorblax
> 
> ...



except religion is a little bigger than that over there in the US.

i couldnt care any less about religious bigots, and offended primadonas, but the double standards nowdays towards certain "minorities" are impressive


----------



## ~Greed~ (Jun 4, 2014)

Inuhanyou said:


> As said earlier, that's completely different and totally acceptable circumstances. Discriminatory cases are non negotiable under the law, such as this case.



I know. I was just stating how it would normally work.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 4, 2014)

eHav said:


> except religion is a little bigger than that over there in the US.
> 
> i couldnt care any less about religious bigots, and offended primadonas, but the double standards nowdays towards certain "minorities" are impressive



buddy, i don't give a shit about how big it is. and neither does anyone else. the moment your beliefs cross over into discrimination, they are wrong, and you will have to stop acting on them. if you wanna whine about how that infringes on your freedom to be a shitbag, then that's tough


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jun 4, 2014)

No.

That's complete victim blaming, neither you, nor I, nor any other person should be forced to take their business elsewhere on the basis of their sexuality. You do not have the right to be a bigot, end of story.


----------



## eHav (Jun 4, 2014)

Nightbringer said:


> dude stop.
> 
> you just implied that homosexual people have in the past, commited genocide and or enslaves entire populations of religious peoples. That's legit what you just said.



except i didnt. what matters is what it means to the ones affected, and you cant say your opinion is of higher value than theirs.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 4, 2014)

eHav said:


> except religion is a little bigger than that over there in the US.
> 
> i couldnt care any less about religious bigots, and offended primadonas, but the double standards nowdays towards certain "minorities" are impressive



Why are you continuing arguing on this if you just dodge responses every time they point out to you what protected classes are and what anti-discrimination laws entail? You don't know anything about the basics of these laws.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 4, 2014)

eHav said:


> except i didnt. what matters is what it means to the ones affected, and you cant say your opinion is of higher value than theirs.



affected by what? what did gay people do to christians?


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jun 4, 2014)

No.

You said gays are to christains what slavers are to blacks and nazis are to jews.

that's factually incorrect.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jun 4, 2014)

Discrimination _can_ be necessary in many cases, even in public accommodations, and even with respect to race, gender and sexual orientation.

In this case it wasn't necessary, and neither was throwing a fit about it when the couple could have taken their business elsewhere, but the one that broke the law takes the blame by default (and rightfully so).


----------



## Gino (Jun 4, 2014)

So guys......

What's that the solution? Force people to do things they don't wanna do only to make the situation worse instead of coming up with a solution where every one wins?



Oh I'm sorry such a thing is surely not possible because people like calamity.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 4, 2014)

Gino said:


> So guys......
> 
> What's that the solution? Force people to do things they don't wanna do only to make things worse instead of coming up with a solution where every one wins.
> 
> ...



how does this "make things worse"?


----------



## Krory (Jun 4, 2014)

Gino said:


> So guys......
> 
> What's that the solution? Force people to do things they don't wanna do only to make the situation worse instead of coming up with a solution where every one wins?
> 
> ...



That was deep, yo.


----------



## eHav (Jun 4, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Why are you continuing arguing on this if you just dodge responses every time they point out to you what protected classes are and what anti-discrimination laws entail? You don't know anything about the basics of these laws.



isnt religion one of those? doesnt forcing a religious baker to bake things he doesnt want to bake due to his religion go against that?

even so, they didnt even say they wouldnt bake them a cake, just that they wouldnt bake a cake that was going to represent something agaisnt their beliefs. which going by what you said should be a right of them since they are a protected class?


----------



## Fiona (Jun 4, 2014)

eHav said:


> are you any of the 2? are you some religious fanatic, or a jewish whose family went through the holocaust? how they feel is entirely subjective and equally valid. isnt that how feels go nowdays? gays can get offended by the dumbest shit and its fine, but when its a religious person getting offended tough luck?
> 
> It really shows how inverted things have become, when the though of offending a minority leads people to over privilege them just so they dont look bad in front of the rest.



 

I am not religious. I believe in nothing. 

There is a difference between a couple being treated unfairly because of some random belief and a shop owner that is discriminating against his customers. 

They are not the same. 

One is being unfairly treated and the other is the one treating the people unfairly. 

Just because someone is in the minority does not make them less important or not deserving of equal rights that everyone else enjoys.


----------



## Gino (Jun 4, 2014)

Lucaniel said:


> how does this "make things worse"?



Forcing someone to bake a cake is not going to make them any less bigoted then before they refused to bake you the cake the first time. So if anything their disagreement with your lifestyle may turn into disdain. I just don't see the positive in this understand?


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 4, 2014)

eHav said:


> isnt religion one of those? doesnt forcing a religious baker to bake things he doesnt want to bake due to his religion go against that?
> 
> even so, they didnt even say they wouldnt bake them a cake, just that they wouldnt bake a cake that was going to represent something agaisnt their beliefs. which going by what you said should be a right of them since they are a protected class?



i think you've really misread the dynamics here

gay people are like anyone else. they have the same rights anyone else does

now what's happened here is that this dude, who has an obligation in the state of colorado to not deny service to people based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. has denied service to them. "one particular service!" krory cries. yeah, still counts

he has broken the law and is now being made to comply with the law

his beliefs do not put him above the law - which he has broken. i do not get to bash your fucking brains in with a hammer because i think you're an idiot. he does not get to deny service to gay people because he believes they have less human rights than others


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 4, 2014)

Gino said:


> Forcing someone to bake a cake is not going to make them any less bigoted then before they refused to bake you the cake the first time. So if anything their disagreement with your lifestyle may turn into disdain. I just don't see the positive in this understand?



the positive here is that they are no longer allowed to publicly be bigots

who gives a shit if, in their heart of hearts, they remain bigoted? it's a free country

they're just not allowed to exercise their bigotry

there's the positive for you. you made the mistake of thinking this was about THOUGHT CRIME and making the dude less bigoted. it wasn't. it was about making the dude obey the fucking law. you're welcome


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jun 4, 2014)

Gino said:


> So guys......
> 
> What's that the solution? Force people to do things they don't wanna do only to make the situation worse instead of coming up with a solution where every one wins?
> 
> ...



the law is the law, gino 

You're better off arguing from the standpoint of "do you think the law should say so and so", in which case i present the following scenario:

Couple A lives in a town B, where almost everyone is bigoted towards them.  Couple A is denied service by all restaurants, grocery stores, hardware stores, and so on for being gay.  If a law like this didn't exist, and this scenario happened, that couple would have trouble surviving and integrating with society and wouldn't be able to do anything about it.


----------



## eHav (Jun 4, 2014)

Lucaniel said:


> affected by what? what did gay people do to christians?



it doesnt matter. it affects them anyway, and how much it does is completely subjective


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 4, 2014)

eHav said:


> isnt religion one of those? doesnt forcing a religious baker to bake things he doesnt want to bake due to his religion go against that?
> 
> even so, they didnt even say they wouldnt bake them a cake, just that they wouldnt bake a cake that was going to represent something agaisnt their beliefs. which going by what you said should be a right of them since they are a protected class?



See this is what I meant. You dodged every response that answered this question, so you stupidly keep asking it. Sexual orientation is a protected class, it's illegal to discriminate against people on that basis. Colorado's state law as well has it as a protected class. You do not get a free pass to be bigoted because you claim it falls under your religious beliefs.

They refused that service on the basis of their sexual orientation, that is illegal. The customers requested a cake.


----------



## Gino (Jun 4, 2014)

Lucaniel said:


> the positive here is that they are no longer allowed to publicly be bigots
> 
> who gives a shit if, in their heart of hearts, they remain bigoted? it's a free country
> 
> ...



..........So in other words I just wasted a reply on you thanks for wasting my time.


----------



## eHav (Jun 4, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> See this is what I meant. You dodged every response that answered this question, so you stupidly keep asking it. Sexual orientation is a protected class, it's illegal to discriminate against people on that basis. Colorado's state law as well has it as a protected class. You do not get a free pass to be bigoted because you claim it falls under your religious beliefs.
> 
> They refused that service on the basis of their sexual orientation, that is illegal.



Religion is a protected class aswell. why are they being forced to bake a cake that goes against their religion? i would understand a fine, but forcing them to bake a cake goes against that religious protection doesnt it?


----------



## EJ (Jun 4, 2014)

eHav said:


> Religion is a protected class aswell. why are they being forced to bake a cake that goes against their religion?



Separation of church and state.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 4, 2014)

eHav said:


> it doesnt matter. it affects them anyway, and how much it does is completely subjective



it's not subjective

the reason these laws exist to protect jews and blacks is because something REALLY happened to them IN REALITY

get it?

gays haven't done anything to christians

do you understand?


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 4, 2014)

Gino said:


> ..........So in other words I just wasted a reply on you thanks for wasting my time.



laws aren't made to change people's minds

they're made to change people's actions

because the actions are what matter


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jun 4, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You do not get a free pass to be bigoted because you claim it falls under your religious beliefs.



You do, . 


This isn't a counter to your point, only a clarification on the overly-generalized rhetoric that's being used in this thread to explain why the baker was in the wrong.


----------



## Gino (Jun 4, 2014)

afgpride said:


> the law is the law, gino
> 
> You're better off arguing from the standpoint of "do you think the law should say so and so", in which case i present the following scenario:
> 
> Couple A lives in a town B, where almost everyone is bigoted towards them.  Couple A is denied service by all restaurants, grocery stores, hardware stores, and so on for being gay.  If a law like this didn't exist, and this scenario happened, that couple would have trouble surviving and integrating with society and wouldn't be able to do anything about it.


With all do respect afg I don't give a damn about laws.Sorry man




Lucaniel said:


> laws aren't made to change people's minds
> they're made to change people's actions
> because the actions are what matter



.....I'll remember this when the next gay couple dies from cyanide poisoning in their cake because they thought this was the appropriate action to take.


----------



## Risyth (Jun 4, 2014)

eHav said:


> Religion is a protected class aswell. why are they being forced to bake a cake that goes against their religion? i would understand a fine, but forcing them to bake a cake goes against that religious protection doesnt it?



And then it was said, "Thou shall not bake that cake."


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 4, 2014)

Gino said:


> With all do respect afg I don't give a damn about laws.Sorry man


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jun 4, 2014)

gino confirmed for anarchist


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 4, 2014)

gino confirmed for autist, more like


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 4, 2014)

eHav said:


> Religion is a protected class aswell. why are they being forced to bake a cake that goes against their religion?



That doesn't mean you get to do whatever you desire under that basis. You don't get to offer human sacrifices on the basis of religious beliefs do you? The laws in place, and the rights of the other party supersede such beliefs in that case.



			
				afgpride said:
			
		

> This isn't a counter to your point, only a clarification on the overly-generalized rhetoric that's being used in this thread to explain why the baker was in the wrong.



No worries.


----------



## eHav (Jun 4, 2014)

Lucaniel said:


> it's not subjective
> 
> the reason these laws exist to protect jews and blacks is because something REALLY happened to them IN REALITY
> 
> ...



im not talking about law protecting anyone. since the law protects religious people aswell. 

ill repeat myself. the meaning of things to a certain person is completely subjective. so you cannot say that a cake with a swastika would affect a jew more than baking a cake for a gay wedding would affect a religious person. 

history and law has nothing to do with what i said.


----------



## Gino (Jun 4, 2014)

afgpride said:


> gino confirmed for anarchist


Not really....


Lucaniel said:


> gino confirmed for autist, more like


You just can't resist huh tough guy?


----------



## Tapion (Jun 4, 2014)

why force him to bake the cake and not go elsewhere?


----------



## EJ (Jun 4, 2014)

What are you even debating now eHav? It just seems like you're going in a circle now.


----------



## eHav (Jun 4, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> That doesn't mean you get to do whatever you desire under that basis. You don't get to offer human sacrifices on the basis of religious beliefs do you? The laws in place, and the rights of the other party supersede such beliefs in that case.



yeah but if i refuse to serve dinner to someone i get fined, i dont get a court order telling me to make them dinner. and dinner doesnt even affect me at all.

i just think forcing them to bake the cake goes against their beliefs more than refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding goes agaisnt gay beliefs.

the gay couple could have chosen another bakery. and yet they are imposing their gay wedding on the baker. and it seems the law is behind it. its absolutely retarded.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 4, 2014)

eHav said:


> im not talking about law protecting anyone. since the law protects religious people aswell.
> 
> ill repeat myself. the meaning of things to a certain person is completely subjective. so you cannot say that a cake with a swastika would affect a jew more than baking a cake for a gay wedding would affect a religious person.
> 
> history and law has nothing to do with what i said.



the meaning may be completely subjective, but it has an objective anchor, which is history and law

which is why some of these things are illegal and some are not


----------



## Doge (Jun 4, 2014)

Wow guys, maybe if you weren't so inclined to choose to be offended this wouldn't be an issue.

#FreeOurCakes


----------



## Ceria (Jun 4, 2014)

Flow said:


> Separation of church and state.



I doubt Thomas Jefferson had bakers that only baked for heterosexual couples in mind when he wrote that letter to the Danbury baptists


----------



## SLB (Jun 4, 2014)

eHav said:


> yeah but if i refuse to serve dinner to someone i get fined, i dont get a court order telling me to make them dinner. and dinner doesnt even affect me at all.
> 
> i just think forcing them to bake the cake goes against their beliefs more than refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding goes agaisnt gay beliefs.
> 
> the gay couple could have chosen another bakery. and yet they are imposing their gay wedding on the baker. and it seems the law is behind it. its absolutely retarded.



not quite sure why you're equating the two like this. unless i'm misreading something. religious beliefs formed around specific ideologies are faith-based and susceptible to change. they aren't on the same level as sexual orientation or race.



Gino said:


> With all do respect afg I don't give a damn about laws.Sorry man



lel gino 

i'm sure every fellow doing 25 to life said the same thing once upon a time


----------



## EJ (Jun 4, 2014)

Ceria said:


> I doubt Thomas Jefferson had bakers that only baked for heterosexual couples in mind when he wrote that letter to the Danbury baptists



What the fuck are you talking about?


----------



## eHav (Jun 4, 2014)

Moody said:


> not quite sure why you're equating the two like this. unless i'm misreading something. religious beliefs formed around specific ideologies are faith-based and susceptible to change. they aren't on the same level as sexual orientation or race.



and yet they are protected by the same law aswell. so yeah they are comparable


----------



## Doge (Jun 4, 2014)

Moody said:


> not quite sure why you're equating the two like this. unless i'm misreading something. religious beliefs formed around specific ideologies are faith-based and susceptible to change. they aren't on the same level as sexual orientation or race.



I refuse service to anyone with an "I <3 Stalincare" bumper sticker.  It goes against my moral beliefs.  Haven't run into any issues yet.  Don't see why good, law abiding Christians can't be allowed freedom in our great country.

#FightTheObamunists


----------



## SLB (Jun 4, 2014)

eHav said:


> and yet they are protected by the same law aswell. so yeah they are comparable



only in their domains so to speak. i.e. their places of worship. and no they really aren't.


----------



## Thor (Jun 4, 2014)

How long before refusing to have degenerate sex with a homosexual is deemed intolerant?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 4, 2014)

Thor said:


> How long before refusing to have degenerate sex with a homosexual is deemed intolerant?



Your living up to your sig


----------



## LesExit (Jun 4, 2014)

Thor said:


> How long before refusing to have degenerate sex with a homosexual is deemed intolerant?


Not long at all Thor. These damn liberal and homo butt lickers are getting out of control!


----------



## Gino (Jun 4, 2014)

Thor said:


> How long before refusing to have degenerate sex with a homosexual is deemed intolerant?



What's your game man?


----------



## Thor (Jun 4, 2014)

Gino said:


> What's your game man?



The fact that this country used to do some amazing things. Now we spend most of our time making sure everything can marry everything.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jun 4, 2014)

Thor said:


> -snip-



I'm sorry guys, he wandered back out from under his bridge when I wasn't looking.


----------



## Gino (Jun 4, 2014)

Thor said:


> The fact that this country used to do some amazing things. Now we spend most of our time making sure everything can marry everything.



So you're not down for solutions either then?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 5, 2014)

Thor is a troll, why do you think he created this thread?


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jun 5, 2014)

Because he really believes *EVERYTHING* he posts. 

get off that lion.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 5, 2014)

the lion stays.


----------



## Island (Jun 5, 2014)

The fact that this thread is still open after 17 pages proves that God is dead, and we have killed him.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 5, 2014)




----------



## Sieves (Jun 5, 2014)

Rights will be infringed upon for every party no matter what way you look at it. What a screwed up world we lived in.


----------



## Stunna (Jun 5, 2014)

I haven't seen that pic in a good minute.


----------



## Gino (Jun 5, 2014)

Sensitive people.



Inuhanyou said:


> Thor is a troll, why do you think he created this thread?


I was just trying to reason with it.


Yami Munesanzun said:


> Because he really believes *EVERYTHING* he posts.
> 
> get off that lion.


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 5, 2014)

Sex is deprecated, sperm and eggs should never meet in nature. Straight white males should be castrated so that they don't pollute the species. Everyone should do things my way so they don't offend me. I tolerate everyone.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 5, 2014)

Come now, don't be salty about fairness


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 5, 2014)

But inuhanyou, homos wouldn't be so salty over this if they would tone down the blowjobs.


----------



## Gino (Jun 5, 2014)

Inuhanyou said:


> Come now, don't be salty about fairness



lol this ain't about fairness man.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 5, 2014)

Stunna said:


> I haven't seen that pic in a good minute.



That shit is classic and in light of all the threads being pumped out by trolls around here we need to make that shit a staple around the forums.


----------



## Major (Jun 5, 2014)

I heard the gay community intend to visit his shop


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 5, 2014)

Risyth said:


> Going to church means nothing. Do you know how many people go to church and aren't true? The same thing happens in the Bible itself. Not all churches are true, either. And where you live doesn't matter if it's not Heaven. Such boastings aren't at all admirable or modest.
> 
> Christianity is the acceptance of Jesus' place in the Trinity, his life, rebirth, and doctrines. I didn't know any of his doctrines involved discrimination against homosexuals. I thought only God dealt out whatever punishments there were to deal out.
> 
> ...



But yet isn't God, the Spirit, and Jesus considered the same entity?

You can't say that God hates homosexuality until it was accepted by the human population.

@Saiyan- I understand what you are saying, but religion shouldn't be able to be flexible to suit the views of people during certain eras. It more or less implies that you follow god, unless man tells you not to.

Religious freedom is protection from the law. What if there was a law stating that someone couldn't carry a bible in public, or preach in public, or some other things, would thast be ok because the law enacted it even though it limits religious freedom as defined.




What are the benefits of being gay? Why do people choose that lifestyle?


----------



## Sherlōck (Jun 5, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> What are the benefits of being gay? Why do people choose that lifestyle?



Maybe it has something to do with one dude wanting to fuck another dude.I can't be too sure.


----------



## EJ (Jun 5, 2014)

Golden Circle said:


> Sex is deprecated, sperm and eggs should never meet in nature. Straight white males should be castrated so that they don't pollute the species. Everyone should do things my way so they don't offend me. I tolerate everyone.



Who exactly has been implying these statements?


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 5, 2014)

Firewalls are discriminatory. You should welcome every ethernet packet that comes through your router's front door even if you don't agree with them. It's downright unethical what people have done. Why are you still using a firewall? Don't be stuck in the past like a bigot. Tear down your firewall.




Flow said:


> Who exactly has been implying these statements?


I wonder who would be implying that men aren't needed.


----------



## EJ (Jun 5, 2014)

Are you going to answer my question?


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 5, 2014)

I already did. Use your head, caveman.


----------



## EJ (Jun 5, 2014)

No, you didn't. Who exactly in this thread have been saying what you've been sarcastically saying?


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 5, 2014)

I don't see myself referring to anyone in this thread in that post. Perhaps you need to learn how to read.


----------



## EJ (Jun 5, 2014)

Your statements are completely irrelevant to the thread then. This topic has made you emotional and you're voicing your dense concerns of how "People have it out for white straight men". Or you could just lack reading comprehension for you to even bring up matters such as this.

Telling people "reread my post" to dodge explaining why you even said statements such as:



> Sex is deprecated, sperm and eggs should never meet in nature. Straight white males should be castrated so that they don't pollute the species. Everyone should do things my way so they don't offend me. I tolerate everyone.



Life is so hard, huh?


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 5, 2014)

I am SO sorry that my satire relating to the fucking topic is going straight over your head.


----------



## EJ (Jun 5, 2014)

And you conveniently say:

"Oh, I was just joking!" 

When you realize your post was idiotic within itself.


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 5, 2014)

Yes, and? I've been making fun of the homo community all the way throughout the thread. Apply yourself.


----------



## EJ (Jun 5, 2014)

Did you just admit your own post were stupid?


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 5, 2014)

Flow said:


> Did you just admit your own post were stupid?


Oh, you're very bright, aren't you.

Protip: I've been this to you these last few posts:


----------



## EJ (Jun 5, 2014)

Flow said:


> When you realize your post was idiotic within itself.





Golden Circle said:


> Yes, and?



**


----------



## Roman (Jun 5, 2014)

Thor said:


> How long before refusing to have degenerate sex with a homosexual is deemed intolerant?



I can't believe you actually believe what you post. This isn't about brainwashing, this is about a business not complying to the law and discriminating based on sexual orientation. It's no different than if the business refused to provide its services to people of different skin color, nationality or religion. I bet you wouldn't like it if one of your favorite bakeries decided to refused to provide for Christians tomorrow, even tho your religion is your choice.


----------



## baconbits (Jun 5, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> I'm surprised you're going along with something ignorant. So tell me in the bible, does it teach you to discriminate others? Because at this point that's no longer a religion. You're blindly following a cult.



Whether I or the bible agree with this man and whether he should be free to do it are separate questions.

I do not agree with this man.  I think its stupid to turn away business or assume that because you provide a product you're morally culpable for what a person does while they're eating your cake.

I would argue that the bible is neutral on this.

But despite what I think this man should still have the freedom to provide the product he wants to provide (provided the product itself is legal and not harmful).  I disagree with a lot of things; that doesn't mean you shouldn't have the freedom to do them.



Island said:


> No, but the government does. If you own a business within the United States, you have to obey its laws. Its laws tell you that you can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.



The government does not have the right to make you provide a product.  In a free society the government is one that protects freedoms, not one that limits them.  If you want to live in a state that is less free you should support the oppression of viewpoints you disagree with.  If you want to live in a state that is free you support the right to do things you vehemently disagree with.



Inuhanyou said:


> Uh....no. Because then you basically say civil rights are out the window because businesses can reject anyone for any reason.



They can and should be able to.  In a free society we have to allow people to be despicable.  If we don't one day the majority might oppress us because it finds our actions despicable.



SubtleObscurantist said:


> I'm sure it will be a terrific, heartfelt wedding cake.



/thread


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 5, 2014)

Oh you are VERY slow aren't you.



> I've been making fun of the homo community all the way throughout the thread.


TOO BAD YOU DIDN'T GET IT.


----------



## Roman (Jun 5, 2014)

@Bacon, so you're basically saying that a truly free society is one where people should tolerate others' intolerance?




Tolerating intolerance is basically promoting it. Once you do that, society itself becomes intolerant and people's freedoms are trampled on regularly for the most stupid reasons. I can't believe you don't see the kind of precedent that would set.


----------



## Thor (Jun 5, 2014)

Freedan said:


> I bet you wouldn't like it if one of your favorite bakeries decided to refused to provide for Christians tomorrow, even tho your religion is your choice.



I'd take my services elsewhere. It's that SIMPLE.


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (Jun 5, 2014)




----------



## Roman (Jun 5, 2014)

Thor said:


> I'd take my services elsewhere. It's that SIMPLE.



What if that's the only place? What if every other place also doesn't provide for Christians? What will you do then?


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 5, 2014)

Fiona said:


> Since when did discrimination become a constitutional right?



When did it become a right to force other people to do what you want them to do? Especially if it goes against there freedom of religion?


----------



## EJ (Jun 5, 2014)

on phone..


Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> When did it become a right to force other people to do what you want them to do? Especially if it goes against there freedom of religion?



Since separation of church and state.



> Oh you are VERY slow aren't you




Says the person who didn't even realize they are calling their own post stupid.


----------



## Vasto Lorde King (Jun 5, 2014)

Freedom should go both ways. You should have the freedom to express your beliefs,morals and lifestyle as long as it doesn't infringe upon others. While at the same time if one doesn't want to associate with others for whatever reason they should be able to as well. Forcing one to associate with others is limiting thier freedom as well, no matter how bigoted that might seem. The one who does not want to associate with gays isn't limiting thier  freedom at all. If I don't want to associate with person A,B or C for any reason no matter how bigoted it might be anybody should be able to do so. 

In my eyes you can hate anybody for bieng gay,black or a jew. However as long as you do not *force your way into thier lives* having such thoughts should be allowed. Heck they don't need anybody's permission to think the way they want to think as long as they don't bother anybody else in such a way that thier freedom and life style is comprimised and with that I* mean that those minorieties are subjected to another person's will because of thier views on the world.* Likewise the same should be done for those who simply don't want to associate with gays and other minorities.  Minorities by default aren't entitled to contact with other people let alone to be served. Same counts for racist's and other bigoted groups.

Live and let live. Everybody should keep their bussiness to themselves. People have thier own preferences and they get too choose with who they want to associate with not somebody else.

However they are more factors involved. It depends on what kind of bussiness this is. Is this is a private bussiness? Where they given or supported by money of the state without them having paid it back in any way shape or form.

I'm not sure about US law or how bussiness stuff like this works in general so basically what I'm saying that it depends on how much effort the founder of said bussiness had put into founding that bussiness in the first place and how much the state finanically had to do with with it. Depending on that the founder get's to tell how much he can do with his own bussiness. That to me sounds only fair.

In simple terms we live in a society in wich people do chores for each other in return for stuff they they get in return ranging from luxury to facilities and other services that allows them to sustain thier own life. So if one guy puts a shit load of effort into ultimately getting his own(insert word here).Then yes he should basically be able to do anything he wants with it as long as he doesn't bother other people. It's for that reason friggin sports cars,villa's and other luxury cost's a shitload of money. And for throwing down that much money you atleast expect to actually determine what you can do with your possesion.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 5, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> When did it become a right to force other people to do what you want them to do? Especially if it goes against there freedom of religion?



When you live in a country that separates Church and State. if you want to make your establishment Christian based that's fine, but discriminating is not tolerable in the US. Chick-Fil-A is Christian based, but I personally have never came across an article reading they refused to complete an order because someone was gay.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 5, 2014)

Mill?n Vasto said:


> Freedom should go both ways. You should have the freedom to express your beliefs,morals and lifestyle as long as it doesn't infringe upon others. While at the same time if one doesn't want to associate with others for whatever reason they should be able to as well. Forcing one to associate with others is limiting thier freedom as well, no matter how bigoted that might seem. The one who does not want to associate with gays isn't limiting thier  freedom at all. If I don't want to associate with person A,B or C for any reason no matter how bigoted it might be anybody should be able to do so.
> 
> In my eyes you can hate anybody for bieng gay,black or a jew. However as long as you do not *force your way into thier lives* having such thoughts should be allowed. Heck they don't need anybody's permission to think the way they want to think as long as they don't bother anybody else in such a way that thier freedom and life style is comprimised and with that I* mean that those minorieties are subjected to another person's will because of thier views on the world.* Likewise the same should be done for those who simply don't want to associate with gays and other minorities.  Minorities by default aren't entitled to contact with other people let alone to be served. Same counts for racist's and other bigoted groups.
> 
> ...



I just don't get people commenting on this story and then proceed to admit they know nothing about the anti-discrimination laws that exist in this country.

Seriously, it's like the Civil Rights Era was skipped over in whatever course of history some people took in school.


----------



## Vasto Lorde King (Jun 5, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I just don't get people commenting on this story and then proceed to admit they know nothing about the anti-discrimination laws that exist in this country.
> 
> Seriously, it's like the Civil Rights Era was skipped over in whatever course of history some people took in school.



Bitch please. I'm not required to know the US law to give comment in this thread and give my take on freedom am I?

 It's clearly my take on how freedom should be.  Even if this by law is considered discrimination it doesn't take away from the fact that one party clearly is forced to submit to another's will against the other party's consent then yes you are fucking infringing upon another ones freedom. Bieng a minority or it bieng the law does not take away that is event has still ocurred.

The Law isn't absolute and can be wrong.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 5, 2014)

Mill?n Vasto said:


> Bitch please. I'm not required to know the US law to give comment in this thread and give my take on freedom am I?
> 
> It's clearly my take on how freedom should be.  Even if this law is considered discrimination it doesn't take away from the fact that one party clearly is forced to submit to another's will against the other party's consent then yes you are fucking infringing upon another ones freedom. Bieng a minority or it bieng the law does not take away that is event has still ocurred.
> 
> The Law isn't absolute and can be wrong.



Except it was decades ago was this matter brought up, and I would figure most countries in the west would have touched upon similar matters. So forgive me if I expect some familiarity with such laws when commenting on issues that directly pertain to them. It's exactly why we don't legally have "Whites Only" restaurants anymore. 

When you open a business, something of public accommodation (sans places of worship), you're subject to public laws. You are free to have your privately held beliefs, but once you enter business into serving the public you don't have a right to discriminate against individuals of a protected class. Doing so you are infringing on the right of the consumer to not be discriminated against on whatever basis falls under that.

Again, how can you talk of the law if you don't know the basics of it at least? Or the history behind it?


----------



## Vasto Lorde King (Jun 5, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Except it was decades ago was this matter brought up, and I would figure most countries in the west would have touched upon similar matters. So forgive me if I expect some familiarity with such laws when commenting on issues that directly pertain to them. It's exactly why we don't legally have "Whites Only" restaurants anymore.
> 
> When you open a business, something of public accommodation (sans places of worship), you're subject to public laws. You are free to have your privately held beliefs, but once you enter business into serving the public you don't have a right to discriminate against individuals of a protected class. Doing so you are infringing on the right of the consumer to not be discriminated against on whatever basis falls under that.
> 
> Again, how can you talk of the law if you don't know the basics of it at least? Or the history behind it?




To answer your question. I'm not really required to know the law here if my own take on freedom is different the law itself and given you have so kindly given an explanation on the current law this problem is solved right?


Which brings me to the point of the law. Freedom isn't dictated by law. You should be aware that laws can be unjust or better said not in the interest of an individual or group of people. Infact laws can even be subject to change. People used to have the right to have slaves. People in russia and east of the berlin wall were subject to a communistic law that was thoroughly enforced. Nazi's had laws that were racist against jews. Admittelly extreme examples but they should illulstrate my point. 

And the law as it currently stands gives people the right to be not be discriminated upon. I disagree with the law to some extent.* People have thier prefences I have and you as well I assume*. And those need to be protected.

If people do shit for other people to get thier own shit then naturally they should be able decided what to do with thier own shit as long as it isn't forcefully infringing upon the freedom of others. Or the shit they aquired  was largely finanically supported by the state then yes I disagree. For example this in my opninion should also apply to the church. If the church pays for thier own shit and doesn't beg for money at the state or get's any taxbreak whatsoever but is largely responsible for thier own finances then yes it's pretty reasonable to dictate who you marry or who you accept in your church. You worked your butt off to get this far so you should atleast get some leeway there in that regard.I do not define freedom in this case by law as I find it still too restraining on this matter.

Looking at this strictly through the eyes of the law then yes you are appearantly right.

But if we look at it from a philosophical point of view then then there is clearly room for arguing here.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 5, 2014)

So you are making an argument but you don't know the law? And then you say you disagree with the law? And then you say freedom isn't dictated by law, but don't understand how laws help protect freedom? Seto don't bother responding unless you're feeling superior. There's no point.


----------



## Vasto Lorde King (Jun 5, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> So you are making an argument but you don't know the law? And then you say you disagree with the law? And then you say freedom isn't dictated by law, but don't understand how laws help protect freedom? Seto don't bother responding unless you're feeling superior. There's no point.



And appearantly the law entails the right to be not be discriminated according to Seto and I take his word up for it which I said. Which is still suffient enough information for me to disagree with.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Jun 5, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> When did it become a right to force other people to do what you want them to do? Especially if it goes against there freedom of religion?



What if I live in America and I follow something like the Aztec religion, I need kidnap and sacrifice people to my gods to make sure the sun comes up everyday.

Should the government force me to follow soceity's laws and not murder people? 

My constitutional rights have been violated!!!!


----------



## Vasto Lorde King (Jun 5, 2014)

makeoutparadise said:


> What if I live in America and I follow something like the Aztec religion, I need kidnap and sacrifice people to my gods to make sure the sun comes up everyday.
> 
> Should the government force me to follow soceity's laws and not murder people?
> 
> My constitutional rights have been violated!!!!



That's something entirely different. The religion itself  violates other people's freedom by killing them I assume in this scenario without thier consent in the first place. Which in this case makes the religion unjust in the first place. Anf given religions itself have no logical reason as to why it's even considered reasonable to believe it in the first place. The very religion itself would fall under the: I kill people because somebody else told me to and that person is right because he said so. It's just gibberish and does not in anway excuse the religion in any way or form.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 5, 2014)

Flow said:


> Since separation of church and state.





Hand Banana said:


> When you live in a country that separates Church and State. if you want to make your establishment Christian based that's fine, but discriminating is not tolerable in the US. Chick-Fil-A is Christian based, but I personally have never came across an article reading they refused to complete an order because someone was gay.



Negative.

James Madison, trained to be a minister and preacher of the Gospel, is rightly called ?the father of the United States constitution,? as he played a key role in its framing. Both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson are called the ?Champions of Religious Freedom.? Why? Because they both spoke out against an established *state-controlled church*, such as the Anglican church in Virginia, which had forced all citizens to attend its services, pay tithes and which had persecuted all other Christian churches, such as the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Mennonites, Lutherans, Quakers, etc.

All these other Christian churches could not hold their own services, nor could they preach the Gospel without permission from the Anglican church. In Virginia, the Baptists had been thrown into prison on occasion, for worshipping God in their own way, and for preaching the Gospel outside the Anglican church.

Thomas Jefferson put a stop to this religious persecution, by Act of Congress, with his document: ?Statutes for Religious Freedom in Virginia,? which abolished the Anglican state-controlled church, replacing it with Freedom of Religion, that is freedom of different Christian churches, as above mentioned, to worship in their own way, without being persecuted and punished.

This is the real meaning of the First Amendment Clause of our United States Constitution, which reads:

?Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;??

Father of the United States Constitution, James Madison had this clause put into the Constitution, in order that the government would never again force citizens to attend a state-controlled church, such as the Anglican Church in Virginia had been. This is the true meaning of the phrase:

?Separation of the Church from interference by the State?

Now, all the different Christian denominations could worship God in their own way, and preach the Gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ wherever they wished.

That is the real meaning of that Church and State crap. You are literally forcing someone to follow your beliefs and follow a different way you "worship" or whatever you want to call it. Completely different then how America was established and meant to be run. Atheists and non believers have twisted this to try to fit it into a way they want this free nation to be run. That's is a fact and you people know it.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 5, 2014)

So you copy and pasted your answer from a *Christian site.* 

You're not even original. And only looking from a Christian point, that argument favors Christianity. And that's funny coming from Thomas Jefferson seeing how he followed theism.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 5, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> So you copy and pasted your answer from a *Christian site.*
> 
> You're not even original. And only looking from a Christian point, that argument favors Christianity. And that's funny coming from Thomas Jefferson seeing how he followed theism.



Yeah yet he completely believed in people being able to believe in what they wanted to believe in as long as neither side was forcing anyone to do anything. Bottom line.


----------



## Thor (Jun 5, 2014)

Freedan said:


> What if that's the only place? What if every other place also doesn't provide for Christians? What will you do then?



That's not the case. There is no "what if".


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 5, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Yeah yet he completely believed in people being able to believe in what they wanted to believe in as long as neither side was forcing anyone to do anything. Bottom line.





> *Disestablishment of religion in Virginia*
> 
> Following the Revolution, Jefferson played a leading role in the disestablishment of religion in Virginia. Previously as the established state church, the Anglican Church received tax support and no one could hold office who was not an Anglican. The Presbyterian, Baptist and Methodist churches did not receive tax support. As Jefferson wrote in his Notes on Virginia, pre-Revolutionary colonial law held that "if a person brought up a Christian denies the being of a God, or the Trinity ...he is punishable on the first offense by incapacity to hold any office ...; on the second by a disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy ..., and by three year' imprisonment." Prospective officer-holders were required to swear that they did not believe in the central Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 5, 2014)

Your point? It only helps what I am saying. Virginia was being run by a Christian "state" much like Iran is a muslim "state". Jeff fought this but still let people believe what they wanted to believe. No one was allowed to even pray in public unless it was ordained by the Anglican church. Separation of 
Church and State just means people can't tell you want to do in the name of what they believe. Everyone is free to believe what they want to believe. This stupid ass thing of forcing people to bake a cake is like forcing a gay bakery to make a cake for Westboro Baptist church. It is unethical and people should not be forced to do anything they don't want to.

This is what the Founding Father's ran from in Europe.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 5, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Your point? It only helps what I am saying. Virginia was being run by a Christian "state" much like Iran is a muslim "state". Jeff fought this but still let people believe what they wanted to believe. No one was allowed to even pray in public unless it was ordained by the Anglican church. Separation of
> Church and State just means people can't tell you want to do in the name of what they believe. Everyone is free to believe what they want to believe. This stupid ass thing of forcing people to bake a cake is like forcing a gay bakery to make a cake for Westboro Baptist church. It is unethical and people should not be forced to do anything they don't want to.
> 
> This is what the Founding Father's ran from in Europe.



Separation of Church allows you to practice your ideals, but not discriminate. That's what you're missing.


----------



## babaGAReeb (Jun 5, 2014)

Gay wedding cakes? I didn't know cakes could be gay.

How do you make a gay cake anyway?


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 5, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> Separation of Church allows you to practice your ideals, but not discriminate. That's what you're missing.



But forcing someone to bake a cake for a gay couple from a Christian bakery, when Christians don't believe in gay marriage, its like forcing a Jew to make a Nazi flag for a skinhead. Its rude and inconsiderate.


----------



## Euraj (Jun 5, 2014)

babaGAReeb said:


> Gay wedding cakes? I didn't know cakes could be gay.
> 
> How do you make a gay cake anyway?


Right? Part of why stuff like this makes no sense to me. They're paying you to do what you do. Money ain't got a sexual orientation.


----------



## babaGAReeb (Jun 5, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> But forcing someone to bake a cake for a gay couple from a Christian bakery, when Christians don't believe in gay marriage, its like forcing a Jew to make a Nazi flag for a skinhead. Its rude and inconsiderate.


Its not THAT rude bro...


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 5, 2014)

Euraj said:


> Right? Part of why stuff like this makes no sense to me. They're paying you to do what you do. Money ain't got a sexual orientation.



Its called morals and beliefs. People some times will sell out for money but strong willed people will not sell out.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 5, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> But forcing someone to bake a cake for a gay couple from a Christian bakery, when Christians don't believe in gay marriage, its like forcing a Jew to make a Nazi flag for a skinhead. Its rude and inconsiderate.



It's not rude, and it's not inconsiderate. First learn how to make a fucking comparison. If you're going to open a business in American, you need to know you can not discriminate to the public. Again, you can open a christian themed bakery, but you can not tell someone you will not serve them based on their beliefs, gender, etc.

And if the Jew is in the shop making business, then it's against the law in the US to make anything associated with hate crimes legally.


----------



## Euraj (Jun 5, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Its called morals and beliefs. People some times will sell out for money but strong willed people will not sell out.


What is he selling out to? Just because he makes a cake for gay people, does that mean he's gay? No, it just means he respects other people's opinions and the law and knows his bottom-line is more important than a fifteen second moment of negative fame. Maybe if they were forcing him to use volunteer church labor I'd be on side, but he's being paid. He wins.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Jun 5, 2014)

Mill?n Vasto said:


> That's something entirely different. *The religion itself  violates other people's freedom by killing them  *



Then why can't I argue that Christianity is violating other peoples  freedom to love and marry who  they want by passing laws against it?


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 5, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> It's not rude, and it's not inconsiderate. First learn how to make a fucking comparison. If you're going to open a business in American, you need to know you can not discriminate to the public. Again, you can open a christian themed bakery, but you can not tell someone you will not serve them based on their beliefs, gender, etc.
> 
> And if the Jew is in the shop making business, then it's against the law in the US to make anything associated with hate crimes legally.



I did make a good comparison just because you don't like it tough shit, it makes sense. 

People need to learn this forced shit is against the CONSTITUITION. Aka the law of the land. These bakery's can and should be aloud to refuse to make a cake for their gay wedding. Intolerance in this country is soooo fucking annoying.  

Wrong on the Nazi thing brah. People make them all the time.


> The public display of Nazi flags in the U.S. is protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The U.S. State Department acknowledges restrictions imposed under the laws of other countries, however.


----------



## Saishin (Jun 5, 2014)

The bakery is in wrong the owner can't refuse to give a service to a customer for personal reasons,otherwise what's the point in running a commercial activity? if it was a bakery for christians only well it could be justified but that wasn't the case.
But at the same time I found exaggerated the rehab therapy rule,force people to change their opinions because they don't want to bake a cake is quite useless,after all America is founded on the freedom of opinion.


----------



## EJ (Jun 5, 2014)

You compared the painful history of the holocaust and the emotions of how Jewish feel feel about Nazis to gay people and Christians. That wasn't a good comparison at all.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 5, 2014)

Euraj said:


> What is he selling out to? Just because he makes a cake for gay people, does that mean he's gay? No, it just means he respects other people's opinions and the law and knows his bottom-line is more important than a fifteen second moment of negative fame. Maybe if they were forcing him to use volunteer church labor I'd be on side, but he's being paid. He wins.



Selling out against his *beliefs*. I don't believe in something and money makes me go against my belief. What don't you get?


----------



## Vasto Lorde King (Jun 5, 2014)

makeoutparadise said:


> Then why can't I argue that Christianity is violating other peoples  freedom to love and marry who  they want by passing laws against it?



What? Oh with that I agree at all. Christians should fuck off from marriage. Infact my argument goes both ways. Infact christians who demand that the creationist theory should be teached to children at school should also shut the fuck up about that. If they wanna teach thier own children that then they should be my guest. But they cannot force thier pseudo science to be taught at school. 

See my argument really goes both ways. I believe that it'd be much better if minorities and christians simply *fuck off from each other* and go thier own ways while tolerating not accepting but tolerating each other's existence.

I don't believe in forced sensisity training or fundamentist christians actually having a place in polictics. Who clearly advocate for chrisitanity while they infact shouldn't.

I simply believe that freedom should go both ways. I don't believe that actions such as these are helping close the clove between religious people and gays. Rather they'd even be more hatefull of each other.


----------



## babaGAReeb (Jun 5, 2014)

srsly what does a gay cake look like? is it shaped like a butt?


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 5, 2014)

Flow said:


> You compared the painful history of the holocaust and the emotions of how Jewish feel feel about Nazis to gay people and Christians. That wasn't a good comparison at all.



Yeah Jews wouldn't want to do that is a perfect example.

Christians believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Making a gay wedding cake goes against what they believe. Its rude to force someone to do this. Not to mention unconstitutional.


----------



## Euraj (Jun 5, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Selling out against his *beliefs*. I don't believe in something and money makes me go against my belief. What don't you get?


The idiocy of your argument. The Constitution protects freedom of religion, but it does not protect exercising doctrines that violate the rights of others. There is no contradiction. 

Moreover, obeying the law is not selling out your beliefs, because he doesn't have to change his beliefs to do his job. For example, I don't like wingnuts, but I don't hangup on them whenever they call my phone to order things. Why? First, it's unprofessional for ludicrous reasons, and second, it reflects horribly on the business. So, not only is the bottom-line affected in the short term, it is on the long term as well. Thus, not only is the person who commits such actions intolerant themselves, but they're not being very intelligent either. 

Intolerance goes both ways. That has usually been something I have to emphasize to anti-Christians, but recently, it seems like the demographics with the most power in this country are going to into victim mode in spite of the mistreatment of everyone else.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 5, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> I did make a good comparison just because you don't like it tough shit, it makes sense.



Nazi symbol represents hatred, a cake for a married couple regardless of sexual orientation is not hateful.



> People need to learn this forced shit is against the CONSTITUITION. Aka the law of the land. These bakery's can and should be aloud to refuse to make a cake for their gay wedding. Intolerance in this country is soooo fucking annoying.



So basically you just admit you're ok with discriminating. 




> Wrong on the Nazi thing brah. People make them all the time.



Ok I'll take that L.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 5, 2014)

I don't think any of you get it. You are all brainwashed by the nanny state.


----------



## babaGAReeb (Jun 5, 2014)

u dont actually like jersey shore do u?


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 5, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> I don't think any of you get it. You are all brainwashed by the nanny state.



That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But it is surprising how you'll post on a forum full of gays, when your belief is to not associate yourselves with them. So by posting on this forum aren't you going against your beliefs?


----------



## EJ (Jun 5, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Yeah Jews wouldn't want to do that is a perfect example.
> 
> Christians believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Making a gay wedding cake goes against what they believe. Its rude to force someone to do this. Not to mention unconstitutional.



They can't refuse business to someone because they are gay is what you aren't getting. And no, it's still a terrible example. You're comparing the holocaust as much of a tragedy as it is to gay people getting married. 

I find it odd that you're complaining this much over the "right the cake owner has to not sell to a gay person" (even though this isn't legal) when in another thread you said a gay couple that were refused service were "complaining about stupid shit".


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 5, 2014)

babaGAReeb said:


> srsly what does a gay cake look like? is it shaped like a butt?



Is a butt gay?


----------



## Doge (Jun 5, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> I don't think any of you get it. You are all brainwashed by the nanny state.



Hell yes.  Preach it brother.  Liberals can't understand we have freedom of RELIGION.  This is what happens when God is taken out of our schools.

#ConservativeCrew4Lyfe


----------



## Xiammes (Jun 5, 2014)

You know, why did the couple want the cake from a Christian bakery? Were they trying to be assholes?


----------



## babaGAReeb (Jun 5, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> Is a butt gay?


well anal... oh never mind

its probably rainbow colored or somethin like dat


----------



## EJ (Jun 5, 2014)

Ok bbaGAReeb, you got your attention.

 Don't disrupt the quality of this argument, please.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 5, 2014)

Xiammes said:


> You know, why did the couple want the cake from a Christian bakery? Were they trying to be assholes?





Where on their website does it state or suggest they are a Christian bakery?


----------



## Xiammes (Jun 5, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> Where on their website does it state or suggest they are a Christian bakery?



I assumed they went into the store and didn't order online.


----------



## LesExit (Jun 5, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> Where on their website does it state or suggest they are a Christian bakery?


Looks like they make pretty nice cakes


----------



## EJ (Jun 5, 2014)

Yeah, those cakes actually do look pretty good.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 5, 2014)

Xiammes said:


> I assumed they went into the store and didn't order online.



Hope this teaches you a lesson on assuming then.



LesExit said:


> Looks like they make pretty nice cakes





Flow said:


> Yeah, those cakes actually do look pretty good.



Yea, they actually do. Shame their reputation will be soiled due to ignorance.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 5, 2014)

It shouldnt matter what kind of bakery it is 

They make cakes. 

They wanted a cake. 

They refused to serve them based on their sexuality. 

That is discrimination. 

You can't do that.

/thread


----------



## baconbits (Jun 5, 2014)

Freedan said:


> @Bacon, so you're basically saying that a truly free society is one where people should tolerate others' intolerance?



It depends on what you mean by tolerate.  If by tolerate you mean "allow" then yes, people should be able to be ignorant idiots if they wish to be so.  If by tolerate you mean "unwilling to condemn" then no.  You should not have to "tolerate" what you feel is ignorant.  But personal tolerance does not equate to treatment under the law.



One man's intolerance is another man's principled stance.





Freedan said:


> Tolerating intolerance is basically promoting it.


----------



## Vermin (Jun 5, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> Where on their website does it state or suggest they are a Christian bakery?


those cakes look good


----------



## Gino (Jun 5, 2014)

Flow said:


> You compared the painful history of the holocaust and the emotions of how Jewish feel feel about Nazis to gay people and Christians. That wasn't a good comparison at all.


Yeah just replace your argument with blacks and all is well.....


Xiammes said:


> You know, why did the couple want the cake from a Christian bakery? Were they trying to be assholes?



Of course they were It's no way in hell you gonna convince me other wise people just wanna be startin something.


----------



## EJ (Jun 5, 2014)

^Don't understand.


----------



## Gino (Jun 5, 2014)

I didn't expect you too.


/ being an asshole


----------



## Fiona (Jun 5, 2014)

Its stories like this that remind me how bigoted and intolerant the Cafe is.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 5, 2014)

You have to waddle through the ignorance to truly teach


----------



## Gino (Jun 5, 2014)

And yet sill no one here really wants to solve anything only bitch this is whats aggravating  about you people.


----------



## Senzumaki (Jun 5, 2014)

I tried reading it but I didn't understand it at all.

I don't know how they can force you to sleep with them


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jun 5, 2014)

Fiona said:


> Its stories like this that remind me how bigoted and intolerant the Cafe is.



It's like a train wreck. You know you shouldn't watch but you just can't help yourself.


----------



## babaGAReeb (Jun 5, 2014)

nf cafe is qwality


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 5, 2014)

Gino said:


> And yet sill no one here really wants to solve anything only bitch this is whats aggravating  about you people.



You keep going on about "solving" issues. It has nothing to do with solving any issues. The law took effect, and people need to realize that is to protect the rights of others. There is no necessary debate here besides trying to make certain people understand why the laws are in place. 

Yet they continuously throw out straw-men and ignore what people are saying to continue their one sided argument.


----------



## Gino (Jun 5, 2014)

Inuhanyou said:


> You keep going on about "solving" issues. It has nothing to do with solving any issues. The law took effect, and people need to realize that is to protect the rights of others. There is no necessary debate here besides trying to make certain people understand why the laws are in place.
> 
> Yet they continuously throw out straw-men and ignore what people are saying to continue their one sided argument.




........

Do you not understand regardless of the law things like this are going to continue to happen over and over and over again unless someone attacks this problem from a  different angle? The only thing the law did was force somebody to do something they don't wanna do which in turn will cause a even worse negative effect how are you not getting this no one won in this  situation.So how long before this becomes a standard?


You people keep blabbing about the fucking law do you not think outside the box you sound like drones.


----------



## babaGAReeb (Jun 5, 2014)

drones will solve this!

call in an aerial strike on dat cake shop and wipe it off da map


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 5, 2014)

Gino said:


> ........
> 
> Do you not understand regardless of the law things like this are going to continue to happen over and over and over again unless someone attacks this problem from a  different angle? The only thing the law did was force somebody to do something they don't wanna do which in turn will cause a even worse negative effect how are you not getting this no one won in this  situation.So how long before this becomes a standard?
> 
> ...



Tell us Savior, what should we do?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 5, 2014)

Gino said:


> ........
> 
> Do you not understand regardless of the law things like this are going to continue to happen over and over and over again unless someone attacks this problem from a  different angle? The only thing the law did was force somebody to do something they don't wanna do which in turn will cause a even worse negative effect how are you not getting this no one won in this  situation.So how long before this becomes a standard?
> 
> ...



You can't 'stop' someone from being a racist. But you can atleast stop them from acting on their racism.


----------



## Gino (Jun 5, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> Tell us Savior, what should we do?



Here's a quick example no one seems to have thought about.


Since everyone likes comparing race to sexual orientation you know what black people did when white people didn't wanna serve us?.......We opened up our own dinners,salons,bakery's etc and guess what?We still let people white people or whoever come in our place and eat to show them  that the color of your skin didn't matter. 


Not the best example but that's what critical thinking is about to actually come up with something instead or whining about people you're not going to change even more so by forcing your views on them which seems hypocritical don't you think.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 5, 2014)

Gino said:


> Here's a quick example no one seems to have thought about.
> 
> 
> Since everyone likes comparing race to sexual orientation you know what black people did when white people didn't wanna serve us?.......We opened up our own dinners,salons,bakery's etc and guess what?We still let people white people or whoever come in our place and eat to show them  that the color of your skin didn't matter.
> ...



Except in those days discrimination was in majority. We live in an age where we want to move on.


----------



## Gino (Jun 5, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> Except in those days discrimination was in majority. We live in an age where we want to move on.



 Just take the L man........


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 5, 2014)

Gino said:


> Just take the L man........



 What you're saying is ignorant. While the blacks opened their own shops, they still fought for equality alongside whites. Just take my D.


----------



## Gino (Jun 5, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> What you're saying is ignorant. While the blacks opened their own shops, they still fought for equality alongside whites. Just take my D.


It's nothing fucking ignorant about what I said all you did was cop out because you didn't actually expect me to answer the question I see right through you bruh....Just take that L mane.


----------



## Gin (Jun 5, 2014)

Fiona said:


> Its stories like this that remind me how bigoted and intolerant the Cafe is.


You mean a very small proportion of people in the cafe, some of whom are more-than-obvious trolls.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 5, 2014)

Gino said:


> Here's a quick example no one seems to have thought about.
> 
> 
> Since everyone likes comparing race to sexual orientation you know what black people did when white people didn't wanna serve us?.......We opened up our own dinners,salons,bakery's etc and guess what?We still let people white people or whoever come in our place and eat to show them  that the color of your skin didn't matter.
> ...



look at martin luther king over here


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 5, 2014)

i mean, it's not like any black activists ever did 

sit-ins aren't a real thing

when white people barred black people from their restaurants, black people just basically fucked off, yessuh

that's what all black people did, and then they had to raise money to establish their own businesses, so they could allow white people into them, to make a point about acceptance. instead of marching into segregated shops, they took the long way around, and that's how racial equality came to america

the alternate history of the civil rights movement, by gino


----------



## EJ (Jun 5, 2014)

Gino, you my double G to my dogg and you're my brotha

but you gotta know when you lost a debate bro.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 5, 2014)

gino, you aren't my anything, and you don't seem to know shit about shit

why don't you fuck off?


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 5, 2014)

Gino said:


> It's nothing fucking ignorant about what I said all you did was cop out because you didn't actually expect me to answer the question I see right through you bruh....Just take that L mane.



There was no copping out. You just don't have an argument to countermine. Just take my D.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 5, 2014)

Gino, aren't you black? Why don't you know your own history?


----------



## SLB (Jun 5, 2014)

Fiona said:


> Its stories like this that remind me how bigoted and intolerant the Cafe is.



seems like the same vocal minority to me.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 5, 2014)

Moody said:


> seems like the same vocal minority to me.



Yes but that particular minority seems to be the only ones that ever posts which makes makes me feel like that minority IS the Cafe.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 5, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Gino, aren't you black? Why don't you know your own history?



Because he's fucking stupid.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 5, 2014)

Lucaniel said:


> i mean, it's not like any black activists ever did
> 
> sit-ins aren't a real thing
> 
> ...



I wish I could rep.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 5, 2014)

Lucaniel said:


> i mean, it's not like any black activists ever did
> 
> sit-ins aren't a real thing
> 
> ...



Take my rep


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 5, 2014)

Gino said:


> And yet sill no one here really wants to solve anything only bitch this is whats aggravating  about you people.



Thank you! Finally someone else says it. Everyone in here is that keyboard lawyer that knows "everything" and is a bastion of holy light in this world to the oppressed "minorities" but 9/10 of them would not a attend a march or form of protest ever in their lives.



Lucaniel said:


> i mean, it's not like any black activists ever did
> 
> sit-ins aren't a real thing
> 
> ...



Yeah they did do that but guess what? What Gino said they did they really did it. No one fucking complained and bitched because they couldn't get a cake they said if I can't get one done then I'm going to start my own shop and when they did their business boomed.

White people realized they where being assholes and things started to change. It takes action to change situations around you not bitching because you can't get a cake from someone who has different beliefs then you.


----------



## Enclave (Jun 5, 2014)

Gino said:


> ........
> 
> Do you not understand regardless of the law things like this are going to continue to happen over and over and over again unless someone attacks this problem from a  different angle? The only thing the law did was force somebody to do something they don't wanna do which in turn will cause a even worse negative effect how are you not getting this no one won in this  situation.So how long before this becomes a standard?
> 
> ...



Worse negative effect?  The only effect is these people have to make a cake and not discriminate against people.

You can bet this cake shop will never again refuse service to somebody just because they're homosexual.  You can also bet that other business in the area saw what happened and will make sure not to make the same mistake as it cost the bakery money.

Also, you know laws like this is exactly what helped other minorities stop being discriminated against.  History is just full of people discriminating against others until the law tells them they can't anymore and then actually enforces said law.


----------



## EJ (Jun 5, 2014)

> but 9/10 of them would not a attend a march or form of protest ever in their lives.



What does this have to do with anything?



> Yeah they did do that but guess what? What Gino said they did they really did it. No one fucking complained and bitched because they couldn't get a cake they said if I can't get one done then I'm going to start my own shop and when they did their business boomed.
> 
> White people realized they where being assholes and things started to change. It takes action to change situations around you not bitching because you can't get a cake from someone who has different beliefs then you.



The sit-ins caused a HUGE uproar. It wasn't just one side to the coin, there were multiple processes that caused the end to segregation. No, it didn't end racism as a whole within the US but people were forced to serve those they didn't like. The world you live in today  is due to many people going out there and being radicals to change the oppressive nature of the US.

How is it wrong if a gay person is not denied the opportunity to receive a cake for a wedding?


----------



## Gino (Jun 5, 2014)

Flow said:


> Gino, you my double G to my dogg and you're my brotha
> 
> but you gotta know when you lost a debate bro.



With all due respect Get the fuck outta here right now.


Lucaniel said:


> gino, you aren't my anything, and you don't seem to know shit about shit
> 
> why don't you fuck off?


ohohoho Did I hit a nerve little keyboard warrior?



Enclave said:


> Worse negative effect?  The only effect is these people have to make a cake and not discriminate against people.
> 
> You can bet this cake shop will never again refuse service to somebody just because they're homosexual.  You can also bet that other business in the area saw what happened and will make sure not to make the same mistake as it cost the bakery money.
> 
> Also, you know laws like this is exactly what helped other minorities stop being discriminated against.  History is just full of people discriminating against others until the law tells them they can't anymore and then actually enforces said law.



I'm now 100% convinced you people are indeed full of fucking shit.You asswipes don't want equality or any other shit you spew out of your mouths.

Lets keep it real you people just wanna bitch and moan. I would respect you fucks more if you just admitted it you make the people who really do want these things look bad.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 5, 2014)

Gino said:


> With all due respect Get the fuck outta here right now.
> 
> ohohoho Did I hit a nerve little keyboard warrior?
> 
> ...



check out how he side-stepped acknowledging that he doesn't know shit about the civil rights movement, or acknowledging that his ignorance had been exposed


----------



## Fiona (Jun 5, 2014)

Jesus Gino. 

Calm the hell down and quit being such a dick. 

You are acting like you are a golden beacon of truth and justice but you are just in here bitching and whining and everyone else bitching and whining. 

If you think we are full of shit, then good for you. No one is making you stay here. By all means leave. 

No really. 

Please leave.


----------



## Gino (Jun 5, 2014)

Lucaniel said:


> check out how he side-stepped acknowledging that he doesn't know shit about the civil rights movement, or acknowledging that his ignorance had been exposed



You really want my attention huh?


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 5, 2014)

Gino said:


> You really want my attention huh?



>pretends to debate
>gets wrecked
>resorts to internet tough guy posturing

look like you're out of gas


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 5, 2014)

Fiona said:


> Jesus Gino.
> 
> Calm the hell down and quit being such a dick.
> 
> ...



U MAD? 

CUZ I AIN'T

U MAD NOT ME YOU ARE 

FUCK ALL OF YALL

can't help but notice it's just like that...


----------



## Gino (Jun 5, 2014)

Fiona said:


> Jesus Gino.
> 
> Calm the hell down and quit being such a dick.
> 
> ...



 I'm still quite calm not my fault I call shit how I see it you think I give a darn about convincing any of you?It obvious the angenda must be pushed it is what it is.


Lucaniel said:


> >pretends to debate
> >gets wrecked
> >resorts to internet tough guy posturing
> look like you're out of gas


Whatever helps you feel better brah you want some more rep?


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 5, 2014)

Gino said:


> I'm still quite calm not my fault I call shit how I see it you think I give a darn about convincing any of you?It obvious the angenda must be pushed it is what it is.



if you don't give a darn about convincing anyone, why are you in here, bleating like a sheep in childbirth?


----------



## Fiona (Jun 5, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> U MAD?
> 
> CUZ I AIN'T
> 
> ...



You made me choke on my Dr.Pepper


----------



## Risyth (Jun 5, 2014)

Why the absolute _fuck_ are people still posting in this thread.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 5, 2014)

Gino said:


> I'm still quite calm not my fault I call shit how I see it you think I give a darn about convincing any of you?It obvious the angenda must be pushed it is what it is.



Then why are you even here?


----------



## Gino (Jun 5, 2014)

Lucaniel said:


> if you don't give a darn about convincing anyone, why are you in here, bleating like a sheep in childbirth?





Fiona said:


> Then why are you even here?




I made the mistake of thinking you guys was capable of thinking outside the box I was clearly wrong.

Anything else?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 5, 2014)

I'm not angry I'm amused (insert emoticon in attempt to be witty here)

I was just trollin' y'all, even though I look like the one who lost his shit

Just as planned


----------



## Fiona (Jun 5, 2014)

Risyth said:


> Why the absolute _fuck_ are people still posting in this thread.



Very educated and mature comment delivered in a magnificent form. 

The way you Italicized the word fuck like that gave your post that little bit extra required for people realize how edgy as fuck you are. 

10/10


----------



## Gino (Jun 5, 2014)

......


----------



## Risyth (Jun 5, 2014)

Fiona said:


> Very educated and mature comment delivered in a magnificent form.
> 
> 10/10



Not many fucks given since every reply I made to dumb statements has ended my argument with those individuals.

0/grow up


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 5, 2014)

Gino said:


> I made the mistake of thinking you guys was capable of thinking outside the box I was clearly wrong.
> 
> Anything else?



does "outside the box" mean outside of recorded historical fact and reality as we know it, like your bullshit about how black people never tried to protest jim crow by using white-only shops? 

people aren't incapable of thinking "outside the box" just because they don't want to believe the counterfactual delusions that go in your weird little mind 

you're an idiot who's so deep into believing his own bullshit that you're in denial about the entire civil rights movement

get help


----------



## Gino (Jun 5, 2014)

Lucaniel said:


> does "outside the box" mean outside of recorded historical fact and reality as we know it, like your bullshit about how black people never tried to protest jim crow by using white-only shops?
> 
> people aren't incapable of thinking "outside the box" just because they don't want to believe the counterfactual delusions that go in your weird little mind
> 
> ...




I keep forgetting I should take what a guy from London says about civil rights seriously.


This is fun anymore people wanna gang up on me?


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 5, 2014)

Gino said:


> I keep forgetting I should take what a guy from London says about civil rights seriously.



do you think they don't have history books in london?


----------



## Risyth (Jun 5, 2014)

Gino said:


> I keep forgetting I should take what a guy from London says about civil rights seriously.
> 
> 
> This is fun anymore people wanna gang up on me?



Sounds enticing....


...hmm, depends on what I get out of it.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 5, 2014)

Gino said:


> I keep forgetting I should take what a guy from London says about civil rights seriously.
> 
> 
> This is fun anymore people wanna gang up on me?



Lol bet yo ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) ass like when guys gang up on you. I'm a top just so you know.


----------



## LesExit (Jun 5, 2014)

Woah 24 pages, keep it going :3

Though Gino I'm honestly so confused by you. Are you trolling XD?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 5, 2014)

LesExit said:


> Woah 24 pages, keep it going :3
> 
> Though Gino I'm honestly so confused by you. Are you trolling XD?



Losing his cool was part of his master plan.

No, he was clearly serious and only tried to turn it around once he started getting grilled.


----------



## Gino (Jun 5, 2014)

LesExit said:


> Woah 24 pages, keep it going :3
> 
> Though Gino I'm honestly so confused by you. Are you trolling XD?






Seto Kaiba said:


> Losing his cool was part of his master plan.
> No, he was clearly serious and only tried to turn it around once he started getting grilled.


Indeed listen to this man.


**


----------



## Risyth (Jun 5, 2014)

Gino said:


> I'll always respect you.



Aww, you...

Imma rep ya now.... 

Or not, I guess.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 5, 2014)

LesExit said:


> Woah 24 pages, keep it going :3
> 
> Though Gino I'm honestly so confused by you. Are you trolling XD?



Well he WAS trying to be serious. 

Then was embarrassed by people pointing out the flaws in his Swiss cheese argument 

Then he became mad at said people. 

Then he realized that he had shown everyone that he was mad and overcompensated by making offhand jokes and trying to play cool. 

Now he is trying to troll very hard in order to give the illusion he was never being an idiot and in fact he was trolling the whole time.


----------



## Gino (Jun 5, 2014)

I'm totally embarrassed you're right.My Internet Image woe is me.....






Lucaniel said:


> i'll say
> 
> it's made you a full-on uncle tom
> 
> "racism ended because they left those mean racists alone to just keep doing their thang. you should never try and force them to do with the law, cos that might hurt their feelings"



Called me an uncle tom........are you fucking serious?


And you just keep proving you're indeed a dumbass that's likes putting words in people mouths it's all good though.You feeling offended by what I said?...........good 

fuck being pc


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 5, 2014)

>muh anti-discrimination law
There's one fact that it is missing most of you: law is not set in stone. The fact is that people will advocate the laws that suit them, and ignore everything else. I am utterly amused at the way anti-discrimination has held up to sacrosanct itt because I would bet all my savings that none of you give a darn about piracy law. That's quite hypocritical, don't you think? Furthermore, often business will perform action that aren't covered by law. That's why if the law doesn't reflect reality than the law should be changed. See: prohibition, patent reform, tax reform, common carrier laws, etc.

>but discrimination is wrong because muh feelings
Sure, ok then, let's let in all the mudslimes from Al Qaeda and see how taking that stand works out. You all need to come back to reality and realize that life isn't supposed to be looked through the rose-colored glasses of feelings and fairness. Life isn't supposed to be fair.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 5, 2014)

Gino said:


> Called me an uncle tom........are you fucking serious?



yes



> And you just keep proving you're indeed a dumbass that's likes putting words in people mouths


nah, just paraphrasing



Gino said:


> you know what black people did when white people didn't wanna serve us?.......We opened up our own dinners,salons,bakery's etc and guess what?We still let people white people or whoever come in our place and eat to show them  that the color of your skin didn't matter.





Gino said:


> The only thing the law did was force somebody to do something they don't wanna do which in turn will cause a even worse negative effect how are you not getting this no one won in this  situation.



see?



> You feeling offended by what I said?...........good



no - but i see _you're_ feeling very offended by what i said. good.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 5, 2014)

Golden Circle said:


> >muh anti-discrimination law
> There's one fact that it is missing most of you: law is not set in stone. The fact is that people will advocate the laws that suit them, and ignore everything else. I am utterly amused at the way anti-discrimination has held up to sacrosanct itt because I would bet all my savings that none of you give a darn about piracy law. Often business will perform action that aren't covered by law. That's why if the law doesn't reflect reality than the law should be changed. See: prohibition, patent reform, tax reform, common carrier laws, etc.
> 
> >but discrimination is wrong because muh feelings
> Sure, ok then, let's let in all the mudslimes from Al Qaeda and see how taking that stand works out. You all need to come back to reality and realize that life isn't supposed to be looked through the rose-colored glasses of feelings and fairness. Life isn't supposed to be fair.



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 5, 2014)

Fiona said:


> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0[/YOUTUBE]


Wow you sure showed me.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 5, 2014)

Golden Circle said:


> Wow you sure showed me.



Thanks. 

I try 

**


----------



## EJ (Jun 5, 2014)

Hahhaahhahahaa oh my fucking god Gino, just admit you lost the debate.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 5, 2014)

Gino is getting schooled


----------



## Gunners (Jun 5, 2014)

I understand where Gino is coming from. Experiencing racism tends to make you question how beneficial certain laws are. A bit hard to appreciate going to a white school when you have people telling you shouldn't be there and trying to whip your ass, hard to appreciate not being driven out of store when you're viewed as a criminal the moment you walk through the door. 

There was no need to call him an Uncle Tom.


----------



## Gino (Jun 5, 2014)

Lucaniel said:


> yes
> 
> 
> nah, just paraphrasing
> ...



It's like clock work ain't it 

 heh....


You're indeed a dumbass that's like putting words in people mouths tell me what I said that was in favor of the white man?

What you should have taken from that statement was since the gay struggle is apparently similar to the black struggle Why not take a page from our book and do your own thing nothing more nothing less......you didn't unsurprisingly and brought up the sit in because let's be honest you're still butthurt I shut your silly ass down(ME of all people) I even said that wasn't a good example but let's just undermine that because I'm all about the white man according to you.No here wants a right solution so they cause confusion.RIFF!!!!!


Look here it's quite simple and If I have to repeat myself it's going to be trouble........... trouble




Fiona said:


> Gino is getting schooled



It only seems that way because we're on opposing sides when it's all said and done I still respect you.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 5, 2014)

Well you know it's not like everyone else here is white.


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 5, 2014)

Well you didn't show me anything. This is law 101. You do know what "lawmakers" means and implies, right? Here, I'll tell you because you'll pretend to be retarded: the law is made up on the run.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 5, 2014)

Gino said:


> It's like clock work ain't it
> 
> heh....
> 
> ...



u mad            ?


----------



## Risyth (Jun 5, 2014)

> There's one fact that it is missing most of you: law is not set in stone. The fact is that people will advocate the laws that suit them, and ignore everything else. I am utterly amused at the way anti-discrimination has held up to sacrosanct itt because I would bet all my savings that none of you give a darn about piracy law. Often business will perform action that aren't covered by law. That's why if the law doesn't reflect reality than the law should be changed. See: prohibition, patent reform, tax reform, common carrier laws, etc.



Golden Circle, that premise is actually a valid point.

But that's the realm of subjectivity, and I refuse to go there and argue. Just my two cents, though, since it's a private, family-owned company, and not public in any official form, I _do_ think they have the right to discriminate. It's a damn wedding cake anyway. Nothing dire.

They also have the right to put a sign out in advance, so people don't waste their time like this. And they consequently have a right to lose business faster than ValuJet and perhaps be subject to their very own personal Kristallnacht as well.


----------



## Gino (Jun 5, 2014)

Lucaniel said:


> u mad            ?



I'm glad.


----------



## Nep Nep (Jun 5, 2014)

I bet OP is very pleased at the results of this thread.


----------



## Narcissus (Jun 5, 2014)

Golden Circle said:


> I am utterly amused at the way anti-discrimination has held up to sacrosanct itt because I would bet all my savings that none of you give a darn about piracy law.


Attempting to demonstrate a double standard from the people advocating the anti-discrimination law does not, in any way, invalidate that law. You need to show why that particular law should be changed.





> but discrimination is wrong because muh feelings


No. Discrimination is wrong because it is unjust treatment based on factors no one usually has control over.

In this case, the couple was discriminated against due to their sexual orientation. Which is no different than discriminating against someone because of their race, gender, age, etc...





> You all need to come back to reality and realize that life isn't supposed to be looked through the rose-colored glasses of feelings and fairness. Life isn't supposed to be fair.


Regardless of whether or not life is supposed to be fair, people should not be discriminated against.

Moreover, under this notion, no one should complain about the baker being ordered to make their cake. After all, life isn't fair...


----------



## EJ (Jun 5, 2014)

Golden Circle said:


> >but discrimination is wrong because muh feelings
> Sure, ok then, let's let in all the mudslimes from Al Qaeda



That's considerably fucking stupid due to the fact that you're comparing a radical terrorist group to gay people. 

Furthermore of how it's stupid is that people associated with Al Qaeda are blacklisted from the country or arrested.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 5, 2014)

it's golden circle, people. his user info actually TELLS you he's a shitposter. even JSJ and thor don't have the decency to do that, but i still know enough to have them on super ignore. c'mon. you can read the dude's posts, he has literally nothing of value to say


----------



## Gino (Jun 5, 2014)

Lucaniel said:


> i'd get you on it too, but i like exposing you for the uncle tom you are



UNCLE TOM AGAIN!!!! ARGH-


I prefer it that way so I can shut yo ass down again after all we both know you ain't bout it.


/Internet Thugging


----------



## Risyth (Jun 5, 2014)

ITT: 

Let it die


----------



## SLB (Jun 5, 2014)

snatching that gif

only interesting thing we've had for pages


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 5, 2014)

Okay, spoonfeeding time again.

Re: my location
It's a common perception that everyone from australia is a shitposter even if they may or may not be.  I suspect it comes from people taking our banter literally. This is on the first page of google.  up until about a week ago when I changed my location; now I'm the #1 hit for "shitposter cuntry" due to google's link priority algorithm. It can't be helped.

Too bad that some people's sarcasm meters are defective I guess.

For the record, my intention when I changed my location was to
1) say I'm australian
2) poke fun at myself and my fellow cuntrymen
It did not in any way mean anything about my post content because they haven't changed. I still post in tech threads. I still use liberal doses of wit.

Now back to the topic and not my profile.


----------



## SLB (Jun 5, 2014)

i don't think i've ever seen anybody connect shitposting to australia before...

then again i am out of loop on most things.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 5, 2014)

let's all just take it down a notch shall we


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 5, 2014)

Golden Circle said:


> Okay, spoonfeeding time again.
> 
> Re: my location
> It's a common perception that everyone from australia is a shitposter even if they may or may not be.  I suspect it comes from people taking our banter literally. This is on the first page of google.  up until about a week ago when I changed my location; now I'm the #1 hit for "shitposter cuntry" due to google's link priority algorithm. It can't be helped.
> ...


You guys are the descendants of people bad enough that someone braved the South Pacific Sea to strand you on an island.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 5, 2014)

Religion denounces certain ideologies, not skin color.


----------



## Risyth (Jun 5, 2014)

Moody said:


> snatching that gif
> 
> only interesting thing we've had for pages



Moody! Buddy! 



*Spoiler*: __ 



...you'd better rep thank me for that.


----------



## Gino (Jun 5, 2014)

What happened to letting this thread die?


----------



## Risyth (Jun 5, 2014)

Rep before logic.


----------



## Doge (Jun 5, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> Religion denounces certain ideologies, not skin color.



Precisely, the gay agenda has no legal protection as homosexuality isn't the same as color.

Someone kill this thread before it kills itself #GunsSaveThreads


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 5, 2014)

Doge said:


> Precisely, the gay agenda has no legal protection as homosexuality isn't the same as color.



And that is what pisses me off, Im not religious in any way, but Im not going to openly stomp on their beliefs to their face I have more respect for people than that(for the most part). And to compare gays to minorities is BULLSHIT. Discriminating against someone because of their skincolor(the way you are born) isn't the same as denial of services to someone based on their lifestyle choices. 


And yes its a fucking choice. No one can conclusively prove that homosexuals are born gay.


----------



## Enclave (Jun 5, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> And that is what pisses me off, Im not religious in any way, but Im not going to openly stomp on their beliefs to their face I have more respect for people than that(for the most part). And to compare gays to minorities is BULLSHIT. Discriminating against someone because of their skincolor(the way you are born) isn't the same as denial of services to someone based on their lifestyle choices.
> 
> 
> And yes its a fucking choice. No one can conclusively prove that homosexuals are born gay.



Let me ask you a simple question.

Did you ever decide one day that you were not going to have cocks shoved in your ass?  I mean seriously sit down and think "No, no I don't think I'll love the dick".  I don't mean realising you aren't attracted to big veiny cocks, I mean making a conscious decision to be attracted to vagina instead of cock.

Now, if your answer to that is yes?  Sorry to break this to you but you're probably gay or bisexual.  Most of us?  We never had to make a decision.  Me?  Never attracted to men at all.  Have a couple gay friends, they never were attracted to women.  No choices were made.

Also think about this.  Who in their right fucking mind would CHOOSE to be gay?  Honestly, think about that for a second.  Who would make that conscious decision to risk being ostracised by their friends and family?  To potentially lose their entire support structure in their life?  Who would willingly put themselves in that position?  Who would make a decision like that which would cause them such strife and worry?  I don't know a single gay person who's never been discriminated against in some way, so why would they choose that?  Seriously, answer that.


----------



## Risyth (Jun 5, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> And that is what pisses me off, Im not religious in any way, but Im not going to openly stomp on their beliefs to their face I have more respect for people than that(for the most part). And to compare gays to minorities is BULLSHIT. Discriminating against someone because of their skincolor(the way you are born) isn't the same as denial of services to someone based on their lifestyle choices.
> 
> 
> And yes its a fucking choice. No one can *conclusively* prove that homosexuals are born gay.



"*Conclusively *prove" = "convince me that"


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 5, 2014)

Enclave said:


> Let me ask you a simple question.
> 
> Did you ever decide one day that you were not going to have cocks shoved in your ass?  I mean seriously sit down and think "No, no I don't think I'll love the dick".  I don't mean realising you aren't attracted to big veiny cocks, I mean making a conscious decision to be attracted to vagina instead of cock.


Can't really say that I know, I know that I don't like the idea of homosexuality nor the acts of homosexuality.


> Now, if your answer to that is yes?  Sorry to break this to you but you're probably gay or bisexual.  Most of us?  We never had to make a decision.  Me?  Never attracted to men at all.  Have a couple gay friends, they never were attracted to women.  No choices were made.


Bullshit, they decided that they though males were attractive, just like how you think some women are attractive and others are ugly. They are not born that way, there is no proof and its downright illogical if not just an excuse for their extreme perversion.



> Also think about this.  Who in their right fucking mind would CHOOSE to be gay?  Honestly, think about that for a second.  Who would make that conscious decision to risk being ostracised by their friends and family?  To potentially lose their entire support structure in their life?  Who would willingly put themselves in that position?  Who would make a decision like that which would cause them such strife and worry?  I don't know a single gay person who's never been discriminated against in some way, so why would they choose that?  Seriously, answer that.



I have no fucking clue, that is what baffles me. Why do people choose to live a life of strife and worry? Yet others choose other lifestyles that bring the same things. People from America join terrorist organizations. People have fucked up mentalities and pleasures.

Is someone born Religious? Or are they born atheist?...Honestly if you want to know the truth...Children are purpose driven, everything the see they think it has a purpose for its existence and thus from that thinking one could logically imply that children inherently believe in a higher power. 

So even if you are born gay it doesn't mean that it is right because plenty of people end up atheist and that would mean that people are subjugated to change overtime. And if you aren't born gay then you are still subjugated to changing your mentality becoming gay.

That is why I say it is a choice and not an inherent way of thinking.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 5, 2014)

Let's say for example, someone was going to put Ichi into training, to 'train' him to be gay, when he is straight. Does that make sense? Is it right? Is it possible for him to suddenly 'become the gay'?

No, because he hates gay people for even existing to begin with, and secondly, he's simply not of that orientation.

This kind of thing should be open and shut, i don't understand what's wrong with certain people's brains that they can't understand even simple concepts. I don't want to call them idiots but...they seem to consistently not understand common sense


----------



## Risyth (Jun 5, 2014)

Okay, I'm done.


----------



## Gino (Jun 5, 2014)




----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 5, 2014)

Kenan is the only one with a job now.


----------



## Narcissus (Jun 5, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> Can't really say that I know, I know that I don't like the idea of homosexuality nor the acts of homosexuality.


 It doesn't matter what you like. The fact that you admit that you don't know means you cannot claim it to be a choice. 


> Bullshit, they decided that they though males were attractive, just like how you think some women are attractive and others are ugly. They are not born that way, there is no proof


Attraction and arousal are chemical reactions in the brain. So you can choose how you respond to those reactions, but no, you do not choose to be attracted. 



Furthermore, 

This among numerouse other forms of evidence, showing that your claim is a bare assertion. Your opinion is worthless, and no one needs to convince you,  because the scientific evidence is against you.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 5, 2014)

No I hate that they want to push their ideology on to others while disregarding the other persons inherent beliefs.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 5, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> No I hate that they want to push their ideology on to others while disregarding the other persons inherent beliefs.



There's no room for these kind of people in the civilized world.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 5, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> No I hate that they want to push their ideology on to others while disregarding the other persons inherent beliefs.



Lol, your the one who just said you hate the idea of gay relationships and even the idea of them. Nobody else said that but you. So in effect, your doing the thing that your accusing other people of doing. Pushing your Christianity beliefs on people who don't even necessarily follow that as some kind of irrational justification for being a bigot.


If that's the case, its still your opinion, but that has nothing to do with anyone else right? You don't have the right to tell other people what they believe is wrong, if you believe yourself to have the same right.

By that same token, you can't possibly say that a business strictly banned from discriminating against someone's sexual orientation is in the right for doing so. They arent in the right and it doesn't even matter what you think of homosexual relationships to begin with. You don't have the right to push your views on other people when they aren't even valid to start.


----------



## Thor (Jun 5, 2014)

There is no room for gays in the civilized world. Homosexuals are notorious pedophiles and spread HIV.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jun 5, 2014)

Inu, I thought I told you to get off that lion. 

btw, this is now going to be a feel-good thread about wine.

Post about *wine*, people.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 5, 2014)

Thor said:


> There is no room for gays in the civilized world. Homosexuals are notorious pedophiles and spread HIV.



Anal sex is what helps spread it (transmission is hardly existent between two women---so you're wrong), so I'm guessing this is an admission that you're going to stop taking it up the ass?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 5, 2014)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> Inu, I thought I told you to get off that lion.



I AIN'T DOIN IT! 

i'll change it in october


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jun 5, 2014)

I don't recall giving you the option, missy.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 5, 2014)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> I don't recall giving you the option, mister.



FIXED


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jun 5, 2014)

ANGRY FACE IN ALL CAPS!


----------



## Gino (Jun 5, 2014)

Inuhanyou said:


> Kenan is the only one with a job now.



What was the point of you telling me that?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 5, 2014)

Gino said:


> What was the point of you telling me that?



You should have used Kenan. Atleast he's got a job 

Kel turned into a NOBODY!

Even though i liked him better in All That and their show


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jun 5, 2014)

But seriously gaiz.

Wine.

I'm more fond of sweet wines. Helps me get to sleep. What about ya'll?


----------



## Fiona (Jun 6, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> There's no room for these kind of people in the civilized world.



I agree. 

There is no room for Ichilibe in this world.


----------



## Enclave (Jun 6, 2014)

Look at your answers there IchLiebe.  The questions I put forth to you were pretty much completely impossible for you to answer.  The reason?  You're not attracted to men and the idea of you gobbling down on a throbbing cock is repulsive to you.  You don't have to think about it, you don't have to consider it.  It just by its very nature is something you know is not for you.

That's normal, that's the way most of us are and nobody thinks less of you for THAT.  Now, for gay men?  It's the exact opposite.  They just inherently are wanting to do that stuff, they're inherently attracted to men instead of women.  Sticking their dick in a pussy?  That's something that they inherently have zero interest in.

These aren't choices and the answers you gave should make that blatantly obvious to you.

Now, if these people are in fact born gay, how does that not make it right?  What's wrong with it?  You believe in God right?  Why would God make them gay if it's wrong?  Why would He do it?  What reason could He possibly have?  It's not a choice, it's something that He forced on them.  Also, who are you to say that His decision to make somebody gay is wrong?  Are you in a position where you can tell Him that His decision is wrong?  Are you really so arrogant that you would question your own gods decisions?


----------



## Nep Nep (Jun 6, 2014)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> But seriously gaiz.
> 
> Wine.
> 
> I'm more fond of sweet wines. Helps me get to sleep. What about ya'll?



Whatever gets me drunk enough to pass out quicker, esp if it's sweet. Don't give me that dry shit or that shit that tastes more like alcohol then like grape. It's fucking wine, I want the grape taste to be alongside the alcohol taste not eclipsed by it!


----------



## EJ (Jun 6, 2014)

IchLiebe is a grown ass homophobic adult. I doubt you can change his opinion no matter how truthful it is.


----------



## Enclave (Jun 6, 2014)

Kyokkai said:


> Whatever gets me drunk enough to pass out quicker, esp if it's sweet. Don't give me that dry shit or that shit that tastes more like alcohol then like grape. It's fucking wine, I want the grape taste to be alongside the alcohol taste not eclipsed by it!



You should drink rum instead, rum is the best alcohol ever.


----------



## Nep Nep (Jun 6, 2014)

Enclave said:


> You should drink rum instead, rum is the best alcohol ever.



I do bro. Lots of rum. 

I drink more rum than Jack Sparrow. 

The problem is I'm out of rum and I had that good shit too... imported gold rum.. 

I ran out of alcohol.. I need money so I can buy more alcohol.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jun 6, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Anal sex is what helps spread it (transmission is hardly existent between two women---so you're wrong), so I'm guessing this is an admission that you're going to stop taking it up the ass?


Not to mention, Thor, plenty of _heterosexuals are pedophiles._ Thor, stop living in an alternate reality.


----------



## Gino (Jun 6, 2014)

ITT:Alcoholics and Innocence Lost




Inuhanyou said:


> You should have used Kenan. Atleast he's got a job
> 
> Kel turned into a NOBODY!
> 
> Even though i liked him better in All That and their show




I don't understand you 95% of the time which is why I like you.


----------



## Nep Nep (Jun 6, 2014)

Gino said:


> ITT:*Alcoholics* and Innocence Lost



I'm getting there.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 6, 2014)

That's what most people tell me, Gino


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jun 6, 2014)

Gino said:


> ITT:Alcoholics and Innocence Lost



Shaddup and have a drink.


----------



## Mintaka (Jun 6, 2014)

The cafe feels like it's getting nuttier and nuttier as time goes by.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 6, 2014)

Kraken Rum is best rum. :33


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Jun 6, 2014)

How has this gotten to *twenty-fucking-eight* pages!?


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 6, 2014)

^ It's stuff like this:



SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Not to mention, Thor, plenty of *heterosexuals are pedophiles.* Thor, stop living in an alternate reality.


SSM12, everyone.


----------



## SwordKing (Jun 6, 2014)

Jesus would've made that cake for the homosexual couple.


----------



## babaGAReeb (Jun 6, 2014)

this thread is liek homophobes vs homopros


----------



## babaGAReeb (Jun 6, 2014)

dat troll thor


----------



## blueblip (Jun 6, 2014)

Wine is overpriced decent booze. Fuck it.

Now a good single malt scotch; THAT'S a drink!


----------



## Roman (Jun 6, 2014)

baconbits said:


> It depends on what you mean by tolerate.  If by tolerate you mean "allow" then yes, people should be able to be ignorant idiots if they wish to be so.  *If by tolerate you mean "unwilling to condemn" then no*.  You should not have to "tolerate" what you feel is ignorant.  But personal tolerance does not equate to treatment under the law.



Well there you go. I can forgive the bakery's idiocy and homophobia if they didn't allow it to affect their business practice and people's daily lives in general (including their own). But you're arguing that we shouldn't condemn the bakery for putting said idiocy into practice, only to later say that people shouldn't tolerate that. Stop contradicting yourself.


----------



## Xyloxi (Jun 6, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Anal sex is what helps spread it (transmission is hardly existent between two women---so you're wrong), so I'm guessing this is an admission that you're going to stop taking it up the ass?



That and there's the assumption that all gay men have anal sex, or all same-sex relationships are even sexual. What with the existence of asexual, same-sex relationships. Although in the minds of some, homosexuality is just about having rampant sex with everything and everyone of the same gender.


----------



## Thor (Jun 6, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Anal sex is what helps spread it (transmission is hardly existent between two women---so you're wrong), so I'm guessing this is an admission that you're going to stop taking it up the ass?



So you admit HIV is a homosexual male disease and was spread to the heterosexual population by in the closet homosexual males?


----------



## baconbits (Jun 6, 2014)

Freedan said:


> Well there you go. I can forgive the bakery's idiocy and homophobia if they didn't allow it to affect their business practice and people's daily lives in general (including their own). But you're arguing that we shouldn't condemn the bakery for putting said idiocy into practice, only to later say that people shouldn't tolerate that. Stop contradicting yourself.



I don't see where I said anything about not condemning them.  You have every right to condemn them if you see fit to do so.  I wouldn't, but you have every right to do so.  Part of being in a free society is accepting the freedoms of others: you're free to state opinions the baker doesn't like.

But he should also be free to make the product and serve the customer he wishes to serve, even if he is an idiot.  That's my only point.


----------



## baconbits (Jun 6, 2014)

Xyloxi said:


> That and there's the assumption that all gay men have anal sex, or all same-sex relationships are even sexual. What with the existence of asexual, same-sex relationships. Although in the minds of some, homosexuality is just about having rampant sex with everything and everyone of the same gender.



Yeah, right.  Next you're going to tell me all gay guys aren't into fashion and the color pink...


----------



## Roman (Jun 6, 2014)

baconbits said:


> I don't see where I said anything about not condemning them.  You have every right to condemn them if you see fit to do so.  I wouldn't, but you have every right to do so.  Part of being in a free society is accepting the freedoms of others: you're free to state opinions the baker doesn't like.
> 
> But he should also be free to make the product and serve the customer he wishes to serve, even if he is an idiot.  That's my only point.



Translation: he should also be free to strip away people's freedom to choose his services and continue to be openly intolerant of certain people.

But no, that shouldn't be allowed precisely because the more its done i.e. the more other people are allowed to be intolerant, the less free other people will be. One person's freedom shouldn't have to trample on another's. That's the point I'm making and that's what the law is trying to protect.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 6, 2014)

Thor said:


> So you admit HIV is a homosexual male disease and was spread to the heterosexual population by in the closet homosexual males?



HIV is not a "homosexual male disease" because it affects people other than homosexual males.

/argument


----------



## Xyloxi (Jun 6, 2014)

baconbits said:


> Yeah, right.  Next you're going to tell me all gay guys aren't into fashion and the color pink...



Get your facts right, all gay men own assless leather chaps.


----------



## LyricalMessiah (Jun 6, 2014)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Discrimination is against the law, lucky.



This.

And just to commence in what I have to say, I'd like to take my time to say that Gino is the best debater of this section! No, jokes aside, he's very good.


Anyways, are you guys fucking serious here? How amazed am I at witnessing that In this day and age, people still defend the attitude of the baker by saying he has the right to NOT chose to make the case because it's his choice. Well, the country in which he lives in is anti-discriminatory thus any further debate as to whether the man should be allowed to not make the cake for the gay couple is, simply put, superfluous. Imagine had the bible or any religious books for that matter said that people of different skin colors to white people should not be tolerated to live in civilized society or have the same equal treatment as the whites. Would some of you who believe that the man is entitled to his beliefs and the right to not serve the gay couple still think that the same logic that this baker applied should be applicable to people of different skin color or ethnicity? Talk about a double standard. How sad. It's pathetic people still have such 'phobias' but that is his right. However it is not his right, it is actually illegal, never mind just nasty, to discriminate against anyone based on color/sex/anything in the workplace. If you chose to run a business, you can't pick and choose! It's NOT the same as a kosher butcher not selling other types of food! You don't see every restaurant being forced to sell Halal. But you do expect those restaurants to serve everyone who wants to comes in! If a halal restaurant wouldn't serve me because I'm white, I'd go mad! I wouldn't go mad because they didn't stock bacon! I'm a man, I don't march into women's clothing stores and demand they sell Man's wear. But I would go mad if they wouldn't serve me at all based on the fact that I am of different gender to them. There is a difference. Shame on him. He has freedom of speech. Even as a bigot. But In business you don't have freedom to discriminate.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 6, 2014)

Inuhanyou said:


> Lol, your the one who just said you hate the idea of gay relationships and even the idea of them. Nobody else said that but you. So in effect, your doing the thing that your accusing other people of doing. Pushing your Christianity beliefs on people who don't even necessarily follow that as some kind of irrational justification for being a bigot.


My Christian beliefs? I am not Christian. I believe that we were made by a highly advanced alien civilization and that they are portrayed as God/Gods through religion. I do hate the idea of homosexuality just as they do, I don't think that it will advance humans in any positive way. But that doesn't mean that I discriminate against them. Im just saying that its bullshit they try to force their beliefs on others just as some religious people do.



> If that's the case, its still your opinion, but that has nothing to do with anyone else right? You don't have the right to tell other people what they believe is wrong, if you believe yourself to have the same right.


Yes I can. Its not opinion, its ideology. I will tell someone they are wrong all the time. Maybe thats the problem, people scared to tell someone when they are wrong.



> By that same token, you can't possibly say that a business strictly banned from discriminating against someone's sexual orientation is in the right for doing so. They arent in the right and it doesn't even matter what you think of homosexual relationships to begin with. You don't have the right to push your views on other people when they aren't even valid to start.


Everyone's views are valid, being logical is a different matter. 

No just like how businesses can put " No shoes, no shirt, no service". Or how about people driving regular cars down rodeo drive and being told to get out of that area just because of socioeconomic classes. How am I pushing my views on anyone, I preach to you people on the internet every now and then and speak to others about what I think when asked about the topic, I don't go around suing folks and boycotting businesses based on their ideology.

And also I see it from the perspective that the Bakers would have been actively participating in the wedding that is deemed an abomination of sorts in their religion. Whats next preachers being forced to do the ceremony?


----------



## Thor (Jun 6, 2014)

Homosexuals are the most promiscious people on Earth. All they do is have orgies, multiple partners and prey on young homeless runaways.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 6, 2014)

Enclave said:


> Look at your answers there IchLiebe.  The questions I put forth to you were pretty much completely impossible for you to answer.  The reason?  You're not attracted to men and the idea of you gobbling down on a throbbing cock is repulsive to you.  You don't have to think about it, you don't have to consider it.  It just by its very nature is something you know is not for you.


And yet I said that I "couldn't answer" the question honestly because I have no knowledge of ever posing that idea to myself. People are designed by their environment, if you was to say that one was born gay, then there would have to be something genetically I would think that would link it. Then would the gay gene just eventually kill it self off since it wouldn't be able to appropriately reproduce.

But who knows maybe it epigenectic which would make homosexuals more or less mutants as their life is dictated by their mutations.


> That's normal, that's the way most of us are and nobody thinks less of you for THAT.  Now, for gay men?  It's the exact opposite.  They just inherently are wanting to do that stuff, they're inherently attracted to men instead of women.  Sticking their dick in a pussy?  That's something that they inherently have zero interest in.


And most gay people have never been with a woman, they just have no interest in it, just how I have no interest in flying a plane but who knows it might be pleasurable and that is why I say that gays are just victims of extreme perversion.

If a male child is taught that its alright to like either sex, and the child has sex with a male and think that its amazing they would be less inclined to be with a woman, and vice versa. Also what about gays who have kids, I wonder what the chances are that the child will end up gay or bisexual.


> These aren't choices and the answers you gave should make that blatantly obvious to you.


It is a choice when you murder someone, when you steal, and we you commit any type of act that isn't necessary. It isn't necessary for gays to do the acts that are involved with reproducing and thus I come to the conclusion that it is a result of their extreme perversion.



> Now, if these people are in fact born gay, how does that not make it right?  What's wrong with it?  You believe in God right?  Why would God make them gay if it's wrong?  Why would He do it?  What reason could He possibly have?  It's not a choice, it's something that He forced on them.  Also, who are you to say that His decision to make somebody gay is wrong?  Are you in a position where you can tell Him that His decision is wrong?  Are you really so arrogant that you would question your own gods decisions?


How does it make it right? People are born psychopaths but it isn't ok for them to go around killing and raping people now is it.

I believe there is a higher power but to think that it actively affects our world is ridiculous, especially when most claim that it already knows everything that will and can happen thus I would claim that there would be no need for God to make homosexuals because that would limit the number of offspring that he could analyze for certain criteria. 

Even us humans can come to logical conclusions on how gays will influence this world positively and negatively.


Also I believe God has stepped away from interfering with our world if he ever did.


I do believe that the gods that most speak of, (Zeus, Thor, Prometheus, Lucifer, etc.) are alien life forms that have influenced our world and designed us for the purpose that is wholly unknown to us.

Im just saying don't hate and attack people when they don't agree with your choices


----------



## Risyth (Jun 6, 2014)




----------



## Toroxus (Jun 6, 2014)

Thor said:


> Homosexuals are the most promiscious people on Earth.


It's actually been proven that homosexuals and heterosexuals have identical sexual intercourse rates.



> All they do is have orgies, multiple partners and prey on young homeless runaways.



And how would you know? Who ever invited you to a party? "Prey on young homeless runaways" you know, young homosexual homeless runaways driven to the brink of suicide by people like Thor find comfort in their young homosexual peers. Who would have thought?


----------



## Fiona (Jun 6, 2014)




----------



## EJ (Jun 6, 2014)

^  You motivated Thor earlier by saying he was one of your favorite trolls.


----------



## Gino (Jun 6, 2014)

Muthafuck Thor.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 6, 2014)

Flow said:


> ^  You motivated Thor earlier by saying he was one of your favorite trolls.



There is a difference between laughing at a troll and feeding a troll


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 6, 2014)

Fiona said:


> snip





Flow said:


> ^  You motivated Thor earlier by saying he was one of your favorite trolls.



              .


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 6, 2014)

Why is bacon acting like he has a rational objection to this?


----------



## Narcissus (Jun 6, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Why is bacon acting like he has a rational objection to this?



Come now Seto. We've known bacon long enough to know the answer to that already.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 6, 2014)

Narcissus said:


> Come now Seto. We've known bacon long enough to know the answer to that already.



I was gonna comment on that misspell but it seems I was too slow.


_Creeps back underground_


----------



## Narcissus (Jun 6, 2014)

Hand Banana said:


> I was gonna comment on that misspell but it seems I was too slow.
> 
> 
> _Creeps back underground_



Status quo.


----------



## Thor (Jun 6, 2014)

Toroxus said:


> "Prey on young homeless runaways" you know, young *confused, scared, desperate*homeless runaways driven to the brink of suicide by people like Thor find comfort in their *OLD p*d*p***** homosexuals. Who would have thought?



Fixed for 100% accuracy.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 6, 2014)

Thor said:


> Fixed for 100% accuracy.



They're confused, scared, and desperate because there are people like you trying to make them commit suicide because they are gay. There are more males attracted to underage females than any other possible combination. And not just by amount, but also by frequency. So if anything Thor, it's heterosexuals that fit your "prey on young homeless runaways" description.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 6, 2014)

Toro. 

Seriously. 

Stop feeding the troll.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 6, 2014)

Ichi is really blowing my mind right now. is he a troll or is he really so ignorant


----------



## Fiona (Jun 6, 2014)

Inuhanyou said:


> Ichi is really blowing my mind right now. is he a troll or is he really so ignorant



Its a little bit of both to be honest. 

No one can be as stupid as he acts, but at the same time he clearly believes some of the crap he spews


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jun 6, 2014)

Toroxus. Treating Thor like real people. I am disappoint.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 6, 2014)

Onomatopoeia said:


> Toroxus. Treating Thor like real people. I am disappoint.


----------



## Gunners (Jun 6, 2014)

Yeah, I feel a bit ashamed when I respond to Thor or start writing a response; like, _you almost got me_. 

I suspect that he believes the things he writes, but is aware and unashamed of how distasteful his views are.


----------



## Thor (Jun 6, 2014)

I don't care how degenerates view me, as long as I am right in the sight of the one and only one true Judeo Christian God.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 6, 2014)

I just can't


----------



## Juda (Jun 6, 2014)

Thor said:


> I don't care how degenerates view me, as long as I am right in the sight of the one and only one true Judeo Christian God.



As a Christian to another. You should realize that we're advised to treat everyone equally. You're a liar if you say you love God but hate man. 1 John 4:20

Your life would be much nicer if you decided to simply love and equally respect others then hate.  You should always ask yourself if God is agreeing to your methods of hate towards homosexuals.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 6, 2014)

Juda said:


> As a Christian. You should realize that we're advised to treat everyone equally. You're a liar if you say you love God but hate man. 1 John 4:20



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zbt_R_d_V4&feature=kp[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Thor (Jun 6, 2014)

Juda said:


> As a Christian to another. You should realize that we're advised to treat everyone equally. You're a liar if you say you love God but hate man. 1 John 4:20
> 
> Your life would be much nicer if you decided to simply love and equally respect others then hate.  You should always ask yourself if God is agreeing to your methods of hate towards homosexuals.



I don't hate gays. I pray everyday that they see the light of their evil ways and repent. 

I've had sex with a lot of "lesbian" women in my life so I do love gays. I'm disgusted by homosexual men though.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jun 6, 2014)

Thor said:


> I don't hate gays. I pray everyday that they see the light of their evil ways and repent.
> 
> I've had sex with a lot of "lesbian" women in my life so I do love gays. I'm disgusted by homosexual men though.


Gays aren't evil. And you basically rape lesbian women to make them straight?

God, go to fucking HELL you repugnant troll.


----------



## Thor (Jun 6, 2014)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Gays aren't evil. And you basically rape lesbian women to make them straight?
> 
> God, go to fucking HELL you repugnant troll.



Where did you get rape from??? I've only ever had consensual sex.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jun 6, 2014)

Thor said:


> Where did you get rape from??? I've only ever had consensual sex.


Yeah right. You probably made the lesbian women emotionally vulnerable and took away their consent. Someone as repugnant and vile as you wouldn't know consent if it slapped you in the face.

Thor, if your a troll or not, you are a repugnant, vile person. There's no if's, an's, or buts about it. You're just pure vile. You're the type of person who'd hate Civil Rights in the Civil Rights era. You're the type of person who'd join the SS. You're the type of person who'd abuse slaves in the slavery era of America.


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 6, 2014)

Wow so we're allowed to call hetrosexual men vile now?

Neat.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 6, 2014)

Golden Circle said:


> Wow so we're allowed to call hetrosexual men vile now?
> 
> Neat.



When they are vile yes. 

We call vile men vile. 

Its called a statement. 

It is neat.


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 6, 2014)

But that's discrimination. We're supposed to be accepting everyone.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 6, 2014)

Golden Circle said:


> But that's discrimination. We're supposed to be accepting everyone.



Calling someone vile is discrimination? 

How long have you been an idiot? 

Is this a new ordeal for you or have you suffered from it for an extended period of time?


----------



## Takahashi (Jun 6, 2014)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Yeah right. You probably made the lesbian women emotionally vulnerable and took away their consent. Someone as repugnant and vile as you wouldn't know consent if it slapped you in the face.



I'd rather not defend Thor on, well, anything, but that rape accusation really came out of nowhere...


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 6, 2014)

Fiona said:


> Calling someone vile is discrimination?
> 
> How long have you been an idiot?
> 
> Is this a new ordeal for you or have you suffered from it for an extended period of time?


Yes it is discrimination. It's discriminating in your feelings towards them. I'm just little old GC trying to be accepting here.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 6, 2014)

Golden Circle said:


> Yes it is discrimination. It's discriminating in your feelings towards them. I'm just little old GC trying to be accepting here.



Oh you are trolling. 

Thought you were being serious. 

My mistake


----------



## EJ (Jun 6, 2014)

Fiona said:


> There is a difference between laughing at a troll and feeding a troll



The point is everyone is giving him attention. 

Even making countless post saying "Thor is my favorite troll", calling him an idiot, and engaging in conversation with him is motivating him to continue since he knows he can get some kind of reaction out of people. He purposely says the most controversial stuff because people eat his shit up all the time.

I don't understand how that's hard to get. If people left him alone and stopped responding to him, he would of gotten bored with his antics long ago.


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 6, 2014)

Fiona said:


> Oh you are trolling.
> 
> Thought you were being serious.
> 
> My mistake


No, I am serious. I fully support the idea of accepting people, especially straight men.


----------



## Jagger (Jun 6, 2014)

Golden Circle said:


> Wow so we're allowed to call hetrosexual men vile now?
> 
> Neat.


>Shitposter country.


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 6, 2014)

>Australia

Get with the times.


----------



## LesExit (Jun 6, 2014)

Flow said:


> The point is everyone is giving him attention.
> 
> Even making countless post saying "Thor is my favorite troll", calling him an idiot, and engaging in conversation with him is motivating him to continue since he knows he can get some kind of reaction out of people. He purposely says the most controversial stuff because people eat his shit up all the time.
> 
> I don't understand how that's hard to get. If people left him alone and stopped responding to him, he would of gotten bored with his antics long ago.


I think I don't want him to be bored. Even though he's clearly a troll, it's safe to say their are people many awful people out their who do hold his opinions, and it's nice to see people tear his "arguments" apart like rapid wolves pek


----------



## Fiona (Jun 6, 2014)

I am actually scared of what Thor would do if he got bored.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 6, 2014)

It's pointless. He's not making an argument. Those like him never do.

It's one thing when someone disagrees they deserve their criticism. However those like Thor are just seeking to come off as vile as possible to get the most attention.


----------



## Gino (Jun 6, 2014)

So did any of you actually think of ways to stop situations like this from happening in the future?


----------



## EJ (Jun 6, 2014)

It's nearly impossible to keep situations like this from happening. The best that should be done is afford everyone the same basic human rights.


----------



## White (Jun 6, 2014)

I guess going to another Baker is out of the question


----------



## EJ (Jun 6, 2014)

^They shouldn't have to which was literally discussed the past 31 pages.


----------



## White (Jun 6, 2014)

Sometimes situations like this are better side stepped. You cant really change how a person feels, and I wouldnt want my Wedding Cake being made by someone who hated what I was. Even if they get him to make their cake they havent really won anything


----------



## Gino (Jun 6, 2014)

I really don't feel going in another circle....


Let me rephase to keep things like this happening to a minimum. No trolling just a serious question.


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 6, 2014)

Gino said:


> So did any of you actually think of ways to stop situations like this from happening in the future?


Restore business right of refusal where alternatives exist. Allow me to use an analogy. If you can't get a dunlop tyre from a michellin reseller, it's not the shop's fault why they don't carry it. Ergo there are plenty of bakers in the area who would be happy to take their business. This applies to every industry.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 6, 2014)

I think the message that their business practice is illegal however, is more important. True you can't make them change their minds, but you can let them know when they are on the wrong side of the law on this. To be honest, I'd be wary of taking a food product from someone like that out of fear of them doing something spiteful to it. However I see no problem with taking legal action.


----------



## EJ (Jun 6, 2014)

White said:


> Sometimes situations like this are better side stepped. You cant really change how a person feels, and I wouldnt want my Wedding Cake being made by someone who hated what I was. Even if they get him to make their cake they havent really won anything



1. It shouldn't be side stepped

2. You more than likely were served by someone that didn't like/hated you for reasons you couldn't imagine


----------



## Gino (Jun 6, 2014)

Golden Circle said:


> Restore business right of refusal where alternatives exist. Allow me to use an analogy. If you can't get a dunlop tyre from a michellin reseller, it's not the shop's fault why they don't carry it. Ergo there are plenty of bakers in the area who would be happy to take their business. This applies to every industry.


As you can see in this thread apparently it's not that simple.




Flow said:


> 1. It shouldn't be side stepped
> 
> 2. You more than likely were served by someone that didn't like/hated you for reasons you couldn't imagine


I'm trying trying to figure out what exactly does one gain in this situation.I honestly don't understand.


----------



## EJ (Jun 6, 2014)

You can apply this towards any group that was discriminated against and say 


"I don't understand why these people didn't go to another store/diner"


----------



## Gino (Jun 6, 2014)

Flow said:


> You can apply this towards any group that was discriminated against and say
> 
> 
> "I don't understand why these people didn't go to another store/diner"




You didn't answer my question dude........


----------



## White (Jun 6, 2014)

Flow said:


> 1. It shouldn't be side stepped
> 
> 2. You more than likely were served by someone that didn't like/hated you for reasons you couldn't imagine



Of course it shouldn't, but sometimes its easier to let things like this go. Or at the very least hold off on any sort of legal action until after the wedding and after youve gotten what you wanted. You can force them to change their business acumen before that, but what would be the point if the wedding has been ruined as a result?


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 6, 2014)

If someone wants to lose some business by refusing customers then by all means go straight ahead. The free market will adjust and provide its own means of correction. Government interference wasn't needed in this case.


----------



## Xiammes (Jun 6, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I think the message that their business practice is illegal however, is more important. True you can't make them change their minds, but you can let them know when they are on the wrong side of the law on this. To be honest, I'd be wary of taking a food product from someone like that out of fear of them doing something spiteful to it. However I see no problem with taking legal action.



I find changing peoples mind to be more important then taking legal action. The reason gays marriage have been so successful is because they are changing peoples minds by not pissing them off, it feels more like they are taking steps backwards by provoking those against gay marriage.


----------



## Gunners (Jun 6, 2014)

I feel that the most effective measure would be creating a social stigma against shopping at certain stores. 

In support of the above, I would make it mandatory for companies to apply for one of two statuses: open service and selective service. They would then be forced into indicating what category they fall into inside and outside of their store. Not discriminating against employee and potential employees would be mandatory; it would be a criminal offence to discriminate against customers whilst having an open service status. 

From that point on, it would be a case of encouraging people not to shop at stores that are ran by bigoted people. 

Alternatively I would start the process of forcing companies to agree to certain terms lest the liquidate their assets. However, I'd rather create an environment where people know which companies should be shunned, and the owners of companies accept that they will not receive business for holding on to certain values.


----------



## EJ (Jun 6, 2014)

Gino said:


> You didn't answer my question dude........



How can my answer represent different people on why they decided to make this a big deal? I sort of doubt they expected it to be publicized this much but it's good that it did. They could of been irritated at the time and wanted to voice their opinion. They could of wanted a sense of justice for being denied a cake on account of them having a wedding that consisted of the same sex. 

They shouldn't had been denied the cake in the first place. You're telling me if you were denied to go inside of a store because you were black you would say 

"Oh, well. I'll just leave them alone, stay quiet, and go to another store."

If that's you, then ok. But just understand that not everyone operates like that. 




White said:


> Of course it shouldn't, but sometimes its easier to let things like this go. Or at the very least hold off on any sort of legal action until after the wedding and after youve gotten what you wanted. You can force them to change their business acumen before that, but what would be the point if the wedding has been ruined as a result?



I think you should read certain parts of this thread, because this statement is literally the starting point for another cycle to repeat itself.


----------



## White (Jun 6, 2014)

32 pages is a little long, well if thats about to happen then you can ignore that post


----------



## EJ (Jun 6, 2014)

^ I did ignore it, since your post and others like it were literally debunked over around 20 times.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 6, 2014)

White said:
			
		

> Of course it shouldn't, but sometimes its easier to let things like this go. Or at the very least hold off on any sort of legal action until after the wedding and after youve gotten what you wanted. You can force them to change their business acumen before that, but what would be the point if the wedding has been ruined as a result?



You should never let it go. Maybe they can hold it off until after the wedding, that's ultimately up to the couple...but no, legal action should always be an option. If they are going to discriminate this way once they will definitely do so for as long as they feel like. They will definitely feel more and more justified in doing so if you just let it go.



Xiammes said:


> I find changing peoples mind to be more important then taking legal action. The reason gays marriage have been so successful is because they are changing peoples minds by not pissing them off, it feels more like they are taking steps backwards by provoking those against gay marriage.



Wrong...legal action has been a huge step in the social acceptance of same-sex marriage. People become accustomed to the status quo, and if not compelled to address the injustices within it become resistant in voluntary efforts to do so. When you don't do anything proactive you risk not changing things at all. Taking these matters to court is an important step in not only getting their rights but gaining social acceptance for them.



Gunners said:


> I feel that the most effective measure would be creating a social stigma against shopping at certain stores.
> 
> In support of the above, I would make it mandatory for companies to apply for one of two statuses: open service and selective service. They would then be forced into indicating what category they fall into inside and outside of their store. Not discriminating against employee and potential employees would be mandatory; it would be a criminal offence to discriminate against customers whilst having an open service status.
> 
> ...



I think that's ridiculous. You'd be littered with "selective" service stores all over the country. The concentration of such businesses greater in some parts of the country than others.  Take a guess where you'd likely see them the most? You're essentially undoing decades of civil rights progress with that. You essentially give them a free ticket to discriminate against customers on basis which have been illegal longer than we've been alive. It would be appeasement, and is far too ripe to blow up in your face.


----------



## Gunners (Jun 6, 2014)

To be honest, the topic itself is interesting, regarding how to tackle discrimination and law's influence on morality. It just just spiralled into shit.



			
				Seto Kaiba said:
			
		

> I think that's ridiculous. You'd be littered with "selective" service stores all over the country. The concentration of such businesses greater in some parts of the country than others. Take a guess where you'd likely see them the most? You're essentially undoing decades of civil rights progress with that. You essentially give them a free ticket to discriminate against customers on basis which have been illegal longer than we've been alive. It would be appeasement, and is far too ripe to blow up in your face.


I don't think it would be ridiculous. You could be littered with selective service stores, but then people would know which ones to avoid. I'd rather have someone say ''I don't want you here'', so that I'd be given the option of taking my money elsewhere, as opposed to feeling paranoid about the bad service I receive. 

I don't view it as appeasement either; I'd expect them to fall in line or go out of business. It's not about making things easy for them, or creating an environment where they can do as they please. It is about removing pretences, and creating a society where the people who hold money actually reflect the values of society.


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 6, 2014)

People will be selective of you if you have a bad credit rating, have no referees, etc. Take a moment to consider that. Selective business practices are a part of reality. We do not live in a liberal paradise.


----------



## Risyth (Jun 7, 2014)

Goodness, you all should just be ashamed of yourselves.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 7, 2014)

Gunners said:


> I don't think it would be ridiculous. You could be littered with selective service stores, but then people would know which ones to avoid. I'd rather have someone say ''I don't want you here'', so that I'd be given the option of taking my money elsewhere, as opposed to feeling paranoid about the bad service I receive.
> 
> I don't view it as appeasement either; I'd expect them to fall in line or go out of business. It's not about making things easy for them, or creating an environment where they can do as they please. It is about removing pretences, and creating a society where the people who hold money actually reflect the values of society.



No, you cannot rely on the individual to voluntarily recognize the rights of people different from them. Especially if the status quo involved ignoring it. It doesn't even have to mean people are bigoted, but they definitely in that regard are lazy. Worse yet, you'd have those just basically licking their chops and seizing on the opportunity to return things to "the way they used to be" with such an idea. Some will succeed, that's just the truth. Particularly in the areas where the Civil Rights movement started to begin with! Trying to make a middle-ground on ostracizing people for such traits is appeasement. Because by removing legal compulsion to recognize the right to not be discriminated you are telling them they have justification to discriminate in venues which it would be illegal. 

You'd be exposing generations of people that think "hey this is OK!" and spread that like wildfire. Where would it stop? Schools? Housing? You cannot truly teach society that discrimination is wrong, but you can teach them that it is illegal. In time with that do they learn that it is wrong. It's what was and continue to to be, the result of the Civil Rights movement, it is the point with the rights of LGBT individuals today.


----------



## Gino (Jun 7, 2014)

Flow said:


> How can my answer represent different people on why they decided to make this a big deal? I sort of doubt they expected it to be publicized this much but it's good that it did. They could of been irritated at the time and wanted to voice their opinion. They could of wanted a sense of justice for being denied a cake on account of them having a wedding that consisted of the same sex.
> 
> They shouldn't had been denied the cake in the first place. You're telling me if you were denied to go inside of a store because you were black you would say
> 
> ...




Look I actually know what it feels like to be denied service based on my skin color. Yeah I got angry but then I went somewhere else.Since we can all agree this is gonna keep happening on some level. Which means we're smart enough to know there are places we're gonna go where we're just not gonna be accepted then why go through all the trouble of doing this in the first place?That's the part I'm trying to comprehend .He bakes the cake that's good I guess but now that you know he/she's homophobic are you gonna keep going to the same bakery for other goods or are you gonna do what you could've done the first time and go somewhere else?

Also I should clarify I never once thought the baker was in the right it just seems like this situation was unnecessary nothing more nothing less.


----------



## Xiammes (Jun 7, 2014)

> Wrong...legal action has been a huge step in the social acceptance of same-sex marriage. People become accustomed to the status quo, and if not compelled to address the injustices within it become resistant in voluntary efforts to do so. When you don't do anything proactive you risk not changing things at all. Taking these matters to court is an important step in not only getting their rights but gaining social acceptance for them.



Legal action yes, but legal action would be useless if people weren't so accepting of it in the first place. Since Vermont in 2000, we have 19 states allowing same sex marriage, you can't honestly attribute the past 14 years to purely legal action when it has been illegal/banned for 200+ years.


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 7, 2014)

Consider the following:

The would've saved themselves money by getting a plain cake and decorating themselves. If they made fiscally wise choices this would not even be an issue.


----------



## EJ (Jun 7, 2014)

I see what you mean Gino, but I just think stuff like this should be shunned upon completely. If people simply ignore situations like this, they allow an opportunity for it to grow.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 7, 2014)

Xiammes said:


> Legal action yes, but legal action would be useless if people weren't so accepting of it in the first place. Since Vermont in 2000, we have 19 states allowing same sex marriage, you can't honestly attribute the past 14 years to purely legal action when it has been illegal/banned for 200+ years.



No, this is incorrect. Legal action is entirely useful in changing society's perception of it. The south was HIGHLY resistant to efforts of integration, and even many parts of the North but it happened anyway. It was only just a decade ago that people in this country were mostly against same-sex marriage. It was after the strides in getting their rights legally recognized did people begin to change their attitudes toward homosexuality and their right to marry. So yes, you can attribute much of it to legal action. I am very disheartened to see people didn't really learn much of the Civil Rights era and the climate they were battling against with arguments like this.


----------



## Gino (Jun 7, 2014)

Flow said:


> I see what you mean Gino, but I just think stuff like this should be shunned upon completely. If people simply ignore situations like this, they allow an opportunity for it to grow.




Maybe the situation would be more comprehensible if the penalty was more severe than forcing the to baker to bake a cake.


----------



## Risyth (Jun 7, 2014)




----------



## EJ (Jun 7, 2014)

Gino said:


> Maybe the situation would be more comprehensible if the penalty was more severe than forcing the to baker to bake a cake.



I have to admit the situation is funny. I can imagine a bunch of police officers sitting down the owners of the cake factory and being like

"Bake the cake for them!"

and they are like 

"I don't want to!"

"Bake the cake!"

"No!"

"I SAID BAKE THE FUCKING CAKE!"


----------



## Risyth (Jun 7, 2014)

Flow said:


> I have to admit the situation is funny. I can imagine a bunch of police officers sitting down the owners of the cake factory and being like
> 
> "Bake the cake for them!"
> 
> ...



I think this just turned into a convo.


----------



## Xiammes (Jun 7, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> No, this is incorrect. Legal action is entirely useful in changing society's perception of it. The south was HIGHLY resistant to efforts of integration, and even many parts of the North but it happened anyway. It was only just a decade ago that people in this country were mostly against same-sex marriage. It was after the strides in getting their rights legally recognized did people begin to change their attitudes toward homosexuality and their right to marry. So yes, you can attribute much of it to legal action. I am very disheartened to see people didn't really learn much of the Civil Rights era and the climate they were battling against with arguments like this.



It had nothing to do with people getting their rights legally recognized, that is not going to stop prejudices, I mean there are still people out there that seriously discriminate against black people.

America as a whole is a lot more accepting of gay marriage then it was not even a decade ago, hell when I was in highschool 4 years ago, it was still cool to hate gay people. You can't compare gay marriage to the civil rights movement of the 60s.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 7, 2014)

Xiammes said:


> It had nothing to do with people getting their rights legally recognized, that is not going to stop prejudices, I mean there are people out there that seriously discriminate against black people.



Recognition of one's rights, one's rights as a human being is fundamental to their acceptance in society. You compel society to recognize them, and learn to live with it. There is really little arguing with this, if you knew your history about this country you'd know that is a very important step in dissipating prejudices towards those people. It does a lot in fostering attitudes that these prejudices are wrong.



> America as a whole is a lot more accepting of gay marriage then it was not even a decade ago, hell when I was in highschool 5 years ago, it was still cool to hate gay people.  You can't compare gay marriage to the civil rights movement of the 60s.



You can compare many aspects to it, and if you knew of the movement and what they did you wouldn't be making some of the arguments you have made here. This issue in the article particularly directly parallels matters of refusal of service to "colored" people, and how those that did so believed it their right to discriminate against those people.


----------



## Gunners (Jun 7, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:
			
		

> No, you cannot rely on the individual to voluntarily recognize the rights of people different from them. Especially if the status quo involved ignoring it. It doesn't even have to mean people are bigoted, but they definitely in that regard are lazy. Worse yet, you'd have those just basically licking their chops and seizing on the opportunity to return things to "the way they used to be" with such an idea. Some will succeed, that's just the truth. Particularly in the areas where the Civil Rights movement started to begin with! Trying to make a middle-ground on ostracizing people for such traits is appeasement. Because by removing legal compulsion to recognize the right to not be discriminated you are telling them they have justification to discriminate.


To appease someone is to make a concession in an attempt to satisfy them; as I said before, it is not about ensuring their needs are met, it is about weeding them out and hindering their ability to earn a profit. 



> You'd be exposing generations of people that think "hey this is OK!" and spread that like wildfire. You cannot truly teach society that discrimination is wrong, but you can teach them that it is illegal. In time with that do they learn that it is wrong. It's what was the point of the Civil Rights movement, it is the point with the rights of LGBT individuals today.


I disagree. If a politician came out tomorrow and said ''x group of people should be rounded up and imprisoned'', his political career would be over. Most people know and disagree with discrimination, what they need to be taught is how to act against it. 

That being said, you are correct; it is would be wrong to rely on individuals collectively. I made the mistake of assuming people's views would transfer to their actions, when the percentage of people who vote makes it clear that a significant amount would not bother.


----------



## Xiammes (Jun 7, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Recognition of one's rights, one's rights as a human being is fundamental to their acceptance in society. You compel society to recognize them, and learn to live with it. There is really little arguing with this, if you knew your history about this country you'd know that is a very important step in dissipating prejudices towards those people.



Is it important? Yes it is, but legally their rights would never have been recognized if people hadn't been so accepting in the first place. 




> You can compare many aspects to it, and if you knew of the movement and what they did you wouldn't be making some of the arguments you have made here.



Oh yes, we can compare the open discrimination to a entire race of people, to problem of getting your marriage legally recognized.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 7, 2014)

Gunners said:


> To appease someone is to make a concession in an attempt to satisfy them; as I said before, it is not about ensuring their needs are met, it is about weeding them out and hindering their ability to earn a profit.



But that is a concession, and to allow them to continue their discriminatory practices I would imagine would be most satisfactory to them which would make it appeasement. 

Gunners, the problem is one this would only work after we've already made it clear that such discrimination was wrong. Yet how do we do that? Law is a huge factor in emphasis of that message. You are removing the teeth of that by making it something voluntary. 



> I disagree. If a politician came out tomorrow and said ''x group of people should be rounded up and imprisoned'', his political career would be over. Most people know and disagree with discrimination, what they need to be taught is how to act against it.



Again, why is it that discrimination is so heavily criticized and discouraged?  Society was compelled to recognize the rights of those facing the prejudices, and that includes recognizing the right not to be discriminated against for that protected aspect. 



> That being said, you are correct; it is would be wrong to rely on individuals collectively. I made the mistake of assuming people's views would transfer to their actions, when the percentage of people who vote makes it clear that a significant amount would not bother.



OK.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 7, 2014)

The thing is that if he refused to serve blacks no one in here would be defending this shit...well maybe someone in here would, but no one politically would touch it. Why is this different?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 7, 2014)

Xiammes said:


> Is it important? Yes it is, but legally their rights would never have been recognized if people hadn't been so accepting in the first place.



No, because what matters is the decision of the courts. Again, the Civil Rights Movement was met with fierce opposition and disapproval but it was because the courts were not given a valid reason to deny a group of people their rights did it become illegal to deny them. The South sure as hell didn't come around to acceptance of them. They were made to recognize them nonetheless. 

The law is probably the biggest factor in recognizing the rights of all people. It is living under such laws are the attitudes of society at large in recognizing those rights change. Do some have their own awakening of social conscience? Yes, but I would not put my bets on society at large doing so. 



> Oh yes, we can compare the open discrimination to a entire race of people, to problem of getting your marriage legally recognized.



In many aspects, as I said, you can. Once again if you knew anything on either matter it would be clear. Even if it wasn't I had already pointed it out which I see you've chosen to ignore.


----------



## EJ (Jun 7, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The thing is that if he refused to serve blacks no one in here would be defending this shit...well maybe someone in here would



Post made me laugh right here.


----------



## Risyth (Jun 7, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> In many aspects, as I said, you can. Once again if you knew anything on either matter it would be clear. Even if it wasn't I had already pointed it out which I see you've chosen to ignore.



Don't even respond to that weak sarcasm. Xiammes, you can't be serious.


----------



## Gino (Jun 7, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The thing is that if he refused to serve blacks no one in here would be defending this shit...well maybe someone in here would, but no one politically would touch it. Why is this different?




Honestly?........ I wouldn't give a darn.


Also who's really sitting here defending this shit? That's the thing some are you are not realizing.Most arguments on the opposing side have been basically fuck the baker go somewhere else becuase forcing the baker to bake the cake won't change.....shit aka wasting  time on a bigot already set in his ways.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 7, 2014)

Gino said:


> Honestly?........ I wouldn't give a darn.
> 
> 
> Also who's really sitting here defending this shit? That's the thing some are you are not realizing.Most arguments on the opposing side have been basically fuck the baker go somewhere else becuase forcing the baker to bake the cake won't change.....shit aka wasting on time on a bigot already set in his ways.



One argument at least was "cleanse the gays from the Earth".


----------



## Gino (Jun 7, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> One argument at least was "cleanse the gays from the Earth".




Sounds like thor.


----------



## Xiammes (Jun 7, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> No, because what matters is the decision of the courts. Again, the Civil Rights Movement was met with fierce opposition and disapproval but it was because the courts were not given a valid reason to deny a group of people their rights did it become illegal to deny them. The South sure as hell didn't come around to acceptance of them. They were made to recognize them nonetheless.
> 
> The law is probably the biggest factor in recognizing the rights of all people. It is living under such laws are the attitudes of society at large in recognizing those rights change. Do some have their own awakening of social conscience? Yes, but I would not put my bets on society at large doing so.



I have to disagree here, when black people were given there rights, there wasn't a massive turn around of the American populace that suddenly started accepting them. The racism from that era can still be seen despite what the law says. 

I agree that legal action is important, I do not agree on the whole "the law changes societies attitude" bit.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 7, 2014)

Xiammes said:


> I have to disagree here, when black people were given there rights, there wasn't a massive turn around of the American populace that suddenly started accepting them. The racism from that era can still be seen despite what the law says.
> 
> I agree that legal action is important, I do not agree on the whole "the law changes societies attitude" bit.



But attitudes relaxed in large part due to the passage of laws acknowledging their rights. I never said it got rid of it completely. 

Well, it does.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 7, 2014)

Gino said:


> Sounds like thor.



How'd you know?


----------



## Gino (Jun 7, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> How'd you know?




Lucky guess


----------



## Gunners (Jun 7, 2014)

> But that is a concession, and to allow them to continue their discriminatory practices I would imagine would be most satisfactory to them which would make it appeasement.


It wouldn't have been a concession as it would not have been a response to their demands. It would have been an act committed, albeit one that wouldn't have been successful, with the intention of exposing and replacing them. 



> Gunners, the problem is one this would only work after we've already made it clear that such discrimination was wrong. Yet how do we do that? Law is a huge factor in emphasis of that message. You are removing the teeth of that by making it something voluntary.
> 
> Again, why is it that discrimination is so heavily criticized and discouraged? Society was compelled to recognize the rights of those facing the prejudices, and that includes recognizing the right not to be discriminated against for that protected aspect.


Why it is heavily criticised and discouraged is debatable. Your conclusion is under the presumption that law creates morality, when it can be argued that the laws simply adapted to reflect the changing morality. 

I lean towards the later which is why I have some issues. I question how sharp the teeth of the law are, and whether people would be better served relying on other instruments. In my opinion, there is a complacency this generation because there is an assumption that the law will handle everything; people don't do the things that could be just as effective. That being said, the correct approach was not reducing the law input but to use it in conjunction with other actions.


----------



## Risyth (Jun 7, 2014)

Wtf can we even be debating now?


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 7, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> It's pointless. He's not making an argument. Those like him never do.
> 
> It's one thing when someone disagrees they deserve their criticism. However those like Thor are just seeking to come off as vile as possible to get the most attention.



No you people are not making an argument but just outright attacking folks.

While we are presenting valid arguments, or atleast I am.


How can you say that you want rights, by discarding someone elses'? Thats selfish. You can't disregard someone's "inherent"(notice how I keep saying that) belief in a god and to follow his path as best as possible to acquire similar rights based on their life decisions.

Also, you keep making reference and comparisions to minorities of color. MLK thought homosexuality was a problem...with a solution.



> QUESTION: My problem is different from the ones most people have. I am a boy, but I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don't want my parents to know about me. What can I do?
> 
> MLK: Your problem is not at all an uncommon one. However, it does require careful attention. The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired... You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.




If this was an interracial couple, I would be pissed. I don't believe in discriminating against colored people.


Its more ore less being a get a away driver in a bank robbery.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 7, 2014)

> QUESTION: My problem is different from the ones most people have. I am a boy, but I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don't want my parents to know about me. What can I do?
> 
> MLK: Your problem is not at all an uncommon one. However, it does require careful attention. The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired... You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.



And MLK's response is exactly the reason when LGBTQ suicide, abuse, homelessness, etc. is so high.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 7, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> No you people are not making an argument but just outright attacking folks.
> 
> While we are presenting valid arguments, or atleast I am.
> 
> ...



Your entire point is bullshit. 

You can't discriminate against people for any reason. 

I have lost count how many times I have said this, but I will say it again. 

If you run business that offers a public service then you have to preform that service for the ENTIRE public. Not just the part of the public you approve of. 

I don't care what "Religion" you are apart of. 



> If this was an interracial couple, I would be pissed. I don't believe in discriminating against colored people.



You are just


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 7, 2014)

Fiona said:


> Your entire point is bullshit.
> 
> You can't discriminate against people for any reason.


Yes people can, just if they choose to.

Every discriminates at some level even if its an unconscious decision.



> I have lost count how many times I have said this, but I will say it again.
> 
> If you run business that offers a public service then you have to preform that service for the ENTIRE public. Not just the part of the public you approve of.




Should a homosexual baker be forced to make a “Homosexual acts is a Sin” cake for Westboro Baptist Church, simply because its members claim to be Christian?

Should a black printer be forced to develop and print thousands of “White Power!” flyers for a skinhead rally just because the potential customer is white?

Should a Christian florist be compelled to create and provide black floral arrangements to a hell-bound customer for her upcoming Satanist ritual?

Should a progressive environmentalist sign-maker be required to design and manufacture “Global Warming Is a Farce” signs for a tea party rally?

Should a Muslim photographer, commissioned by San Francisco’s “Folsom Street Fair,” be forced to document that vile event – rife with nudity and public sex – simply because the customers identify as gay?



> I don't care what "Religion" you are apart of.


And neither do I, but I can see from the perspectives on hand to say that the gays are just on a head hunt for good ole Christian folks.


> You are just


I meant "wouldn't". You could clearly tell that by the words that I said after. My bad, didn't see the error. I was busy talking to someone at the time and was in a hurry.


Aren't Liberals pro-"CHOICE"?


----------



## Thor (Jun 7, 2014)

"Should a homosexual baker be forced to make a “Homosexual acts is a Sin” cake for Westboro Baptist Church, simply because its members claim to be Christian?" 


This gives me a brilliant idea.....


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 7, 2014)

Thor said:


> "Should a homosexual baker be forced to make a ?Homosexual acts is a Sin? cake for Westboro Baptist Church, simply because its members claim to be Christian?"
> 
> 
> This gives me a brilliant idea.....



Human rights > Religious rights.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 7, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> *Spoiler*: _Ridiculous Arguments_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



None of those arguments are not even remotely similar to a same sex couple simply trying to get a Wedding Cake and a Baker denying them based on their lifestyle. 

This is just another example of you being a bigot towards certain people.

EDIT: Because this I forgot this is the cafe.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 7, 2014)

Fiona said:


> based on their lifestyle decision.



And what "decision" was that?


----------



## Fiona (Jun 7, 2014)

Toroxus said:


> And what "decision" was that?



You know exactly what I am trying to say Toro. 

Don't try to make my words mean something they do not.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 7, 2014)

Fiona said:


> You know exactly what I am trying to say Toro.
> 
> Don't try to make my words mean something they do not.



I'm pointing out that Thor and other trolls are going to jump on the "see, even you "admit" it's a sinful CHOICE!"


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Jun 7, 2014)

> Should a homosexual baker be forced to make a “Homosexual acts is a Sin” cake for Westboro Baptist Church, simply because its members claim to be Christian?



Yes and no . Read the last part of my post .



> Should a black printer be forced to develop and print thousands of “White Power!” flyers for a skinhead rally just because the potential customer is white?



He should call the police if they were racists, and yes .



> Should a Christian florist be compelled to create and provide black floral arrangements to a hell-bound customer for her upcoming Satanist ritual?



Yes, assuming the satanists don't commit any crime .



> Should a progressive environmentalist sign-maker be required to design and manufacture “Global Warming Is a Farce” signs for a tea party rally?



Is that a real thing, is this a real job, being a sign maker ? And I think yes, again . This one is the one that made me think a lot .



> Should a Muslim photographer, commissioned by San Francisco’s “Folsom Street Fair,” be forced to document that vile event – rife with nudity and public sex – simply because the customers identify as gay?



Yes . 

I myself already did plenty of things for christians(This actually happens everyday, since 90% of my social circle is christian, they ask me everyday things like " help with this question ", " help me put this in there " etc) and even christian things(Like I helped to make a flyer about an encounter at a church) and it was not even because it was my job(I don't work), a friend of my school(catholic school) asked and I helped . The thing is that you would not be obligated to do if they were commiting crimes by doing, like being racist, or incitement of crime(Like making posters written " KILL GAY "), and I'm almost sure that there's another crime called incitement of hate .

You'll have to do things for people that you disagree with, and sometimes things goes against everything you believe because it's a job, you're offering to a person your service and you will not discriminate just because they're black, or gay, or muslim, or anything .


----------



## Takahashi (Jun 7, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> You can't disregard someone's "inherent"(notice how I keep saying that) belief in a god and to follow his path as best as possible to acquire similar rights based on their life decisions.



Uhh, how is a belief in *any* deity, let alone a particular one, inherent?  It's learned.

Also "follow his path as best as possible" is an incredibly disingenuous statement.  People only follow what already fits with their viewpoint.  It's a lot more permissible than the rules that usually involve murder or slavery.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 8, 2014)

Mr. Black Leg said:


> Yes and no . Read the last part of my post .
> 
> 
> 
> He should call the police if they were racists, and yes .


No, there is a difference in having cultural pride and promoting discrimination. Many white power posters are allowed because they use loopholes to get through the discrimination part.



> Yes, assuming the satanists don't commit any crime .


 I didnt' put those questions, its questions someone had in an article, but to be fair Lucifer does have ties with God and can be seen as helping humanity out more than God did...he did give us knowledge.

Also the first question about the cake was originally "God hates ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)", but I don't agree with that stance as God isn't supposed to hate anyone just their ideology and actions against him.


> Is that a real thing, is this a real job, being a sign maker ? And I think yes, again . This one is the one that made me think a lot .


IMO it falls under a printing press, but people do have to participate in the making and design of the sign.


> Yes .
> 
> I myself already did plenty of things for christians(This actually happens everyday, since 90% of my social circle is christian, they ask me everyday things like " help with this question ", " help me put this in there " etc) and even christian things(Like I helped to make a flyer about an encounter at a church) and it was not even because it was my job(I don't work), a friend of my school(catholic school) asked and I helped . The thing is that you would not be obligated to do if they were commiting crimes by doing, like being racist, or incitement of crime(Like making posters written " KILL GAY "), and I'm almost sure that there's another crime called incitement of hate .
> 
> You'll have to do things for people that you disagree with, and sometimes things goes against everything you believe because it's a job, you're offering to a person your service and you will not discriminate just because they're black, or gay, or muslim, or anything .



The way I am is that if my job makes me go against something I inherently believe I will quit my job and get another one. But owning a business isn't something that you can just walk away from, people have there own money and life invested in it and if they choose to lose a customer base based on their beliefs than that is their choice. I don't think of any other logical reason why someone would turn down money other than it goes against their religion.


And I turned down helping people for little petty shit, I believe someone should be able to based on something as huge as their religious beliefs.




			
				Fiona said:
			
		

> None of those arguments are not even remotely similar to a same sex couple simply trying to get a Wedding Cake and a Baker denying them based on their lifestyle.
> 
> This is just another example of you being a bigot towards certain people.
> 
> EDIT: Because this I forgot this is the cafe.


 Gays are the bigots for wanting to promote individual and group rights while denying someone their rights that are tied to the constitution and there ideology is almost comprised of nothing but religious morality.

Exactly so why are people trying to liken the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement? They aren't comparable, unless there was a religion that more or less stated that colored people were inferior and it was a sin, but then that would be classified more of a cult than a religion.





			
				Takahashi said:
			
		

> hh, how is a belief in any deity, let alone a particular one, inherent? It's learned.
> 
> Also "follow his path as best as possible" is an incredibly disingenuous statement. People only follow what already fits with their viewpoint. It's a lot more permissible than the rules that usually involve murder or slavery.


A couple of months ago I would've agreed with you, but not now.

If you ask a child a question and the answer isn't purpose based, they will give the answer that is based on purpose. Thus we can conclude from that kids are purpose driven and if someone believes that everything has a purpose then that is also seen as having a belief of an higher power. Thus it is learned but at a very very young age and just from seeing things that they don't understand but think it is because of purpose. While adults think that there is some unseen agent at work that causes the things to happen and isn't necessarily purpose based or supernatural.


Professor Roger Trigg of Oxford University did the study and it was studied around the world.




@Toroxus- What is your thoughts on the MLK answer to the gay boy? Even the boy admitted that he had a "problem", and MLK replied that atleast he admits he has a problem and that is the first step to coming up with a solution...this was the guy who spear headed the civil rights movement.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2014)

"Gays are the bigots for wanting to be treated equally!" 

Wow, IchLiebe, you are fucking clown shoes.


----------



## Risyth (Jun 8, 2014)

And the party goes on....


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 8, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> "Gays are the bigots for wanting to be treated equally!"
> 
> Wow, IchLiebe, you are fucking clown shoes.



Can you read?

Are you going to be constructive to this argument or are you just going to nit pick at bullshit the entire time like you do throughout the cafe on a regular basis. 

I can't remember the last time you made a reply in the cafe that was constructive and more than 5 sentences.




			
				Ichliebe said:
			
		

> Gays are the bigots for wanting to promote individual and group rights *while denying someone their rights*


----------



## Risyth (Jun 8, 2014)

So, you're the culprit behind these useless bumps.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> Can you read?
> 
> Are you going to be constructive to this argument or are you just going to nit pick at bullshit the entire time like you do throughout the cafe on a regular basis.
> 
> I can't remember the last time you made a reply in the cafe that was constructive and more than 5 sentences.



Then you need to open your fucking eyes. 

Everything you write sounds like the rantings of a mad man. I don't need to write several sentences to deconstruct someone saying they have the right to be a bigot and that others are bigots for wanting to stop them. The constitution doesn't give you the right to oppress others and really only gives you freedom from government imposing religion. It doesn't say anything about government making you treat other human beings like human beings. 

I'll stop nitpicking your bullshit when you go take a laxative and free yourself of it.

EDIT:


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 8, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Then you need to open your fucking eyes.
> 
> Everything you write sounds like the rantings of a mad man. I don't need to write several sentences to deconstruct someone saying they have the right to be a bigot and that others are bigots for wanting to stop them. The constitution doesn't give you the right to oppress others and really only gives you freedom from government imposing religion. It doesn't say anything about government making you treat other human beings like human beings.


And what you people write just sounds like a bunch of conforming ideologies that think everything is ok. What's next pedo's are allowed to be a minority and have social standing?

No, what I am saying is that a religious person shouldn't be forced to actively participate in an activity that is deemed by their god to be a sin and punishable by eternity in hellfire.

Yes I am well aware of what the constitution states about religious freedom, but the government shouldn't be able to force someone to go against their religious beliefs by actively participating in a sinful act.

If this was a ma and pop's store that was selling cookies and a gay couple wanted some cookies yet Ma and Pa said "they aren't for gays", then I would have a problem with it. But a baker who bakes a cake which is a centerpiece for a marriage ceremony shouldn't be forced to bake a cake for a gay marriage.

You are under the concept that I think that they should be able to refuse any type of service to homosexuals when that isn't the case.

I only believe that religious people shouldn't be forced to actively participate in the marriage arrangement or ceremony. I.E. A pastor shouldn't be forced to do the ceremony.


> I'll stop nitpicking your bullshit when you go take a laxative and free yourself of it.


I don't need the laxative.



> EDIT:


 That really isn't that sick, i don't agree with it, but their choices are theirs and theirs alone to make even in public.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> And what you people write just sounds like a bunch of conforming ideologies that think everything is ok. What's next pedo's are allowed to be a minority and have social standing?



Completely different, pedophiles involve an adult and a child. Gay people can be two consenting adults. See no one needs multiple sentences to disarm your shit. 



> No, what I am saying is that a religious person shouldn't be forced to actively participate in an activity that is deemed by their god to be a sin and punishable by eternity in hellfire.


This assumes a lot of things. Interacting with a sinner doesn't make you guilty of anything--we're not talking about fucking Paladins, we're talking about real life. By your logic these people are committing sins all of the time without even knowing it by interacting with people who's views they don't agree with. Maybe they should go live in the desert. 



> Yes I am well aware of what the constitution states about religious freedom, but the government shouldn't be able to force someone to go against their religious beliefs by actively participating in a sinful act.


Baking something for someone isn't a sinful act. 



> If this was a ma and pop's store that was selling cookies and a gay couple wanted some cookies yet Ma and Pa said "they aren't for gays", then I would have a problem with it. But a baker who bakes a cake which is a centerpiece for a marriage ceremony shouldn't be forced to bake a cake for a gay marriage.


This doesn't make sense. 



> You are under the concept that I think that they should be able to refuse any type of service to homosexuals when that isn't the case.


Which makes you make less sense. 



> I only believe that religious people shouldn't be forced to actively participate in the marriage arrangement or ceremony. I.E. A pastor shouldn't be forced to do the ceremony.
> I don't need the laxative.


Pastor is a different story, their bakery isn't a religious institution it's a business.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 8, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Completely different, pedophiles involve an adult and a child. Gay people can be two consenting adults. See no one needs multiple sentences to disarm your shit.


Yet a pedo can say that they have been attracted to kids since they was a child and that they was born that way. Just how gays say they are born with a different sexual orientation, they are just orientated to a much younger sex.

Yet it didn't accomplish anything because the comparisons are similar.


> This assumes a lot of things. Interacting with a sinner doesn't make you guilty of anything--we're not talking about fucking Paladins, we're talking about real life. By your logic these people are committing sins all of the time without even knowing it by interacting with people who's views they don't agree with. Maybe they should go live in the desert.


If my friend needed a ride to a store, went in and robbed it and I was driving after he came out and had no knowledge of the crime- I can be charged as an accessory to the crime. 

Interacting with someone isn't a sin. Actively participating in them committing a sin is. Just like if someone was going to kill someone with their bare hands and I give them a gun to do it with...I am actively participating in the crime. They did, lost as fuck for 40 years...lol 



> Baking something for someone isn't a sinful act.


Yes when the cake a centerpiece for most wedding ceremonies, thus one is actively participating in the sin.


> This doesn't make sense.


 i am saying that someone shouldn't be forced to actively participate in something they see as a sin/crime. The baker would actively be participating since the cake would be a centerpiece for the ceremony, where as the little store that won't sell them cookies is just being discriminatory assholes as god doesn't say don't do business with gays. 


> Which makes you make less sense.


Maybe you see it that way but I don't. Christians should do business with gay people and face repercussions if they don't, but they shouldn't be forced to "ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN THE SIN/CRIME" on hand.




> Pastor is a different story, their bakery isn't a religious institution it's a business.


Why is the pastor a different story? The "baker"(who is religious) would be actively participating in it just as the pastor is would be. Maybe the baker should be forced depending on how people think of the cake and its importance to a wedding. Im under the assumption that it must mean alot if they had to get the authorities involved to get them a cake made. Me being a man...don't give a shit if there is a cake at my wedding( I would prefer some Macadamian cookies) and would've just cut my loses(per-say), yet they felt they "needed" a cake at their wedding which makes me believe that they think the cake is a highly important part in a wedding ceremony...thus the baker would be actively participating in the wedding.


----------



## Takahashi (Jun 8, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> If you ask a child a question and the answer isn't purpose based, they will give the answer that is based on purpose.



Examples?

I'm also curious as to what your definition of purpose is.  A philosophical "Why are we here" is not equivalent to "What happens when I press this button".  Both have to do with "purpose", but very different interpretations.



> Thus we can conclude from that kids are purpose driven



Or that they like turtles.



> and if someone believes that everything has a purpose then that is also seen as having a belief of an higher power.



You're going to need to explain that connection.



> *Thus it is learned but at a very very young age* and just from seeing things that they don't understand but think it is because of purpose. While adults think that there is some unseen agent at work that causes the things to happen and isn't necessarily purpose based or supernatural.



So if you admit that it's learned, why argue that it's inherent?  "Learned at a very young age" is something that you could apply to a *lot* of behavior.


----------



## Xyloxi (Jun 8, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> Yet a pedo can say that they have been attracted to kids since they was a child and that they was born that way. Just how gays say they are born with a different sexual orientation, they are just orientated to a much younger sex.



Same-sex relationships aren't inherently harmful or abusive to another individual who is not able to consent or have a full emotional comprehension.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 8, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> Yet a pedo can say that they have been attracted to kids since they was a child and that they was born that way. Just how gays say they are born with a different sexual orientation, they are just orientated to a much younger sex.



Yes, all of these are true. But "consent" is very important and makes all the difference. Homosexuality and Heterosexuality have nothing to do with nepiophilia, pedophilia, and hebephilia.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2014)

The most abusive part of being a person interested in people of the same sex is living in a society like ours that tries to judge you for it and makes laws to persecute you for it. If these things weren't the case these questions wouldn't even have to be asked.


----------



## Thor (Jun 8, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The most abusive part of being a person interested in *children of the same sex* is living in a society like ours that tries to judge you for it and makes laws to persecute you for it. If these things weren't the case these questions wouldn't even have to be asked.



Do you still think the same?? If people are born gay, people are born pedophiles.


----------



## Risyth (Jun 8, 2014)

Thor said:


> Do you still think the same?? If people are born gay, people are born pedophiles.



No one's born with an attraction, per se. So your argument sucks.


----------



## Totally not a cat (Jun 8, 2014)

You know, being atractted to kids when you are a child yourself isn't really pedophilia 
I am ignorant of the machinations of pedophilia, but even if you could somehow prove it's inherent and biological it wouldn't be any less wrong because it would still involve the transgression of a minor's rights and a lot of consent issues that have no business with homosexuality. 
Once you are an adult, and able to consent (18), you can have a partner as old as 100 if you feel like it and there'd be no problem.

Homosexuality and pedophilia are not at all comparable in such fashion, don't act like you have a point.


Going on your pastor point, one is a religious institution and the other is a business. Religious rights would allow you to refrain religious services from certain individuals in a religious enviroment if your religion dictates so. However, this is a business open to the public and you are not allowed to discriminate based on your client's sex, race, orientation, political stance and what not. The ones being protected by the law here are not the bakers, their religious rights don't go as far as to deny the civil rights of an individual.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2014)

Thor said:


> Do you still think the same?? If people are born gay, people are born pedophiles.



People are also born a lot of ways, why not concentrate on the ones that harm others? 

Gays do no one any hard and comparing them to people who have sex with kids is stupid.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Jun 8, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> No, there is a difference in having cultural pride and promoting discrimination. Many white power posters are allowed because they use loopholes to get through the discrimination part.



As I said: If they are racists, then call the police, I'm not saying pride = racism .



> I didnt' put those questions, its questions someone had in an article, but to be fair Lucifer does have ties with God and can be seen as helping humanity out more than God did...he did give us knowledge.
> 
> Also the first question about the cake was originally "God hates ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)", but I don't agree with that stance as God isn't supposed to hate anyone just their ideology and actions against him.
> IMO it falls under a printing press, but people do have to participate in the making and design of the sign.



Why are you answering like if I had asked " Who made these questions ? ", I couldn't care less, I only answered it .



> The way I am is that if my job makes me go against something I inherently believe I will quit my job and get another one. But owning a business isn't something that you can just walk away from, people have there own money and life invested in it and if they choose to lose a customer base based on their beliefs than that is their choice. I don't think of any other logical reason why someone would turn down money other than it goes against their religion.
> 
> 
> And I turned down helping people for little petty shit, I believe someone should be able to based on something as huge as their religious beliefs.



That's the catch: You can't turn down a costumer basing this on " he's gay " or " he's black " or anything like this .


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 8, 2014)

Risyth said:


> No one's born with an attraction, per se. So your argument sucks.



 Be careful what you say.



Totally not a cat said:


> You know, being atractted to kids when you are a child yourself isn't really pedophilia
> I am ignorant of the machinations of pedophilia, but even if you could somehow prove it's inherent and biological it wouldn't be any less wrong because it would still involve the transgression of a minor's rights and a lot of consent issues that have no business with homosexuality.



Exactly. I can make biological arguments for pedophilia and hebephilia. I could make a biological thesis about ephebophilia & society. But consent issues are real, and consent issues are very important. 

Something being biological doesn't mean it's right or wrong, it just means that it's biological, which means evolution has favored it, and probably continues to do so.

Edit: WHAT THE FUCK am I doing in yet ANOTHER topic talking about the same thing? Get over yourselves people.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2014)

Everyone should put gays kissing in their posts apparently Thor thinks that's a reportable offense.


----------



## aiyanah (Jun 8, 2014)

how the fuck is this thread still a thing?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2014)

aiyanah said:


> how the fuck is this thread still a thing?



Why is Thor allowed to make threads?


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 8, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Everyone should put gays kissing in their posts apparently Thor thinks that's a reportable offense.



Does this count? :33


----------



## Risyth (Jun 8, 2014)

Wdym "be careful"? People aren't born with the inherent sexual attractions we're talking about. That largely develops during puberty.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Jun 8, 2014)

aiyanah said:


> how the fuck is this thread still a thing?



Good question . I think that there are many people with nothing to do, so we answer Thor's trolling .


----------



## synthax (Jun 8, 2014)

For the people who support homosexuals with the reason being no harm is being done to to others.
Do you also support incestual relationships?Also refrain from mentioning the genetic defects associated from childbirth,I am specifically talking about a couple  that has no intention of reproducing.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2014)

Risyth said:


> Wdym "be careful"? People aren't born with the inherent sexual attractions we're talking about. That largely develops during puberty.



People can know they're attracted to something before they hit puberty. I've known I liked girls for far longer than I wanted to fuck them.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 8, 2014)

synthax said:


> For the people who support homosexuals with the reason being no harm is being done to to others.
> Do you also support incestual relationships?Also refrain from mentioning the genetic defects associated from childbirth,I am specifically talking about a couple that has no intention of reproducing.



As long as both parties are consenting adults, why not?


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Jun 8, 2014)

synthax said:


> For the people who support homosexuals with the reason being no harm is being done to to others.
> Do you also support incestual relationships?Also refrain from mentioning the genetic defects associated from childbirth,I am specifically talking about a couple  that has no intention of reproducing.



Yes . Why would someone be able to say " It's wrong " . Of course, being in the age of consent and being a consensus, why would I be the one who says " WRONG ! " ?


----------



## Totally not a cat (Jun 8, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Everyone should put gays kissing in their posts apparently Thor thinks that's a reportable offense.



Give me a min 


*Spoiler*: __


----------



## Risyth (Jun 8, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> People can know they're attracted to something before they hit puberty. I've known I liked girls for far longer than I wanted to fuck them.



Then it's either been instilled into them or they're undergoing puberty and you don't know it. It's a chemical process that occurs in the brain, so you can't tell whether or not they've reached that point.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2014)

Totally not a cat said:


>



Fixed that for ya.


----------



## Thor (Jun 8, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> People are also born a lot of ways, why not concentrate on the ones that harm others?
> 
> Gays do no one any hard and comparing them to people who have sex with kids is stupid.



They harm my eyes. It's gross.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2014)

Thor said:


> They harm my eyes. It's gross.



Tough titties.


----------



## Doge (Jun 8, 2014)

Thor said:


> They harm my eyes. It's gross.



I mean, why do they have to make SUCH a big deal out of two people kissing?  Just trying to split everyone up as always, typical liberals.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Jun 8, 2014)

*Spoiler*: __ 













Something wrong, Thor, do you feel uncomfortable with two beautiful girls kissing ?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2014)

Doge said:


> I mean, why do they have to make SUCH a big deal out of two people kissing?  Just trying to split everyone up as always, typical liberals.



If it was a man and a woman kissing it wouldn't be made into a big deal. Maybe you should gouge your eyes out. Problem solved then.


----------



## Thor (Jun 8, 2014)

No one cares what they do in the comfort of their own homes or in prison. They don't need to shove it down our throats. I don't kiss my wife in public, people don't care that I'm straight. I don't preach the Word of the Living God in public, people don't care about my faith in Christ. 

If degenerates didn't flail their flamboyancy in public, normal people would not give a darn.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2014)

Thor said:


> No one cares what they do in the comfort of their own homes or in prison. They don't need to shove it down our throats. I don't kiss my wife in public, people don't care that I'm straight. I don't preach the Word of the Living God in public, people don't care about my faith in Christ.
> 
> If degenerates didn't flail their flamboyancy in public, normal people would not give a darn.



Then why not outlaw all public displays of affection?


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 8, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Tough titties.


Ladies and gentlemen, I give you CTK, bastion of tolerance everywhere.


----------



## Thor (Jun 8, 2014)

Mr. Black Leg said:


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not gonna lie that gives me a boner, but that is because the sin of lust makes me find that hot. It's still wrong.


----------



## EJ (Jun 8, 2014)

synthax said:


> For the people who support homosexuals with the reason being no harm is being done to to others.
> Do you also support incestual relationships?Also refrain from mentioning the genetic defects associated from childbirth,I am specifically talking about a couple  that has no intention of reproducing.



If it's done between two consenting parties and there is no manipulation involved with it, I don't care.


----------



## 海外ニキ (Jun 8, 2014)

Thor said:


> They harm my eyes. It's gross.



Your posts harm my eyes. You're gross.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Jun 8, 2014)

Good, good, embrace your human side, Thor . 

MAY THE BONER BE WITH YOU . 

RAW RAW FIGHT THE BONER .


----------



## Thor (Jun 8, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Then why not outlaw all public displays of affection?



There is nothing wrong with normal displays of affection between two normal people. How do a man and woman kissing (albeit not passionately) warp young childrens minds?? 

I'm thinking of the children.


----------



## Jacob Shekelstein (Jun 8, 2014)

lolamericlaps

this is your future

[YOUTUBE]HTX9yP3fJNA[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2014)

Thor said:


> There is nothing wrong with normal displays of affection between two normal people. How do a man and woman kissing (albeit not passionately) warp young childrens minds??
> 
> I'm thinking of the children.



It won't warp children's minds because the children's minds are made up. Kids aren't going to be turned gay by seeing someone kiss. 

Beauty standards and advertising do far worse to children's minds all of the time and I don't see you bitching about it. It's not because you didn't realize, it's because you're bigot that's grasping at straws to come up with an argument.


----------



## EJ (Jun 8, 2014)

CTK, why are you talking to Thor like he isn't trolling?


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Jun 8, 2014)

Why my post was great, Thor ? I mean, isn't that a sin ? You should have negged me .


----------



## EJ (Jun 8, 2014)

How is it hard to understand that the more you respond to Thor's post seriously, the more he's going to respond? He doesn't believe at least 85 percent of the things he said. Seriously people..


----------



## Gino (Jun 8, 2014)

Seto Kaiba, Golden Circle+, wibisana, Takahashi, Thor, Mr. Black Leg, Flow+, parceque, synthax, Solar Bankai




>Sunday


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2014)

Flow said:


> How is it hard to understand that the more you respond to Thor's post seriously, the more he's going to respond? He doesn't believe at least 85 percent of the things he said. Seriously people..



I'm just thinking if we post enough gay shit he'll leave. We just need Bioness to dump his image folders in this place and it's game over.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Jun 8, 2014)

Flow said:


> How is it hard to understand that the more you respond to Thor's post seriously, the more he's going to respond? He doesn't believe at least 85 percent of the things he said. Seriously people..



Nothing better to do .


----------



## synthax (Jun 8, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> As long as both parties are consenting adults, why not?



Its coming to a point where people feel the need to submit to every urge they feel.It sets a dangerous precedent.What next?Lets revamp the educational system to include a  third gender to please the intersex community.


----------



## Gino (Jun 8, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I'm just thinking if we post enough gay shit he'll leave. We just need Bioness to dump his image folders in this place and it's game over.



Man what happened to Bioness?


----------



## EJ (Jun 8, 2014)

That could work, but it's just going to amp him up to "wait" for the next thread dealing with homosexuality to resume all over again. idk, someone like IchLiebe you can tell that he believes everything he says. But Thor gives off the most trollish vibe ever, it's just amazing to watch people even take hims seriously.


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 8, 2014)

Listen, I'm going tell everyone a little something about the gay agenda.

Gays do not care about equality when it comes to being able to marry. They do not gain anything from it. Everything about being a couple for them is already covered under existing laws. What they want is to steal the sanctity of marriage from straight people as retribution.

A gay person told me this, you're welcome to believe it or not.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Jun 8, 2014)

Gino said:


> Man what happened to Bioness?





Truly sad, we miss him .


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2014)

Flow said:


> That could work, but it's just going to amp him up to "wait" for the next thread dealing with homosexuality to resume all over again. idk, someone like IchLiebe you can tell that he believes everything he says. But Thor gives off the most trollish vibe ever, it's just amazing to watch people even take hims seriously.



They all seem like they mean it to me. We see other members saying the same kind of shit Thor is. 



Golden Circle said:


> Listen, I'm going tell everyone a little something about the gay agenda.
> 
> Gays do not care about equality when it comes to being able to marry. They do not gain anything from it. Everything about being a couple for them is already covered under existing laws. What they want is to steal the sanctity of marriage from straight people as retribution.
> 
> A gay person told me this, you're welcome to believe it or not.



So what you're saying is gays are a hive mind? 

Seriously take that weak shit out of here.


----------



## Jeαnne (Jun 8, 2014)

synthax said:


> For the people who support homosexuals with the reason being no harm is being done to to others.
> Do you also support incestual relationships?Also refrain from mentioning the genetic defects associated from childbirth,I am specifically talking about a couple  that has no intention of reproducing.


how is it related?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2014)

This country supports i*c*st enough that one of our presidents has married into his own family. If it came out a presidential candidate had kissed a man ONCE he'd be done.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Jun 8, 2014)

Golden Circle said:


> Listen, I'm going tell everyone a little something about the gay agenda.
> 
> Gays do not care about equality when it comes to being able to marry. They do not gain anything from it. Everything about being a couple for them is already covered under existing laws. What they want is to *steal the sanctity of marriage from straight people as retribution*.
> 
> A gay person told me this, you're welcome to believe it or not.



I actually believe that some gay told you that they don't need marriage, I doubt he said what's in bold . 

I believe because I know lots of gays who don't want to get married and didn't care much about marriage being legal or not for themselves, they were more worried about keeping other gay people with the choice of marrying or not .


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 8, 2014)

synthax said:


> Its coming to a point where people feel the need to submit to every urge they feel.It sets a dangerous precedent.What next?Lets revamp the educational system to include a  third gender to please the intersex community.



I should have known you were going somewhere stupid with this.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 8, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I should have known you were going somewhere stupid with this.



This thread started at stupid, we're just along for the ride to see how deep this rabbit hole goes.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 8, 2014)

Golden Circle said:


> Listen, I'm going tell everyone a little something about the gay agenda.
> 
> Gays do not care about equality when it comes to being able to marry. They do not gain anything from it. Everything about being a couple for them is already covered under existing laws. What they want is to steal the sanctity of marriage from straight people as retribution.
> 
> A gay person told me this, you're welcome to believe it or not.



That's funny, because as a homosexual, I was NOT entitled to relevant tax benefits, many financial benefits, medical benefits, visitation benefits, adoption benefits, etc. UNTIL my state legalized gay marriage.


----------



## Risyth (Jun 8, 2014)

People are bored, huh.


----------



## Gino (Jun 8, 2014)

Mr. Black Leg said:


> http://www.narutoforums.com/showthread.php?t=963052&page=24
> Truly sad, we miss him .



At least he left on a final notice sad but I wish him the best.





Golden Circle said:


> Listen, I'm going tell everyone a little something about the gay agenda.
> 
> Gays do not care about equality when it comes to being able to marry. They do not gain anything from it. Everything about being a couple for them is already covered under existing laws. What they want is to steal the sanctity of marriage from straight people as retribution.
> 
> A gay person told me this, you're welcome to believe it or not.



I'm 75/100 on this........


----------



## Totally not a cat (Jun 8, 2014)

Thor said:


> I don't kiss my wife in public.


Incoming divorce.


----------



## Thor (Jun 8, 2014)

Golden Circle said:


> Listen, I'm going tell everyone a little something about the gay agenda.
> 
> Gays do not care about equality when it comes to being able to marry. They do not gain anything from it. Everything about being a couple for them is already covered under existing laws. What they want is to steal the sanctity of marriage from straight people as retribution.
> 
> A gay person told me this, you're welcome to believe it or not.



Agreed. They also want to corrupt the children to believe homosexuality is normal so it will make it easier for them to molest children. It's sick.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Jun 8, 2014)

Toroxus said:


> That's funny, because as a homosexual, I was NOT entitled to relevant tax benefits, many financial benefits, medical benefits, visitation benefits, adoption benefits, etc. UNTIL my state legalized gay marriage.



I didn't know you were gay ... Why didn't I know ? 



Totally not a cat said:


> Incoming divorce.



I lol'd .


----------



## Risyth (Jun 8, 2014)

Mr. Black Leg said:


> I didn't know you were gay ... Why didn't I know ?


Because it shouldn't be that important to you.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 8, 2014)

Mr. Black Leg said:


> I didn't know you were gay ... Why didn't I know ?



Are you serious? Have you seen my signatures?




Thor said:


> Why do gays want to adopt children??



Because a heterosexual parent is the worst type of parent, followed by 2 heterosexuals parents being the second worst type of parenting. Of course, no parenting is even worse than both of those.


----------



## 海外ニキ (Jun 8, 2014)

Thor said:


> Why do gays want to adopt children?? To corrupt their minds and molest them. Sick. If you want kids have sex with a woman or pay to have a surrogate mother.



1.) You don't need to be gay to do that.

2.) How does having a surrogate mother make that less likely?


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 8, 2014)

~Zaxxon~ said:


> 1.) You don't need to be gay to do that.
> 
> 2.) How does having a surrogate mother make that less likely?



Yeah, I was wondering how surrogate mothers or sperm donation, a popular options for gay couples, was somehow a valid suggestion?


----------



## Risyth (Jun 8, 2014)

~Zaxxon~ said:


> 1.) You don't need to be gay to do that.
> 
> 2.) How does having a surrogate mother make that less likely?



Don't bother.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Jun 8, 2014)

Risyth said:


> Because it shouldn't be that important to you.



No, I meant: How I didn't perceive, I mean, look at his fucking sign ! It should have been obvious . 



Toroxus said:


> Are you serious? Have you seen my signatures?



That's the reason I'm shocked .



> Because a heterosexual parent is the worst type of parent, followed by 2 heterosexuals parents being the second worst type of parenting. Of course, no parenting is even worse than both of those.



Are you being serious ? Well, I've seen studies that say that homossexual parents are more exigent  than heterossexual, but I don't think you should generalize as that .


----------



## Totally not a cat (Jun 8, 2014)

I think Toro is just being purposely cynical 
If what he says holds any water then it would be because of all the struggles homosexual couples have to go through to adopt a child. The responsability and parenting quality of a person have little to nothing to do with their orientation.


----------



## Chelydra (Jun 8, 2014)

I can't believe someone in the thread used the "sanctity of marriage" argument. 

Hint: there is no such thing.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 8, 2014)

Mr. Black Leg said:


> That's the reason I'm shocked .


If you're being sarcastic, it's not working over the internet.





> Are you being serious ? Well, I've seen studies that say that homossexual parents are more exigent  than heterossexual, but I don't think you should generalize as that .



Homosexuals tend to:
Have a higher risk of HIV
Have a higher risk of drug use
Have a very high risk of depression and other mental disorders.
Have a very high risk of suicide

However, those homosexuals that become parents:

Homosexual parents tend to:
Be better educated
Have children later in life
Have more secure employment
Not have accidental children
Radically different MHCs to prevent parent <-> child disease spread.

Children of homosexual parents, regardless of sexual orientation, tend to:
Be better educated
Have children later in life
Have more secure employement
Have lower risk of STIs
Lower risk of accidental pregnancies.
Lower risk of drug use
Lowered risk of depression and other mental disorders.
Higher risk of peer bullying.


----------



## Louis Cyphre (Jun 8, 2014)

So basically
Thor and Golden Circle thinks gays are the root of all evil. Seems legit.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Jun 8, 2014)

Totally not a cat said:


> I think Toro is just being purposely cynical
> If what he says holds any water then it would be because of all the struggles homosexual couples have to go through to adopt a child. The responsability and parenting quality of a person have little to nothing to do with their orientation.



Pretty much .



Toroxus said:


> If you're being sarcastic, it's not working over the internet.



No, I'm serious, I'm impressed I never noticed you were gay .



> Homosexuals tend to:
> Have a higher risk of HIV
> Have a higher risk of drug use
> Have a very high risk of depression and other mental disorders.
> ...



Knew almost all that already . Gay people tend to be more instructed and the kids being more educated . It is sad that children of homossexual are more probable to be bullied at school, because they are children from gays .

I don't have any idea of what is a STI, mind explaining ?


----------



## Totally not a cat (Jun 8, 2014)

Sexually Transmitted Infections 
Or so I'd assume.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Jun 8, 2014)

Wouldn't it be called STD ?(Sexually Transmitted Diseases)


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 8, 2014)

Mr. Black Leg said:


> Wouldn't it be called STD ?(Sexually Transmitted Diseases)



They are interchangeable for the most part. But not all infections lead to disease.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Jun 8, 2014)

Oh, I see, thanks .


----------



## Pliskin (Jun 8, 2014)

Mr. Black Leg said:


> I didn't know you were gay ... Why didn't I know ?



To be fair, the whole cat thingy takes the focus. It's like people telling you they like to fuck dead people, you probably won't wonder if they prefer dead chicks or guys.

That said, lol this thread and lol Thor.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jun 8, 2014)

I'm gone for two days, and this thread is still here?

Sweet Jeebuz, people. Really?


----------



## Doge (Jun 9, 2014)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> I'm gone for two days, and this thread is still here?
> 
> Sweet Jeebuz, people. Really?



Lets stick to this very constructive discussion alright?  It's pretty obvious the liberals have hijacked the "feel good" notion.


----------



## Totally not a cat (Jun 9, 2014)

Doge said:


> Lets stick to this very constructive discussion alright?  It's pretty obvious the liberals have hijacked the "feel good" notion.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jun 9, 2014)

Doge said:


> Lets stick to this very constructive discussion alright?  It's pretty obvious the liberals have hijacked the "feel good" notion.



No. This thread was supposed to be about wine.


----------



## Gino (Jun 9, 2014)

Why does stevia taste so awful?


----------



## Fiona (Jun 9, 2014)

> This thread 

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju4-bw3a48E[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Krory (Jun 9, 2014)

It's like American rights are Oberyn Martell and Gay Supremacy is The Mountain.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 9, 2014)

krory said:


> It's like American rights are Oberyn Martell and Gay Supremacy is The Mountain.



You're a bit late in the game to be trying this angle, don't you think?


----------



## Roman (Jun 9, 2014)

Wow. I came here to see if Bacon had replied to my post only to find that more than half this thread is dedicated to feeding trolls.


----------



## LesExit (Jun 9, 2014)

Woah 39 pages? People just love da gays :33


----------



## Doge (Jun 9, 2014)

All of you liberals are just trying to get off topic so you don't have to face the logical truth.


----------



## Jake CENA (Jun 9, 2014)

Thor said:


> Homosexuality is not a race. If you worship science and believe in evolution we all came from Africa, all our ancestors were Black. *If all our ancestors were gay, we wouldn't' be here.*



I died.


----------



## Krory (Jun 9, 2014)

If all our ancestors were gay, that'd be pretty gay.


----------



## Raidoton (Jun 9, 2014)

Doge said:


> All of you liberals are just trying to get off topic so you don't have to face the logical truth.


Very logic, much off-topic!


----------



## Jake CENA (Jun 9, 2014)

Who are the gay people in this thread?? Raise your hands please.


On-topic, i didnt read all the posts here since its 39 pages long so... This is just my opinion but, why didnt the gay couples just looked for another bakery that could serve them the way they want to without forcing the employees to change their feelings and views about the couple's sexuality?


----------



## Xyloxi (Jun 9, 2014)

I'm asexual, but bi-romantic, so I identify as queer under the whole LGBTQ umbrella.


----------



## Roman (Jun 9, 2014)

TerminaTHOR said:


> Who are the gay people in this thread?? Raise your hands please.
> 
> 
> On-topic, i didnt read all the posts here since its 39 pages long so... This is just my opinion but, why didnt the gay couples just looked for another bakery that could serve them the way they want to without forcing the employees to change their feelings and views about the couple's sexuality?



Because if they did that, it would be like admitting that businesses are allowed to discriminate and that intolerance itself can be tolerated. That kind of attitude is exactly what needs to be avoided because more people will do it if they know that no one will care, and that can only lead to more people suffering from discrimination and bigotry. That and it's against the law for businesses to discriminate anyways.


----------



## Krory (Jun 9, 2014)

Xyloxi said:


> I'm asexual, but bi-romantic.


----------



## Krory (Jun 9, 2014)

Sacrifice one freedom for another.

Good ole' Murika.


----------



## Xyloxi (Jun 9, 2014)

krory said:


>



I don't believe my post, which was kind of in response to Thor or whatever he wants to be called had a punchline.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 9, 2014)

TerminaTHOR said:


> Who are the gay people in this thread?? Raise your hands please.



Does it matter?


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 9, 2014)

So two right-winged thors?


----------



## Zyrax (Jun 9, 2014)

Hahaha hejehehe


----------



## Thor (Jun 9, 2014)

I'm not right wing or left wing. I'm center.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 9, 2014)

Risyth said:


> No one's born with an attraction, per se. So your argument sucks.


So you acknowledge they aren't born attracted to men and its something that is influenced by the environment and how they perceive certain events around them happening.



Takahashi said:


> Examples?


I honestly can't remember, I seen it on "Through the wormhole" and asked kids and adults the same questions. One was like "Why are there waves in the pond?" While 2 answers were logical that wasn't right, 1 was a purpose based answer(what kids chose almost all the time) and 1 that was just baseless. Even though the adults answers were spread throughout the other two answers they would say an unknown mechanic is at work before just saying that the waves serve an inherent purpose that benefits something. I can't remember the answers, nor other questions that were posed but everytime it was identical outcome.


> I'm also curious as to what your definition of purpose is.  A philosophical "Why are we here" is not equivalent to "What happens when I press this button".  Both have to do with "purpose", but very different interpretations.


Good question. I believe that it can be both or an individual one depending on the subject and what it pertains to and how you are looking at it.

And even I am lost a little bit here, I will have to watch the episode again. I looked on the internet all last night for it and couldn't find it.

Why is the wave there? Is it to 1) To produce oxygen for fish and marine life to survive. 2.) the rotation of the Earth makes the wave when combined with other variables.

Kids would answer 1 all the time, while most adults, other than ignorant adults, will answer 2.(FYI, I have no fucking clue how waves are formed or there purpose)


> You're going to need to explain that connection.


If someone believes that they and everything else has a purpose for being here than that is belief in a higher power and not chaos. Even in my fucked up beliefs in the divine I understand that certain things must have a purpose and isn't created unless it has a purpose. Like a cigarette is made to be smoked.



> So if you admit that it's learned, why argue that it's inherent?  "Learned at a very young age" is something that you could apply to a *lot* of behavior.


Im talking about less than a year old.

Everything is learned, I don't believe anything is absolutely inherent other than science. But that is something that can be classified as inherent.


But just like how this theory can lead someone to argue for or against religion and can go either way with homosexuality.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 9, 2014)

I need to change my name to Loki, so me and thor can raze the lands of NF


----------



## Risyth (Jun 9, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> So you acknowledge they aren't born attracted to men and its something that is influenced by the environment and how they perceive certain events around them happening.



No, I don't acknowledge your strawman. I do, however, acknowledge my immediately explanation after the quote.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 9, 2014)

Im lost.    .....


----------



## Thor (Jun 9, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> I need to change my name to Loki, so me and thor can raze the lands of NF



DO EEEEET!!!!


----------



## Thor (Jun 9, 2014)

Risyth said:


> No one's born with an attraction, per se. So your argument sucks.



So you agree that no one is born gay and that being gay a result of molestation or degenerate environments??


----------



## Ultra Instinct Vegito (Jun 9, 2014)

790+  replies? Wow ...


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 9, 2014)

Thor said:


> So you agree that no one is born gay and that being gay a result of molestation or degenerate environments??



So you agree that you're trying to put words in people's mouths? 

With all this talk about molestation one wonders how many times you got diddled in the bath by that creepy uncle.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jun 9, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> So you agree that you're trying to put words in people's mouths?
> 
> With all this talk about molestation one wonders how many times you got diddled in the bath by that creepy uncle.



Settle down, CTK.

This is not how you get rid of a troll. 

You need to slice open its turkey-flap neck fat. For starters.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 9, 2014)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> Settle down, CTK.
> 
> This is not how you get rid of a troll.
> 
> You need to slice open it's turkey-flap neck fat. For starters.



I just think he's speaking from experience. He seems to know a lot about molestation and degenerate gays. Maybe all he needs it to share with the rest of the class and get all of that bad blood out there.


----------



## Risyth (Jun 9, 2014)

Thor said:


> So you agree that no one is born gay and that being gay a result of molestation or degenerate environments??



Even though your drone ass said the exact same thing the last guy did, I'm not taking you seriously because when you tried to debate homosexuality's role in Christianity, I tore you up and you couldn't reply.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jun 9, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I just think he's speaking from experience. He seems to know a lot about molestation and degenerate gays. Maybe all he needs it to share with the rest of the class and get all of that bad blood out there.



And you're trying to sympathize with a troll, why?


----------



## Thor (Jun 9, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> So you agree that you're trying to put words in people's mouths?
> 
> With all this talk about molestation one wonders how many times you got diddled in the bath by that creepy uncle.



Shaming tactics don't work. One does not have to be a victim or a ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) to know how they are created.



Risyth said:


> Even though your drone ass said the exact same thing the last guy did, I'm not taking you seriously because when you tried to debate homosexuality's role in Christianity, I tore you up and you couldn't reply.



When was this?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 9, 2014)

Thor said:


> Shaming tactics don't work. One does not have to be a victim or a ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) to know how they are created.



But it's clear you don't know how they are created.


----------



## Thor (Jun 9, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> But it's clear you don't know how they are created.



How are homosexuals created?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 9, 2014)

Thor said:


> How are homosexuals created?



Better question: why does it matter? They're not hurting anyone or affecting you. Leave them be.


----------



## Thor (Jun 9, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Better question: why does it matter? They're not hurting anyone or affecting you. Leave them be.



They are hurting kids. They are affecting the future of America.


----------



## EJ (Jun 9, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> So you agree that you're trying to put words in people's mouths?
> 
> With all this talk about molestation one wonders how many times you got diddled in the bath by that creepy uncle.



Making molestation jokes is low. Just ignore Thor.


----------



## Gain (Jun 10, 2014)

[YOUTUBE]ItAzJD0o9NQ[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Jake CENA (Jun 10, 2014)

How do gays multiply anyway? Its impossible for them to get pregnant right?


----------



## Fiona (Jun 10, 2014)

> People still treating Thor like he is a person. 

> People still acting like Thor is being serious


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 10, 2014)

Fiona said:


> > People still treating Thor like he is a person.
> 
> > People still acting like Thor is being serious


----------



## Thor (Jun 10, 2014)

TerminaTHOR said:


> How do gays multiply anyway? Its impossible for them to get pregnant right?



By poisoning the mind of the youth. Molestation.


----------



## Jake CENA (Jun 10, 2014)

That kinda make sense. But sometimes i blame the internet.


----------



## Jake CENA (Jun 10, 2014)

And Obama of course.


----------



## Mider T (Jun 10, 2014)

Thor said:


> I'm not right wing or left wing. I'm center.



That's what the Gremlin said but Will Shatner knew the truth.


----------



## Draffut (Jun 10, 2014)

Thor said:


> Molestation.



What?

Man, I need to make up "The absolute stupidest thing I have heard on the internet in the last year" award specifically for you.  That's so retarded I don't have words to describe it.


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jun 10, 2014)

Thor said:


> By poisoning the mind of the youth. Molestation.



riddle me this thor

where did the first gay person come from?


----------



## Roman (Jun 10, 2014)




----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jun 10, 2014)

Nightbringer said:


> riddle me this thor
> 
> where did the first gay person come from?



Well since God created everything on the planet, he/she obviously created the gays. 

For whatever unfathomable reason.

Blahblahblah "God's will". Much logic. Magic.

Logic.

...

Magic.


----------



## Roman (Jun 10, 2014)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> Well since God created everything on the planet, he/she obviously created the gays.
> 
> For whatever unfathomable reason.
> 
> ...




**


----------



## oprisco (Jun 10, 2014)

Ok, I get it that is was wrong to refuse to bake the cake for the gay couple but WHY does have to undergo a sensitivity training? This is some 1984 shit right here.. You can't force anyone acceptance/your beliefs.


----------



## Thor (Jun 10, 2014)

Nightbringer said:


> riddle me this thor
> 
> where did the first gay person come from?



Satan......


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 10, 2014)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> What?
> 
> Man, I need to make up "The absolute stupidest thing I have heard on the internet in the last year" award specifically for you.  That's so retarded I don't have words to describe it.



Not necessarily.

These people have been staying with me for the past couple of weeks, and their 3 year old boy was molested by a man and I honestly think the little bugger might be gay. He is always all over guys and boys and says some gay shit.


So to say molestation can't lead to homosexuality is false, I see it every day.


----------



## Deputy Myself (Jun 10, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> Not necessarily.
> 
> These people have been staying with me for the past couple of weeks, and their 3 year old boy was molested by a man and I honestly think the little bugger might be gay. He is always all over guys and boys and says some gay shit.
> 
> ...


 It's funny because it sounds like you're serious


----------



## oprisco (Jun 10, 2014)

Toroxus said:


> That's funny, because as a homosexual, I was NOT entitled to relevant tax benefits, many financial benefits, medical benefits, visitation benefits, adoption benefits, etc. UNTIL my state legalized gay marriage.



Tax and Financial Benefits for married people makes sense as the government is basically investing in you and your spouse/partner and promoting married couples to make children.  

This is why Gay Marriage doesn't even make sense as obviously gays can't produce offspring.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 10, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> So to say molestation can't lead to homosexuality is false, I see it every day.


Actually, molestation can't lead to homosexuality, because hetero and homosexuality are polyepigenetic traits that cannot be altered. Not to mention, heterosexual males molest more females by rate and by amount.

The. End. Homosexuality or Heterosexuality have no relation to molestation, rape, etc. Homosexual parents are superior to heterosexual parents. Period. Thor should be banned for spamming and flamebaiting.



oprisco said:


> Tax and Financial Benefits for married people makes sense as the government is basically investing in you and your spouse/partner and promoting married couples to *raise* children.


Fixed.



> This is why Gay Marriage doesn't even make sense as obviously gays can't produce offspring.



Actually gays CAN produce offspring, but not through homosexual sex. But gays don't need to make offspring themselves because there are so many offspring from heterosexuals that aren't being cared for, because heterosexuals are terrible parents by design. Funny, this is the exact definition of Kin Selection.


----------



## oprisco (Jun 10, 2014)

Toroxus said:


> Actually gays CAN produce offspring, but not through homosexual sex. But gays don't need to make offspring themselves because there are so many offspring from heterosexuals that aren't being cared for, b*ecause heterosexuals are terrible parents by design.* Funny, this is the exact definition of Kin Selection.



Oh, really? Sounds like you're shaming on heterosexual couples. It's truly come to it that gays think they are superior to everyone else. But at the same time you're saying in your reply that you need heterosexuals in order to adopt their children. Hypocrisy at its finest.

By the way, you're pretty much fixed on that pedophilia-gay relation. Let me make it clear for once and all for you.

Peer reviewed 


_"The ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. *This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually.* "_

Here we have it, most pedophiles can be found among gays. Utterly disgusting.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 10, 2014)

oprisco said:


> Oh, really? Sounds like you're shaming on heterosexual couples. It's truly come to it that gays think they are superior to everyone else.


Homosexual parents > Heterosexual Parents in almost every way. 



> But at the same time you're saying in your reply that you need heterosexuals in order to adopt their children. Hypocrisy at its finest.


Heterosexuals and Homosexuals are both required for our species, like all tetrapoda.



> By the way, you're pretty much fixed on that pedophilia-gay relation. Let me make it clear for once and all for you.
> 
> Peer reviewed
> 
> ...



Nice study size of* 21.*  studying the rates of sexual-age-attraction in both homosexuals and heterosexuals.* Study size >10,000. *

*"The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. *This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children."

Good job, you failed at a basic google search. Obviously you fell head-first into a Prominence vs. Prevalence fallacy as well, probably with a confirmation bias.


----------



## Deputy Myself (Jun 10, 2014)

why is this about pedophilia now


----------



## oprisco (Jun 10, 2014)

Deputy Myself said:


> why is this about pedophilia now



If you call out a homo for what he really is, he will cry out loud and feel offended. This is what happens with Toroxus right now.


----------



## oprisco (Jun 10, 2014)

Toroxus said:


> Homosexual parents > Heterosexual Parents in almost every way.
> 
> 
> Heterosexuals and Homosexuals are both required for our species, like all tetrapoda.
> ...



I'll post it again because you can't read. 
*
"This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually."*

Wether gays have a greater propensity to offend against children doesn't matter. What matters is that you can find more true pedophiles among homos than among heteros. 

Reason enough to prohibit gay marriage but that's nothing new. Gays are miserable parents who end up killing themselves, have higher STD risks, die younger than heteros and are just plain degenerate. How does it feel being inferior and you can't do jackshit about it?


----------



## Xyloxi (Jun 10, 2014)

oprisco said:


> If you call out a homo for what he really is, he will cry out loud and feel offended. This is what happens with Toroxus right now.



Homosexuals are the same as everyone else, they're just attracted to the same-sex. Homosexuals don't eat food differently, they don't study or work differently, they don't lay about in their pajamas and binge-watch things on Netflix any differently than heterosexual people do. 

Whilst I don't agree with Toroxus that homosexuals are superior parents, I do see them as being equal. The only way homosexual parents could be seen as better is because it's much harder for homosexuals to become parents, as only successful and stable couples are going to be allowed to adopt a child, compared to any fertile heterosexual couple.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 10, 2014)

oprisco said:


> I'll post it again because you can't read.
> *
> "This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually."*



Invalid study because it's too small. Larger accepted studies show you're wrong. Maybe I'll post it again because you can't read:
"The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children."



> Wether gays have a greater propensity to offend against children doesn't matter. What matters is that you can find more true pedophiles among homos than among heteros.


Wait, what? This makes no sense. Homosexuals only make up about a third of the population, if gays didn't have a higher propensity, then they'd represent 1/3 or less of child molesters. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're trying to rationalize something in a twisted way to defend a preconceived conclusion. You're not actually debating, you're just regurgitating.



> Reason enough to prohibit gay marriage but that's nothing new. Gays are miserable parents who end up killing themselves, have higher STD risks, die younger than heteros and are just plain degenerate.



Gays have higher suicide rates because of people like you, and higher STD risks because people like you try to pass laws that ignore us in sexual ed classes. I guess I just need to copy and paste even more:


> Homosexuals tend to:
> Have a higher risk of HIV
> Have a higher risk of drug use
> Have a very high risk of depression and other mental disorders.
> ...





> How does it feel being inferior and you can't do jackshit about it?


I always say it, and I'll say it again: People who have problems with gays are the same type of people who've had problems with females and blacks: People with a Superiority Complex.


----------



## Thor (Jun 10, 2014)

oprisco said:


> If you call out a homo for what he really is, he will cry out loud and feel offended. This is what happens with Toroxus right now.



Agreed. Great posts byy the way. You're owning him.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 10, 2014)

Thor said:


> You're owning him.



And here you go folks. This isn't a debate, it's a "contest." A contest in which someone "wins" by agreeing with what you already thought. 

So a great post = citing a bogus study that agrees with you.


----------



## Roman (Jun 10, 2014)

Toroxus, my friendly advice to you is to stop. Both of them are trolls. It seriously isn't worth it to give them that much attention.


----------



## Deputy Myself (Jun 10, 2014)

wait what
they're trolls?
mind blown


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 10, 2014)

Toroxus said:


> I always say it, and I'll say it again: People who have problems with gays are the same type of people who've had problems with females and blacks: People with a Superiority Complex.



I've never had a problem with females or blacks so what is your excuse on this one? Could it be I'm for morality and against sin?


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 10, 2014)

Toroxus said:


> Actually, molestation can't lead to homosexuality, because hetero and homosexuality are polyepigenetic traits that cannot be altered. Not to mention, heterosexual males molest more females by rate and by amount.


But it can greatly alter a child's mentality and logically their sexual orientation.
Proof that its genetic, and I mean absolute evidence that is accepted by a wide array of the science community. Not just some article where someone claims to have found a gay gene.

That is because its hard to find a needle in a haystack.





> The. End. Homosexuality or Heterosexuality have no relation to molestation, rape, etc. Homosexual parents are superior to heterosexual parents. Period. Thor should be banned for spamming and flamebaiting.


Hypocrite 





> Homosexual parents > Heterosexual Parents in almost every way.


No they aren't

2 dudes would not be able to give solid dating advice to a heterosexual boy imo. I think its better to have a parent of each sex that way you get advice from both sexes and not just the one that you prefer. 

Not to mention the social repercussions that it will lead to. Kids will be kids and kids will tease a kid that has 2 daddies. 

Aswell as leading to some weird questions that would be hard to give a answer to.

You are truly ignorant to our evil ways.





> Heterosexuals and Homosexuals are both required for our species, like all tetrapoda.


?






> Nice study size of* 21.*  studying the rates of sexual-age-attraction in both homosexuals and heterosexuals.* Study size >10,000. *


Gays are a small minority I think in 2010 it was calcd to be about 2-3% of the population.


> *"The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. *This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children."


Yes because pedophilia is another class of "disorder" that people seem to not be able to help and some assert that they have always been that way...damn that argument seems familiar, I just don't know from where though.



> Good job, you failed at a basic google search. Obviously you fell head-first into a Prominence vs. Prevalence fallacy as well, probably with a confirmation bias.


He did provide some form of evidence and it was from a somewhat credible source, if you want to prove him wrong than provide your own.

You prove more and more how discriminatory you can be based on your sexual orientation while wanting society to openly accept your perverted ways and mentalities in a non-discriminatory fashion even if you have to result to attacks against good polite Christian Americans that kindly refuse to actively participate in what they believe to be a sin against the most supreme being there has ever been and ever will be and the true ultimate judge.

Laws will not bind these people or atleast not for long. You best realize that you have already had a substantial gain from the gay rights movement and if you keep going like this then it will breed hate from either side to the other side.





> I always say it, and I'll say it again: People who have problems with gays are the same type of people who've had problems with females and blacks: People with a Superiority Complex.


No, its not a superiority complex, but its your inferiority complex that makes you think we are these truly evil beings. Imma burn in hell because imma an evil ***** h****osexual m**



> Gays have higher suicide rates because of people like you, and higher STD risks because people like you try to pass laws that ignore us in sexual ed classes. I guess I just need to copy and paste even more:


I would flip absolute shit if my son came home from school talking about them teaching gay sex....holy fuck I would go apeshit.

Use a condom, ain't that hard to figure out...same principles apply.

First time I put it in the stinker, I put a condom on...and not for protection against STDs.


----------



## Kathutet (Jun 10, 2014)

> Homosexual parents > Heterosexual Parents in almost every way.


----------



## Deputy Myself (Jun 10, 2014)

Kenneth don't you dare lock this thread this is way too amusing


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 10, 2014)

Freedan said:


> Toroxus, my friendly advice to you is to stop. Both of them are trolls. It seriously isn't worth it to give them that much attention.



If he stops then he more or less surrenders his argument and failing to provide adaquete evidence to support his "claims" then it would be seen by me and other posters as he accepted his loss.


This is a good thread, the only lock it should get is a sticky.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 10, 2014)

not his territory.


----------



## Roman (Jun 10, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> If he stops then he more or less surrenders his argument and failing to provide adaquete evidence to support his "claims" then it would be seen by me and other posters as he accepted his loss.



The only thing I'll say is that he has provided evidence to back his argument. The problem lies in you and others utterly ignoring it/pretending it doesn't exist.


----------



## Jake CENA (Jun 10, 2014)

Toroxus said:


> I always say it, and I'll say it again: People who have problems with gays are the same type of people who've had problems with females and blacks: People with a Superiority Complex.



I feel offended by this post.

I am not from India. So i dont have a superiority complex.

And i dont have anything against gays, but i dont agree with same sex marriage and same sex intercourse. Because its morally wrong and disgusting. 

Gays are the ones responsible for creating and spreading AIDS and HIV.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 10, 2014)

I don't mean just scientific evidence, there must be morality involved as well which this is a case of. Forcing someone to actively participate in what they believe to be a crime against the most powerful being to ever be which could lead to eternal damnation.

@Termina- I was offended by claim as well, and then people wonder why we discredit him...because he is infact discriminatory against h****sexuals


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 10, 2014)

Morality is subjective.


----------



## Jake CENA (Jun 10, 2014)

Then youre a hypocrite if youre believing that gay sex is not disgusting and morally correct.


----------



## Donquixote Doflamingo (Jun 10, 2014)

43 pages good lord.

This whole situation is stupid  anyway the bible does not say to deny service to homosexuals or any sinners for that matter.

Instead of being a dick this could of been a good opportunity to minister to this gay couple to late now though.

Seriously 43 pages wow.


----------



## Doge (Jun 10, 2014)

Donquixote Doflamingo said:


> 43 pages good lord.
> 
> This whole situation is stupid  anyway the bible does not say to deny service to homosexuals or any sinners for that matter.
> 
> ...



No but it does say that sleeping with another of the same sex is an abomination.  And people think it's okay to sin day after day with no remorse or attempts to seek forgiveness.

Disgusting.

Can we break 1,,000 guys?


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 10, 2014)

Freedan, is IchLiebe a troll? Should I respond to him?


IchLiebe said:


> If he stops then he more or less surrenders his argument and failing to provide adaquete evidence to support his "claims" then it would be seen by me and other posters as he accepted his loss.



#1: When a debate goes round and round ad nauseam, leaving it doesn't mean you "surrender." This isn't a contest; it isn't a war. I'm not arguing to "defend my right-ness," I'm arguing about information. There are some people in this thread who are only arguing to be right, whether they are factual or erroneous doesn't matter to them. They believe that if the shout loud enough, it will become fact.
The Homosexuality Debate Thread is stickied and has existed for awhile. I've heard many of these same arguments over there, and they have been shut down dozens of times. This is just a new thread, a new rock overturn where this mold (anti-homo stuff) has festered.


----------



## EJ (Jun 10, 2014)

> Homosexual parents > Heterosexual Parents in almost every way.




Yeah, I stopped taking anyone seriously after reading this as well. How can anyone say that "one is better than the other".  "My statistics s-show" how did they even do this study? And what constitutes as a good parent? What kind of upbringing did the parents have? There's a lot more to it besides just being gay or straight.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 10, 2014)

Flow said:


> Yeah, I stopped taking anyone seriously after reading this as well.



Sorry, reality and biology don't fit your preconceived delusions of false superiority. 



> How can anyone say that "one is better than the other".  "My statistics s-show" how did they even do this study? And what constitutes as a good parent? What kind of upbringing did the parents have?



So you stopped reading when you came across an introductory statement that you disagree with so you then criticize the supporting arguments for it because you never read any further...



Doge said:


> Disgusting.



You know what I think is disgusting? Cilantro. Cilantro is a terrible substance. I think Cilantro tastes like dead rotting roadkill. I can not understand, can't even process, anyone willingly being in the same room as Cilantro. It was awful, every time I'm near it, I start gagging as I attempt to not throw up from that vile abomination. There are many restaurants that support the use of Cilantro, and I immediately leave if I detect any of it. Those aren't the places I support. I was traumatized to cilantro when I was young. I would never go near any type of seasoning or herbs, and forget cuisines in which cilantro is popular. As such, my diet was very strict, and it wasn't for years, until I discovered that it was actually cilantro, that I could live a normal life.

[sp]I have a genetic trait that allows me to taste a compound in cilantro that most people can't taste. Everything I said was true. I never asked anyone for forgiveness when I vomited on their dinner table. I had regrets, and it was that people could never understand.[/sp]

Funny, I don't think people who like cilantro should be criminalized and dehumanized.


----------



## babaGAReeb (Jun 10, 2014)

why are ppl with thor in their usernames such homo-haterz?


----------



## EJ (Jun 10, 2014)

^It's as much of a coincidence that the pedophiles on this forum use terrible arguments/reasoning to support their "facts" that has never been proven.


----------



## EJ (Jun 10, 2014)

And because obviously disagreeing with your terrible assumption and saying "It can't be proven" for either side and adopting a neutral standing means that I think I'm superior towards you.


----------



## babaGAReeb (Jun 10, 2014)

da pedo facts...

the pedos vs the forces of asgard... sounds like it would make a good movie




this convo between the thors makes me suspicious....


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 10, 2014)

Flow said:


> And because obviously disagreeing with your terrible assumption and saying "It can't be proven" for either side and adopting a neutral standing means that I think I'm superior towards you.



It can and has been proven for a side. You're just not accepting it because it's not the side you're on. You view information as something that either backs up your-already-predetermined-conclusion, or is wrong. That's not how science or reality work.



babaGAReeb said:


> the pedos vs the forces of asgard...


I didn't know Thor was a p*d*p****, but it doesn't surprise me with his need to be superior and dominating. Figures the real Thor of Asgard would be opposed to such attempted tyranny.


----------



## EJ (Jun 10, 2014)

Toroxus said:


> It can


No, it can't.

So what side am I on exactly?


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 10, 2014)

Flow said:


> No, it can't.


Based on what is proven:


> Homosexuals tend to:
> Have a higher risk of HIV
> Have a higher risk of drug use
> Have a very high risk of depression and other mental disorders.
> ...


----------



## EJ (Jun 10, 2014)

Post 10 sources where it specifically states that homosexuals/straight people make better/worst parents more than the either.

Also, answer my question.


----------



## babaGAReeb (Jun 10, 2014)

hey i didnt call thor a pedo toxicus, it was u who i called a pedo and i want the thors to fight u


and wtf is this 
u sayin homos make better parents?


----------



## BashFace (Jun 10, 2014)

Toroxus said:


> *I didn't know Thor was a p*d*p****, but it doesn't surprise me with his need to be superior and dominating.* Figures the real Thor of Asgard would be opposed to such attempted tyranny.



What the fuck does that even mean?  

Does it make you unsettled that you were speaking with that kind of person and now you would like to say you were somehow secretly aware or suspicious of what kind of person he was?

Although continually engaging in conversations with him anyway. 

Implying that you felt comfortable enough to continually engage but weren't comfortable enough around him to avoid being suspicious of his character and knowing he didn't view you as equal? 

I'm confused as fuck why even talk to that guy? I might be jumping in halfway here but I think I get it unless you made a joke then somehow and I've wasted like 2-3 minutes replying.


----------



## EJ (Jun 10, 2014)

He was trying to use Thor as a stepping stone.


----------



## Gino (Jun 10, 2014)

You guys are Idiotic and bored as hell to still continue yapping it on up in this fuckin thread.


----------



## BashFace (Jun 10, 2014)

babaGAReeb said:


> hey i didnt call thor a pedo toxicus, it was u who i called a pedo and i want the thors to fight u
> 
> 
> and wtf is this
> u sayin homos make better parents?



Fuck lol I shouldn't have replied to Toxicus but I'm not deleting couldn't be fucked gonna crash soon.

How did this p*d*p**** shit get into this thread? It seemed more appropriate in a thread about Japan banning child porn.


----------



## Gino (Jun 10, 2014)

hehehe.....


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 10, 2014)

Flow said:


> Post 10 sources where it specifically states that homosexuals/straight people make better/worst parents more than the either.



What is with you people? Why should I take a whole day writing a novel to spoon-feed information when A: You're not going to read it because it disagrees with you B: You can do so yourself. 

I literally copied and pasted the first part of my "homosexual parents tend to" and  was the very very first link. Which is more on the topic that regardless of sexuality, parents are the same. Ever consider researching? That was just the first link..


----------



## EJ (Jun 10, 2014)

Oh, so you can't post 10 links saying what I asked for?

Ok then.

Answer my question btw.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jun 10, 2014)

lol Thor and Oprisco aren't trolls, I know its hard to believe but they are just that stupid and ignorant. These pathetic arguments that they have posited have been refuted ad nauseum in the Homosexuality thread and yet they're here spouting the same BS.


----------



## EJ (Jun 10, 2014)

Thor is a troll, Ichliebe and Oprisco aren't.


----------



## babaGAReeb (Jun 10, 2014)

i wouldnt trust anything toxicus says

he actually believes the human race wouldve been extinct if there were no homos


----------



## Krippy (Jun 10, 2014)

Quality fucking thread


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jun 10, 2014)

Flow said:


> Thor is a troll, Ichliebe and Oprisco aren't.



How do you know though? Can someone be THAT dense to spend his entire time on a forums trolling? Because 90 percent of the shit he posts is pure stupidity. Its more likely that hes just incredibly ignorant.



> i wouldnt trust anything toxicus says
> 
> he actually believes the human race wouldve been extinct if there were no homos



Er, while I don't support that line of reasoning nor the bit about homosexual parents being superior parents; he is spot on about everything else.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 10, 2014)

Flow said:


> Oh, so you can't post 10 links saying what I asked for?
> 
> Ok then.



Oh, look, . (Much more in-depth than the first one)

You want 10 sources? There are hundreds there.


----------



## oprisco (Jun 10, 2014)

babaGAReeb said:


> i wouldnt trust anything toxicus says
> 
> *he actually believes the human race wouldve been extinct if there were no homos*



I remember that thread where he stated this. Top fucking lel.




heavy_rasengan said:


> How do you know though? Can someone be THAT dense to spend his entire time on a forums trolling? Because 90 percent of the shit he posts is pure stupidity. Its more likely that hes just incredibly ignorant.



The correct term you're searching for is "politically incorrect".


----------



## Krippy (Jun 10, 2014)

Flow said:


> Thor is a troll, Ichliebe and Oprisco aren't.



He is NOT a TROLL. He really believes EVERYTHING he posts. Stop REPORTING HIM


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 10, 2014)

oprisco said:


> I remember that thread where he stated this. Top fucking lel.



I remember the first paper I did on kin selection & evolution in sophomore year of my bachelors. Go figure, a biologist knows more about biology than someone who isn't a biologist. Of course, someone who is an asshole and isn't a biologist, perhaps such as yourself, would feel completely qualified to debate on the topic without any knowledge of it. And I remember the first place I mentioned it on


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jun 10, 2014)

oprisco said:


> The correct term you're searching for is "politically incorrect".



Bruv, with the shit thats been coming out of your mouth in this thread, you will soon be an honorary member of Thor and JSJ's clique. Ichliebe isn't far behind either with his argument from tradition BS.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 10, 2014)

babaGAReeb said:


> i wouldnt trust anything toxicus says
> 
> *he actually believes the human race wouldve been extinct if there were no homos *



Dude that's the best thing I ever read. It was too funny. 



Toroxus said:


> I remember the first paper I did on kin selection & evolution in sophomore year of my bachelors. Go figure, a biologist knows more about biology than someone who isn't a biologist. Of course, someone who is an asshole and isn't a biologist, perhaps such as yourself, would feel completely qualified to debate on the topic without any knowledge of it. And I remember the first place I mentioned it on


 
The thing with this is YOU did this research right? So none of it peer reviewed, and you have a bias. I don't think any of it is valid.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 10, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> The thing with this is YOU did this research right? So none of it peer reviewed, and you have a bias. I don't think any of it is valid.



 Actually, I did publish a paper on it in an peer-reviewed evolutionary journal. And I will never link it or any of the other papers I've ever published here, even with contact details omitted. It was purely a data-mining research paper, like the one I linked. 

Know that feeling where someone says, "Well, it could be worse, at least XX didn't happen?" Yeah, well, "XX" just happened, and now you look like an idiot. Good stuff. Then again, I'm happy to talk and write papers to academics, like the audience of my paper, and the professors I consulted with, but people desperately clinging to a superiority complex? Just a waste of time.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 10, 2014)

this topic is...i don't even know anymore...


----------



## babaGAReeb (Jun 10, 2014)

Toroxus said:


> I remember the first paper I did on kin selection & evolution in sophomore year of my bachelors. Go figure, a biologist knows more about biology than someone who isn't a biologist. Of course, someone who is an asshole and isn't a biologist, perhaps such as yourself, would feel completely qualified to debate on the topic without any knowledge of it. And I remember the first place I mentioned it on


i read that stuff you posted there, it made absolutely no sense


then again a so called biologist who faps to shota isnt exactly a reliable source


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 10, 2014)

Toroxus said:


> Actually, I did publish a paper on it in an peer-reviewed evolutionary journal. And I* will never link it or any of the other papers I've ever published here*, even with contact details omitted.



This is why everything you say is bullshit. The biggest advocate on NF for citations and links yet will not *ever* link any of his sources or papers yet says he has a bio degree and since he has that believe everything he says because he is always right and will flame the shit out of you if you don't link everything you state.. What are you? The US government?


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 10, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> This is why everything you say is bullshit. The biggest advocate on NF for citations and links yet will not *ever* link any of his sources or papers yet



I linked 3 times in the past page or two. All three of which are top search results. Two of them have hundreds of citations, and they aren't _my_ work, so your ad hominems have an either further reduction in efficiency. Two of which are national medical organizations, and the other is a internationally accredited university.



> says he has a bio degree and since he has that believe everything he says because he is always right and will flame the shit out of you if you don't link everything you state.. What are you? The US government?



Well, if someone makes the assertion that the scientific consensus on related topics is completely wrong and backwards, you need to cite evidence as to why. The Burden of Proof lies on you, not me. And this expectation that I will write a novel about each of my points to people who are trolls and will never read it anymore, is disgusting. I'm not wasting my time.


----------



## Oceania (Jun 10, 2014)

I'll just ask this, couldn't the man say he wasn't comfortable making the cake for them and directed them to a place that would?


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jun 10, 2014)

Oceania said:


> I'll just ask this, couldn't the man say he wasn't comfortable making the cake for them and directed them to a place that would?



Would you ask this same question if it was an interracial couple and they were refused on the grounds that the baker didn't support such a marriage?


----------



## Oceania (Jun 10, 2014)

heavy_rasengan said:


> Would you ask this same question if it was an interracial couple and they were refused on the grounds that the baker didn't support such a marriage?



Would I personally? no. I've got no problems with gay people. 

Why do I feel like your trying to paint me as a bigot? 

that hurts.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 10, 2014)

Yet still no repl to my post on page 42.


@Toro- You can be damn sure willingly that if I was in a field that pertained to what I was debating I would have no problem showing a paper of my own. But know this I would read every letter of your paper and would disprove it wrong. You don't need a degree in something to know simple mechanics. And even if its biological...couldn't it just be a mutation, thus making you a mutant?

Hell I've given people on here coordinates of my location(previous one) so they could come down here and whip my ass or try to kill me. Tittynipples never replied but I put him on my shit list. I wouldn't give out my name because in 15 years or so if I want to run for office or Toroxus gets some authority or any one else who hates me...seems to be a lot, would fuck my life up and discriminate against due to the things I have put on the internet and try to paint me as a bigot and racist.


----------



## blk (Jun 10, 2014)

Toroxus said:


> What is with you people? Why should I take a whole day writing a novel to spoon-feed information when A: You're not going to read it because it disagrees with you B: You can do so yourself.
> 
> I literally copied and pasted the first part of my "homosexual parents tend to" and  was the very very first link. Which is more on the topic that regardless of sexuality, parents are the same. Ever consider researching? That was just the first link..



I've read that document and the conclusions of the second one, in none of them there was written that homosexual parents tend to be better than heterosexual ones.

In both papers you can read that the sexual orientations and the gender of the parents have pretty much nothing to do with the children's outcomes; much more important are the general quality of the social interactions and a good enough economic well-being.

And considering that discrimination (as mentioned in those papers) can have an important impact on the children, i would go as far as to say that a child with homosexual parents is more likely to grow with psychological problems than one raised by heterosexual ones, since the former is more likely to be discriminated.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jun 10, 2014)

Oceania said:


> Would I personally? no. I've got no problems with gay people.
> 
> Why do I feel like your trying to paint me as a bigot?
> 
> that hurts.



lol. I was asking you to compare and contrast to a similar situation that would be rather prevalent a mere 40-50 years ago. If a bakery refused to service an interracial couple, nobody would feel sympathetic whatsoever with the baker. Since its a homosexual couple, the religitards have come out in full force and have attempted to mask their bigotry and intolerance with the law and liberty. 



			
				Ichliebe said:
			
		

> Hell I've given people on here coordinates of my location(previous one) so they could come down here and whip my ass or try to kill me. Tittynipples never replied but I put him on my shit list. I wouldn't give out my name because in* 15 years or so if I want to run for office or Toroxus gets some authority or any one else who hates me...seems to be a lot, would fuck my life up and discriminate against due to the things I have put on the internet and try to paint me as a bigot and racist.*



  holy fuck you're delusional. You can add that to being a bigot. Racist, I don't know yet.


----------



## Thor (Jun 10, 2014)

So beastiality haters are bigots??


----------



## Oceania (Jun 10, 2014)

heavy_rasengan said:


> lol. I was asking you to compare and contrast to a similar situation that would be rather prevalent a mere 40-50 years ago. If a bakery refused to service an interracial couple, nobody would feel sympathetic whatsoever with the baker. Since its a homosexual couple, the religitards have come out in full force and have attempted to mask their bigotry and intolerance with the law and liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> holy fuck you're delusional. You can add that to being a bigot. Racist, I don't know yet.



come on now I'm a "religitard" and I'm all for gay couples and hope that they can have the same rights as straight couples.....


----------



## Luciana (Jun 10, 2014)

45 pages:amazed, and still no pic of the gay cake


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jun 10, 2014)

Oceania said:


> come on now* I'm a "religitard" *and I'm all for gay couples and hope that they can have the same rights as straight couples.....



Then you're not a religitard. You are merely, religious. 



			
				Thor said:
			
		

> So beastiality haters are bigots??



Nice strawman. I don't think i ever claimed such.


----------



## LesExit (Jun 10, 2014)

Luciana said:


> 45 pages:amazed, and still no pic of the gay cake







Now I reeeeeaalllly want a rainbow cake! Not just cause I'm gay, but they just look so playful and colorful pek I can practically taste the moist rainbow goodness in my mouuuth!


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jun 10, 2014)

Les, just so you know, those cakes don't taste like skittles.


----------



## LesExit (Jun 10, 2014)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> Les, just so you know, those cakes don't taste like skittles.


 ewwww
I wouldn't want them too.
I know it's just food coloring...but still....in my mind...it'd be wonderful pek


----------



## Oceania (Jun 10, 2014)

heavy_rasengan said:


> Then you're not a religitard. You are merely, religious.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice strawman. I don't think i ever claimed such.



ohhh ok. 

still no pic of this cake though....


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jun 10, 2014)

but how're you gonna taste the rainbow if you're not eating skittles?


----------



## Xyloxi (Jun 10, 2014)

Would eating rainbow cake turn your poo rainbow colours?


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jun 10, 2014)

Oceania said:


> ohhh ok.
> 
> still no pic of this cake though....



lol sorry if I offended you. I use the term "religitard" for those bible-thumpers that believe the world to be 6000 years old, Atheists to be the spawn of satan, extremely homophobic, etc. Now, obviously, this is in the minority because most Christians aren't like this.


----------



## Draffut (Jun 10, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> Not necessarily.
> 
> These people have been staying with me for the past couple of weeks, and their 3 year old boy was molested by a man and I honestly think the little bugger might be gay. He is always all over guys and boys and says some gay shit.
> 
> So to say molestation can't lead to homosexuality is false, I see it every day.



Your completely absurd anecdotal evidence means absolutely nothing.  I saw a gay person eat a rack of ribs a week ago, I guess eating cow ribs makes people gay too.



oprisco said:


> I'll post it again because you can't read.
> *
> "This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually."*
> 
> ...



You find one very biased, minimal, study that only compared two numbers and took no other factors into account, and think it's more credible than the pile of in depth studies that Tox linked?

I've never seen anyone more blinded by irrational bias.


----------



## Draffut (Jun 10, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> 2 dudes would not be able to give solid dating advice to a heterosexual boy imo. I think its better to have a parent of each sex that way you get advice from both sexes and not just the one that you prefer.
> 
> Not to mention the social repercussions that it will lead to. Kids will be kids and kids will tease a kid that has 2 daddies.



So, there is a social stigma against homosexuality, so we should just ignore it and never try and change that opinion.

If kids are bullied, do something about the bullies, don't go victim blaming.

As far as dating advice goes, "your honest opinion' doesn't mean shit.  The fact is that homosexual parents cannot have accidental children  So when they do adopt, they are (on average) older, more well educated, have better incomes, etc.  Raising a kid in a broken home is much worse than the unlikely chance that neither of them can give decent dating advice.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jun 10, 2014)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> You find one very biased, minimal, study that only compared two numbers, and think it's more credible than the pile of in depth studies that Tox linked?
> 
> I've never seen anyone more blinded by irrational bias.



Not to mention that its just a fucking abstract lol. He read literally 7-8 lines of an entire article and concluded that the phenomenon is an objective fact...smh


And then to top it all off, he completely ignored all of the opposing studies that actually included the full texts as well


----------



## EJ (Jun 10, 2014)

Toroxus said:


> You want 10 sources? There are hundreds there.



Reread my post and give me what I asked for.


----------



## oprisco (Jun 10, 2014)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> Your completely absurd anecdotal evidence means absolutely nothing.  I saw a gay person eat a rack of ribs a week ago, I guess eating cow ribs makes people gay too.
> 
> You find one very biased, minimal, study that only compared two numbers and took no other factors into account, and think it's more credible than the pile of in depth studies that Tox linked?
> 
> I've never seen anyone more blinded by irrational bias.



You mean Tox who is apparently a Biology student, who has contributed in peer reviewed articles but won't link us any to it.  Besides the fact that he faps to shota? Sure thing, no one buys his bullshit.

Also, the studies he linked actually proved exactly the contrary what he said. The studies concluded that gay couples are not necessary better parents and that the children might even suffer more, due to the fact that the parents are more often exposed to discrimination.

The study I linked to is peer reviewed. Tox won't even link to his. He still has to post sources to his bullshit claims. Notice how he hasn't delivered anything to Flow.


----------



## EJ (Jun 10, 2014)

@Jewsuke, 

I asked Toroxus to post credible sources stating that "____ people make better parents than ____" which he has yet to post.


----------



## oprisco (Jun 10, 2014)

By the way, wasn't it Tox who defended pedomangas in the other japanthread?

That dude lost all credibility.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Draffut (Jun 10, 2014)

oprisco said:


> You mean Tox who is apparently a Biology student, who has contributed in peer reviewed articles but won't link us any to it.  Besides the fact that he faps to shota? Sure thing, no one buys his bullshit.



Doesn't remove the credibility of the articles he did link   Your ad hominem attack means shit.  He could not even have a GED for all I care, the articles he linked are still valid.



> Also, the studies he linked actually proved exactly the contrary what he said. The studies concluded that gay couples are not necessary better parents and that the children might even suffer more, due to the fact that the parents are more often exposed to discrimination.



So the problem with homosexual parenting is that heterosexual parents discriminate.

Sounds like the homosexuals aren't the problem.



> The study I linked to is peer reviewed. Tox won't even link to his. He still has to post sources to his bullshit claims. Notice how he hasn't delivered anything to Flow.



And the articles he linked in that one post were peer reviewed too.  Your article is crushed under the weight of them alone.


----------



## EJ (Jun 10, 2014)

oprisco said:


> By the way, wasn't it Tox who defended pedomangas in the other japanthread?
> 
> That dude lost all credibility.



He stated he didn't want those kind of things banned, but let's keep these topics separated.


----------



## Draffut (Jun 10, 2014)

Flow said:


> @Jewsuke,
> 
> I asked Toroxus to post credible sources stating that "____ people make better parents than ____" which he has yet to post.



I believe the idea is that 2 couples of the same age/income/education, gay or straight, are equally fit to be parents.

The issue arrives in that hetrosexual couples can very easily have children long before they are ready.  Teenage pregnancy for example.  *On average*, a couple 15 year olds without a high school education is going to be an inferior parent to 2 30 year olds making 120k a year.  This drags down the hetrosexual side.  Sure, the 15 year olds can put it up for adoption, but then we come full circle to the homosexuals adopting that child, and being better parents than they would have been.  (The homosexuals actually want the kid)

Noone is saying being gay makes you a better parent.  They are saying that being gay gives you more control of when you become a parent, which means you are more likely to be at a point in your life where you will be a better one.


----------



## oprisco (Jun 10, 2014)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> Noone is saying being gay makes you a better parent.



Except that's exactly what Tox claimed.



Toroxus said:


> Homosexual parents > Heterosexual Parents in almost every way.




Still waiting on a peer reviewed study which says that homo parents are better than hetero parents.


----------



## Oceania (Jun 10, 2014)

heavy_rasengan said:


> lol sorry if I offended you. I use the term "religitard" for those bible-thumpers that believe the world to be 6000 years old, Atheists to be the spawn of satan, extremely homophobic, etc. Now, obviously, this is in the minority because most Christians aren't like this.



lol ya didn't. I know what you mean, I really don't blame people for not believing, I mean look at all the cases of hateful preaching and the awful mean things that the church says. I'm very displeased with the state of christian church today. Whole lot of hate and intolerance being preached and not enough acceptance and unity. anyway..... 

I want to see this cake that has everyone up in arms.


----------



## LesExit (Jun 10, 2014)

How are homosexual parents better than heterosexual parents? I thought when it came to parents it was that a child tends to do better with two parents rather than one. The gender of them has nothing to do with it :0



Yami Munesanzun said:


> but how're you gonna taste the rainbow if you're not eating skittles?


....Stop asking me difficult questions 


Xyloxi said:


> Would eating rainbow cake turn your poo rainbow colours?


....Ew....wait....is it? You might be able to make cool looking art or something


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jun 10, 2014)

Thor said:


> Satan......



alright you got me there

I'll see you next time


----------



## Oceania (Jun 10, 2014)

I mean was the cake your basic wedding cake only with two little plastic grooms on top.... or was it like a cake of two men having sex? Cause that would be kinda awkward to make. but if its your basic cake then it shouldn't be that big of a deal to make.


----------



## LesExit (Jun 10, 2014)

Oceania said:


> I mean was the cake your basic wedding cake only with two little plastic grooms on top.... *or was it like a cake of two men having sex*? Cause that would be kinda awkward to make. but if its your basic cake then it shouldn't be that big of a deal to make.


XD who has a wedding with a cake with two people having sex on it...

:0 maybe a lot of people?


----------



## Fiona (Jun 10, 2014)




----------



## Totally not a cat (Jun 10, 2014)

I honestly admire Toro for having the willpower and patience of going through this every. Single. Time.


Xyloxi said:


> Would eating rainbow cake turn your poo rainbow colours?



I don't think so...
Even if the colorant was potent enough, it would all mix in your belly and end up, well, brown. Or something.

...Maybe if you ate each colour at a time in cyclic system...


----------



## Risyth (Jun 10, 2014)

Okay, next person to bump this shit gets neg--



...nvm.


----------



## EJ (Jun 10, 2014)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> I believe the idea is that 2 couples of the same age/income/education, gay or straight, are equally fit to be parents.
> 
> The issue arrives in that hetrosexual couples can very easily have children long before they are ready.  Teenage pregnancy for example.  *On average*, a couple 15 year olds without a high school education is going to be an inferior parent to 2 30 year olds making 120k a year.  This drags down the hetrosexual side.  Sure, the 15 year olds can put it up for adoption, but then we come full circle to the homosexuals adopting that child, and being better parents than they would have been.  (The homosexuals actually want the kid)
> 
> Noone is saying being gay makes you a better parent.  They are saying that being gay gives you more control of when you become a parent, which means you are more likely to be at a point in your life where you will be a better one.



There is no "issue"

Parents who adopt tend to offer better security for their kids. It's not a gay or straight issue that people are trying to make it seem like it is.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jun 10, 2014)

Risyth said:


> Okay, next person to bump this shit gets neg--
> 
> 
> 
> ...nvm.



It's theeeee...

_NEVER-ENDING THREAD! 

NEVER-ENDING THREAD! 

NEVER-ENDING THREAD! 

NEVER-ENDING THREAD! 

NEVER-ENDING THREAD! 

NEVER-ENDING THREAD! 

NEVER-ENDING THREAD! _


----------



## EJ (Jun 10, 2014)

Totally not a cat said:


> I honestly admire Toro for having the willpower and patience of going through this every. Single. Time.



He literally recycles the same arguments all the time and makes stuff up as he goes or purposely contradicts himself. Honestly, the people that end up arguing with him or 'trying to counter-troll him' deserve the time they are wasting.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 10, 2014)




----------



## Stelios (Jun 10, 2014)

Anyone else noticed how the lawyer talks like some village idiot? This is a blown out of proportions case by some lawyer that found a cool way to market himself and his new book. I m not gonna debate about what the three involved said because they are obviously morons.

Fox News. Sensationalism. rep'd Th0r


----------



## Stunna (Jun 10, 2014)

@Yumi: Is this a Neverending Story joke?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 10, 2014)

gay cakes are so...gay, apparently  they are made with gay love in every topping. And they FORCED the baker to make this so called gay cake. Oh the humanity 

It was so gay


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jun 10, 2014)

Inuhanyou said:


> gay cakes are so...gay, apparently  they are made with gay love in every topping. And they FORCED the baker to make this so called gay cake. Oh the humanity
> 
> It was so gay



[youtube]4Y5rH7cN7s4[/youtube]


----------



## Risyth (Jun 10, 2014)

Inuhanyou said:


> gay cakes are so...gay, apparently  they are made with gay love in every topping. And they FORCED the baker to make this so called gay cake. Oh the humanity
> 
> It was so gay



[YOUTUBE]qvrXojax-sA[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## LesExit (Jun 10, 2014)

I like this thread. I don't want it to die 
GAY.GAY.GAY.GAY.GAAAAAY 

No but about that homosexual being better parents thing, I guess I can get it from that more of them would be more prepared for the child then many heterosexuals who end up being parents. Though it's not like homosexuals have better parenting skills or something cause they're gay....they're just luckier cause babies aren't an outcome from their sexy times. Though that's also very unlucky to many people, cause they'd like to make their own babies  But theres so many babies out there, so I think that everybody wins right?? :33


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Jun 10, 2014)

LesExit said:


> How are homosexual parents better than heterosexual parents? I thought when it came to parents it was that a child tends to do better with two parents rather than one. The gender of them has nothing to do with it :0



The homossexual parents tend to be more strict as far as I'm concerned . And no, sometimes 1 parent is better than two, even more when your parent is a hypocrite, right wing homophobic bigot .


----------



## LesExit (Jun 10, 2014)

Mr. Black Leg said:


> The homossexual parents tend to be more strict as far as I'm concerned . And no, sometimes 1 parent is better than two, even more when your parent is a hypocrite, right wing homophobic bigot .


It depends on the parent. In general though, two tends to be better than one. Which makes sense I guess, cause that single parent could have a much harder time paying for bills and stuff and can't spend time with the kids. Cause I remember when I volunteered at this elementary school for this after-school program. Most of the kids there only had one parent, and they had no one who could get them. So I think it counts. Being a single parent in no way automatically means that your child is gonna come out awful though XD They'll probably be fine, _maybe_ face some more difficulties, but they'll get through it. More help with a kid isn't a bad thing.

Though why would homosexual parents be more strict :0 ?
Like...you mean they'll make curfew earlier ?


----------



## Thor (Jun 10, 2014)

Homosexual parents are the worst kind of parents.


----------



## Risyth (Jun 10, 2014)

Don't do it, Flow....


----------



## Totally not a cat (Jun 10, 2014)

Mr. Black Leg said:


> The homossexual parents tend to be more strict as far as I'm concerned . And no, sometimes 1 parent is better than two, even more when your parent is a hypocrite, right wing homophobic bigot .


I feel you.


LesExit said:


> Though why would homosexual parents be more strict :0 ?
> Like...you mean they'll make curfew earlier ?


"_B is for Bitches. I ain't raising no bitches._"
And as for parenting, well...
[YOUTUBE]lwnFE_NpMsE[/YOUTUBE]


No, but seriously though, it's just that the control is much more strict on the gay side. I see no reason to assume that gay people would inherently be better parents.


----------



## LesExit (Jun 10, 2014)

Totally not a cat said:


> "_B is for Bitches. I ain't raising no bitches._"
> And as for parenting, well...
> [YOUTUBE]lwnFE_NpMsE[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> ...


 that video. He was right though >u>


Ya being gay doesn't give you some magical insight into good parenting XD
Or DOOOOOES IT?

lol no


----------



## Gino (Jun 10, 2014)

Thor is in troll paradise right now.


----------



## Vermin (Jun 10, 2014)

okay the cake that they made is one delicious rainbow


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 10, 2014)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> So, there is a social stigma against homosexuality, so we should just ignore it and never try and change that opinion.


Im not saying that, but to make everyone openly accept something that they just outright don't agree with, and make religious people and institutions actively participate in the sin.



> If kids are bullied, do something about the bullies, don't go victim blaming.


What are you going to do, put 20 first graders in juvie? Please. This isn't victim blaming but creating the scenario for there to be a victim. There is no way to stop the bullying because there is no adequate punishment for such.



> As far as dating advice goes, "your honest opinion' doesn't mean shit.  The fact is that homosexual parents cannot have accidental children  So when they do adopt, they are (on average) older, more well educated, have better incomes, etc.  Raising a kid in a broken home is much worse than the unlikely chance that neither of them can give decent dating advice.


But to say they are inherently better parents than me, when I haven't had an accidental child and am well educated and have a good job, based off of that there are more heterosexuals. And accidental children is a cause of bad teaching in most cases.

And the dating advice is pretty serious since women work in unknown ways.

Or if a daughter ask her lesbian mothers about dating advice concerning her boyfriend. What will their reply be most of the time "I don't know how to give advice concerning how guys are and their mannerisms"/ Thus wouldn't be helpful or detrimental to the relationship and maybe helpful.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 10, 2014)

They are welcome to have their made up rules and beliefs they simply can't use them to justify the discrimination of the people they don't approve of. 

No one is telling them to make blood sacrifices at the foot of a Heart Tree to please the old gods. 

We are simply expecting to treat fellow human beings like anyone else. 


@ Ichi 
The very idea of you giving anyone dating advice made laugh until I died. I am posting from beyond the grave.


----------



## EJ (Jun 10, 2014)

IchLiebe, holy fucking shit dude are you serious.


----------



## Thor (Jun 10, 2014)

A lot of you e-guys aren't even gay. You just can't get women in real life.


----------



## Risyth (Jun 10, 2014)

Shut, tickle negs.


----------



## Thor (Jun 10, 2014)

Like really. If you guys wern't socially awkward you wouldn't be "homosexual" especially the ones who never got molested as youths.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 10, 2014)

Fiona said:


> They are welcome to have their made up rules and beliefs they simply can't use them to justify the discrimination of the people they don't approve of.


I agree with that, but I also believe that you can't use them to justify making them go against their religion. LIke the Cop, I agree that he should've done his job since he doesn't actively participate in the sin, and even the baker could be seen as either way but I have used the pastor example multiple times. If I was gay and this bakery didn't do my cake, I wouldn't run out and sue them(even if they wasn't "nice" about it). I would be understanding of their position as I know how high people value their religion and to what lengths they would go. Suing them won't change their religious views nor their ideology. The best thing to do is to accept people's ideology and respect it to a certain extent.


> No one is telling them to make blood sacrifices at the foot of a Heart Tree to please the old gods.


No, but we are telling them to actively participate in the act of Homosexuality, God believes that marriage is between man and woman and to go against that is to go against God. 

Are you religious?



> We are simply expecting to treat fellow human beings like anyone else.


But it goes both ways. You can't be expected to be treated a certain way based on your ideology.


> @ Ichi
> The very idea of you giving anyone dating advice made laugh until I died. I am posting from beyond the grave.


IRL I could get into your panties in about 5minutes, less than that if you didn't know that I am Ichliebe.

When I was up North for a little bit..man my game increased 10 fold just from the country accent.  One chick ended up in the nut house after I left.


----------



## Thor (Jun 10, 2014)

Fiona is a male ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) lol.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 10, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> The best thing to do is to accept people's ideology and respect it to a certain extent.



I will respect their beliefs so long as their beliefs do not impede the civil rights of other people. 



> No, but we are telling them to actively participate in the act of Homosexuality, God believes that marriage is between man and woman and to go against that is to go against God.



So by asking them to treat the LGBT community like any other customer we are asking them to participate in "homosexuality"? 

That makes no sense whatsoever.



> Are you religious?



Nope. I believe in nothing whatsoever.



> IRL I could get into your panties in about 5minutes, less than that if you didn't know that I am Ichliebe.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jun 10, 2014)

> IRL I could get into your panties in about 5minutes, less than that if you didn't know that I am Ichliebe.



it has become _this_ sort of thread, people.

I guess it's true: All good in this case, hilarious. things must come to an end.


----------



## Thor (Jun 10, 2014)

On a serious note 

First:  Religion is not a constitutional right it is a PROTECTED right through the founding documents.  God gives those rights, not the government.

Second:  They cannot force him to do any such thing.  He can simply just not make the cake.  

Third.  All of those thugish tactics of the gay community is an indication that they are way out of line with their tactics.


----------



## Krippy (Jun 10, 2014)

24'd at the worst possible time 

Thor delivers yet again


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jun 10, 2014)

Thor said:


> On a serious note
> 
> First:  Religion is not a constitutional right it is a PROTECTED right through the founding documents.  God gives those rights, not the government.



Except God obviously does not give a flying rat's ass about your petty "moral violations", otherwise he'd be doing something about it.

Hell, if God gave a rat's ass over _half_ of the shit that _humans_ say that he's against, we wouldn't be here talking about it. 

Conclusion: God, if such an entity exists, simply does not care.


----------



## Jagger (Jun 10, 2014)

Thor said:


> Fiona is a male ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) lol.


As far as I remember, being a christian mainly resolved in following God's will.

And part of that is basically loving everyone, IIRC. So you're contradicting yourself there.

But, of course, you've probably replied to so many posts like this one.


----------



## Thor (Jun 10, 2014)

Jagger said:


> As far as I remember, being a christian mainly resolved in following God's will.
> 
> And part of that is basically loving everyone, IIRC. So you're contradicting yourself there.
> 
> But, of course, you've probably replied to so many posts like this one.



You recall incorrectly.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 10, 2014)

Fiona said:


> I will respect their beliefs so long as their beliefs do not impede the civil rights of other people.


As thats the way it should be. But to ask them to* "actively participate in the sin"* is to far. Maybe the baker should have baked the cake but no matter what I don't think a preacher should be involved unwillingly.

I wouldn't want anyone to unwillingly cook me shit.


> So by asking them to treat the LGBT community like any other customer we are asking them to participate in "homosexuality"?
> 
> That makes no sense whatsoever.


Given the context it does. A wedding cake is seen by society as a centerpiece of a wedding ceremony, thus one could see the one that makes the cake as participating in the wedding which is deemed an abomination by their god(I am not religious, but I understand what God means to people of religious beliefs). And that depends on how you look at it. Would you want a gay baker being forced to bake a cake for the WBB church that has something that pertains to homosexuality being a sin? I wouldn't because its disrespectful to the baker to make him do something that he does believe in and can be seen by people as actively participating in the event.  

There are a slew of examples where minorities can be forced to do things as well that goes against their beliefs. What happens when a Muslim is forced to do something that goes against Allah and his peers hear about it. There will be an enormous amount of rage and hate propelled at other groups. And Im not saying all Muslim are extremist but as of late they have shown to go to great lengths to defend their religion, its ideology, and its lifestyle.

This is why I say that people should be able to politely refuse rendering their services if it falls under certain standards of respecting on another. You talk about treating people equally, but it starts with respect. There are people I fucking hate and are scum and have no respect for and I treat them like fucking dogshit(but its not based on race, religion, sexual preference or ideology) and I respect unknown people because people are fucking insane.

Just the other day my sister was getting out of my car talking to her friend on the phone about someone while I was in the store. I come out and a dude is getting his shotgun out of his trunk and yelling at my sister. After he left I asked my sister what happened. Come to figure out the dude was thinking that she was talking about him being on meth.




> Nope. I believe in nothing whatsoever.


And nothing wrong with that, but would you say that you being atheist would make you more acceptable of homosexuality?


----------



## LesExit (Jun 10, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> Or if a daughter ask her lesbian mothers about dating advice concerning her boyfriend. What will their reply be most of the time "I don't know how to give advice concerning how guys are and their mannerisms"/ Thus wouldn't be helpful or detrimental to the relationship and maybe helpful.


Do you have to be of the same sexual orientation of someone to give them dating advice :0?
All guys and girls don't work the same.

I find asking your parents for advice kinda weird though...I can't imagine ever asking my parents for advice like that  (;? ロ?) like what will they say!?

Me: "heeeey dad...theres this girl I like...and...um....how do I ask her out?" 
Dad: "Well um sweetie....ask her out?"
Me: "*mind is blown*"


----------



## Thor (Jun 10, 2014)

So, I go into a kosher deli and demand that they give me ham, and they say no, I can sue them for discrimination?


----------



## LesExit (Jun 10, 2014)

Thor said:


> So, I go into a kosher deli and demand that they give me ham, and they say no, I can sue them for discrimination?


3/10, you can do better


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jun 10, 2014)

Thor said:


> So, I go into a kosher deli and demand that they give me ham, and they say no, I can sue them for discrimination?



well they can certainly refuse service to you if you _demand_ ham like a grade A douche.


----------



## Thor (Jun 10, 2014)

Answer my question?

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Fiona (Jun 10, 2014)

I agree. 

If you wanna troll I know you can bring something more bombastic than that Thor. 

Come on.


----------



## Thor (Jun 10, 2014)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> well they can certainly refuse service to you if you _demand_ ham like a grade A douche.



 So, ham is different than selling a wedding cake with two men on top?  I am willing to bet that this bakery only sells wedding cakes with a man and a woman on top...


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 10, 2014)

LesExit said:


> Do you have to be of the same sexual orientation of someone to give them dating advice :0?
> All guys and girls don't work the same.
> 
> I find asking your parents for advice kinda weird though...I can't imagine ever asking my parents for advice like that  (;? ロ?) like what will they say!?
> ...



Thats not dating advice imo. Dating advice is something that helps the relationship prosper or gets the relationship started. Or if a girl get mad at her boyfriend who is confused(happens all the fucking time to every heterosexual male) goes and asks his daddies for advice...how would they understand what the female is mad about if they have never been faced with that obstacle.

I gave many examples with different alterations of the variables.


----------



## Thor (Jun 10, 2014)

I am NOT a TROLL. I really believe EVERYTHING I post.  Can you guys read?


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jun 10, 2014)

Thor said:


> So, ham is different than selling a wedding cake with two men on top?  I am willing to bet that this bakery only sells wedding cakes with a man and a woman on top...



that has nothing to do with what I just said.

do you even reading comprehension, kid?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 10, 2014)

Of they don't have ham they can't give it. You might as well go to McDonald's and demand pizza.


----------



## Thor (Jun 10, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Of they don't have ham they can't give it. You might as well go to McDonald's and demand pizza.



I'll say it again. I am willing to bet that this bakery only sells wedding cakes with a man and a woman on top.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 10, 2014)

Thor said:


> I'll say it again. I am willing to bet that this bakery only sells wedding cakes with a man and a woman on top.



Do they lack the ability to order some? Stop taking such stupid stands. You're not showing anyone up.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 11, 2014)

I want a McPizza.

What is that?

ARGGHHH Goddammit

*Smashes the charity box


----------



## Thor (Jun 11, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Do they lack the ability to order some? Stop taking such stupid stands. You're not showing anyone up.



Does the Kosher deli lack the ability to order ham?


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 11, 2014)

They are a deli's. I would be kinda pissed if I stopped at a deli for a good ole black forest ham sandwich and their jewish and said they serve no ham.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 11, 2014)

Thor said:


> Does the Kosher deli lack the ability to order ham?



Ham is a good not people. This is the last word I'll say on it. You're being deliberately stupid and moreover the comparison isn't the same because wedding cakes are what this place does. Next you're going to tell us they lack the ability to write two men's names in icing.


----------



## Totally not a cat (Jun 11, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> Thats not dating advice imo. Dating advice is something that helps the relationship prosper or gets the relationship started. Or if a girl get mad at her boyfriend who is confused(happens all the fucking time to every heterosexual male) goes and asks his daddies for advice...how would they understand what the female is mad about if they have never been faced with that obstacle.
> 
> I gave many examples with different alterations of the variables.



Depends on the person most likely, not the orientation.
I could teach the straight guys of my class a thing or two about women. Why? Because I've actually listened to them, my best friend is a girl so I would know. I've dealt with this specific situation before.


----------



## Jake CENA (Jun 11, 2014)

How can you confidently give an advice about relationships when you yourself never had one before?? Especially with the opposite sex? You cant just tell anyone how to date a woman just because one girl told you how and such..


----------



## Deputy Myself (Jun 11, 2014)

TerminaTHOR said:


> How can you confidently give an advice about relationships when you yourself never had one before?? Especially with the opposite sex? You cant just tell anyone how to date a woman just because one girl told you how and such..


Except in my opinion gay folk are less likely to imagine arbitrary differences between the genders and give misguided advice based upon these fantasy differences.

Relationships are between individuals, not between genders.
Anybody who has ever had a serious relationship will be able to give advice to anybody.
Of course the quality of this advice is largely dependent on the individuals involved
not the genders
stop making things so god damn black and white
what is it with you americans and making things black and white
good and evil
heaven and hell
pedantic nonsense. Get out.


----------



## Totally not a cat (Jun 11, 2014)

TerminaTHOR said:


> How can you confidently give an advice about relationships when you yourself never had one before?? Especially with the opposite sex? You cant just tell anyone how to date a woman just because one girl told you how and such..


Yeah no.
There's not a 'how to date women' guide of some sort, every person is different and you can't expect them to behave the same way every time. You just have to be sensible enough and make an effort to understand the other person.



Deputy Myself said:


> Except in my opinion gay folk are less likely to imagine arbitrary differences between the genders and give misguided advice based upon these fantasy differences.
> 
> Relationships are between individuals, not between genders.
> Anybody who has ever had a serious relationship will be able to give advice to anybody.
> ...



I don't know about your first point but the second one, definitely.


----------



## steveht93 (Jun 11, 2014)

Is it the same if he didn't refuse to serve them but instead refused for example to put 2 grooms on top of the cake?

I'm not talking about the situation in the article just something in general.


----------



## Jake CENA (Jun 11, 2014)

Deputy Myself said:


> Except in my opinion gay folk are less likely to imagine arbitrary differences between the genders and give misguided advice based upon these fantasy differences.
> 
> Relationships are between individuals, not between genders.
> Anybody who has ever had a serious relationship will be able to give advice to anybody.
> ...



Did you read my post? Im asking, how can some people give advice about relationships when they themselves never had one before?? 

Homosexuality is like over population.

Before, God told us to multiply that was back then when the population of humans is like 10. Now we are over populated we need to control our population by educating our people about family planning and sex ed, but there are these "pro life" people screaming that its against God. Lol, we just want to control population by decreasing unwanted pregnancy not literally kill a baby. You get my point?

Same as homosexuality, its a sin and its morally incorrect. Gay sex is an abomination one proof that makes this true is HiV and Aids. Now those gay people are abusing this new privilege and may evolve into more disturbing news later on like forcing straight men to sleep with them or serve them however the hell they want. Thats what we dont want to happen.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 11, 2014)

Totally not a cat said:


> Depends on the person most likely, not the orientation.
> I could teach the straight guys of my class a thing or two about women. Why? Because I've actually listened to them, my best friend is a girl so I would know. I've dealt with this specific situation before.



And I listen to women to just as other men don't.  You may think you've dealt with it before but no.

This girl I know and kinda mess around with was talking about herself getting fat from her pregnancy. I said "Your stomach is getting quite big" she got pissed.

I was stopped at a gas station the other day and asked asked a chick "U want anything" Naw im fine..."ok". Now this is what she actually meant to say "No, but I might change my mind before you walk out that store".

I come out pump the gas get in the car..."You didn't get me anything?" me "?, want me to go back in?"  "Fuck it, just don't worry about it".


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 11, 2014)

I discriminate against homosexuals because I don't fuck 'em....we are doomed.

Reactions: Friendly 1


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 11, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Ham is a good not people. This is the last word I'll say on it. You're being deliberately stupid and moreover the comparison isn't the same because wedding cakes are what this place does. Next you're going to tell us they lack the ability to write two men's names in icing.



But isn't cake and ham classified as the same type of food?


----------



## EJ (Jun 11, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> I discriminate against homosexuals because I don't fuck 'em....we are doomed.



Yeah dude, your kind is slowly but surely becoming more and more extinct at least in the west.


----------



## EJ (Jun 11, 2014)

TerminaTHOR said:


> Same as homosexuality, its a sin and its morally incorrect.



According to you and your ancient religion. 

Morality is completely subjective. What I find right, you may find wrong and vice versa. You can bring up how you feel about it as much as you want. Once you start discriminating and letting it effect the public that's when people have the right to call you out on your shit.


----------



## Thor (Jun 11, 2014)

Morality is not subjective. Murder is WRONG. Rape is WRONG. Homosexuality is WRONG.


----------



## EJ (Jun 11, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Do they lack the ability to order some? Stop taking such stupid stands. You're not showing anyone up.



You have the ability to stop responding to the most blatant and terrible troll the cafe has ever seen.


----------



## Jake CENA (Jun 11, 2014)

Dear Flow, i dont have any religion. But i do believe in God. Thank you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## EJ (Jun 11, 2014)

By saying "it's immoral yaddayadda" you are giving your beliefs as to why people should abide by them not understanding there are laws that separate your own personal beliefs/religion from the state.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 11, 2014)

TerminaTHOR said:


> Dear Flow, i dont have any religion. But i do believe in God. Thank you.



So are you a Deist?


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jun 11, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> I agree with that, but I also believe that you can't use them to justify making them go against their religion. LIke the Cop, I agree that he should've done his job since he doesn't actively participate in the sin, and even the baker could be seen as either way but I have used the pastor example multiple times. If I was gay and this bakery didn't do my cake, I wouldn't run out and sue them(even if they wasn't "nice" about it). I would be understanding of their position as I know how high people value their religion and to what lengths they would go. Suing them won't change their religious views nor their ideology. The best thing to do is to accept people's ideology and respect it to a certain extent.
> No, but we are telling them to actively participate in the act of Homosexuality, God believes that marriage is between man and woman and to go against that is to go against God.



lol this is beyond fucking stupid. Firstly, you dense fuck, people can interpret their scriptures however they want to. That is why there are Christians that don't give two shits about serving a gay couple a wedding cake and then there are douchebags like the baker in this article. Again, this logic WARRANTS further discrimination because people can then refuse service to others for whatever the fuck reason they want to and mask it as "religious". It doesn't matter whether it is actually against their religion or not, all that matters is their own interpretation.

I'll say it again, this is no different than a baker refusing an interracial couple on the grounds that he does not believe in the sanctity of their marriage or better yet, refusing a polytheist for the same reason (marriage was created by God after all).

And a big fucking LOL @ your "if I was gay, I would respect the bakers decision to discriminate against me because you know, he believes that his God will make me burn and suffer for eternity in hellfire". You are CLEARLY an unbiased judge here.



> IRL I could get into your panties in about 5minutes, less than that if you didn't know that I am Ichliebe.
> 
> When I was up North for a little bit..man my game increased 10 fold just from the country accent.  One chick ended up in the nut house after I left.



lol what an obnoxious twat. Do you fap to your reflection as well?


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 11, 2014)

Thor said:


> Morality is not subjective. Murder is WRONG. Rape is WRONG. Homosexuality is WRONG.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jun 11, 2014)

Dream has judged no fun is allowed


----------

